1950-06-05

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved:: That the report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1948-49, tabled in the house on Tuesday, February 21, 1950, be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouih):: 1.	What is the present status of the arrangements between the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia concerning the provision of a ferry service between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and a port in Maine, United States of America?
2.	Was a conference of representatives of the two governments recently held? If so, on what date?
3.	Were ports in Nova Scotia other than Yarmouth again given consideration?
4.	What port in Maine has been selected?
5.	Has any formal financial agreement between the two governments been signed?
6.	Will the ferry be designed so as to permit the carrying of large refrigerator and trailer trucks and passenger busses?
7.	When is it now expected that the details and plans will be completed?
8.	What is the estimated length of time required for the construction of the ship after contract is let?
9.	Is it expected that the service will be in operation in 1951?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Studies proceeding, but decisions not yet reached.
2.	Yes; May 10, 1950.
3.	Yes. Various ports in western Nova Scotia were again given consideration.
4.	Not yet determined.
5.	No.
6.	This is being given full consideration.
7.	No definite date can be given at this stage. Present schedule calls for completion within two months.
8.	Estimated twelve to fourteen months, depending on type of propulsion unit chosen.
9.	Every effort will be made to place the vessel in operation in 1951, but delays in building and delivery of material may prevent the operation of the vessel until the opening of the 1952 season.


WAR PENSIONS
Mr. Murphy:: 1.	How many applications for pension have been made by widows or dependents of veterans of the last war who committed suicide during the war?
2.	How many applications for pension have been made by widows or dependents of veterans of the last war who have since committed suicide?
3.	How many widows or dependents of veterans of the last war, who committed suicide either during or since the war, have or are receiving a pension?
4.	How many of the applications have been granted?
5.	How many have been refused?
6.	How many are still under consideration?


Mr. Gregg:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lambton West and I had a discussion about this question. In view of the fact that we are undertaking to give him all the information available, I think the hon. member has agreed that, in its present form at any rate, the question should be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


COLD STORAGE PLANTS IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	Have any cold storages been established in Newfoundland since April 1, 1949?
2.	If so, where are they located?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	No cold storages have been constructed under subsidy contract with the Department of Agriculture in Newfoundland since April 1, 1949.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


POTATOES
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Are there any restrictions against the movement of potatoes for seed, or any other purpose, from the province of Newfoundland to any other province?


Mr. McCubbin:: Yes; because of the prevalence of wart disease, the movement of potatoes for seed or other purposes from Newfoundland to any other province of Canada is prohibited under the Destructive Insect and Pest Act and regulations.

Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Balcer:: What amounts of unemployment insurance benefits have been paid each month since January, 1948, by the office at Joliette, Quebec?


Mr. Mitchell:: January	
February	
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August	
September	
October	
November	
December	
January	
February	
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August	
September	
October	
November	
December	
January	 $67,855.55
February	 70,742.45
March	'	 83,393.05
April	 59,015.40


MOVEMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND FARMERS TO OTTAWA DISTRICT
[Stage Direction]
assistance on feed grain has applied only to carloads, or equivalent shipments by water, delivered to distribution points. Truck movement, if any, has always been regarded as a part of local distribution cost and has not been paid for by the government.

Mr. Bertrand:: 1.	Has the Department of Veterans Affairs reached a decision with respect to the claim made by the Ste. Sophie Agricultural Co-operative Society for mill feeds, fertilizer and other goods advanced to Jack Cooper, a veteran?
2.	If so, what decision has been reached?
3.	Has the Department of Justice been asked to give a legal opinion on this matter?


Mr. Gregg:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The crown is not legally liable with regard to the claim made by the Ste. Sophie Agricultural Co-operative Society.
3.	Yes.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT


Mr. Fulion:: 1.	In each department or branch of government or board or corporation set up by the government, how many employees, if any, have been discharged or been in any way released for reasons having to do with security?
2.	What was the effective date in each such case?
3.	What were the position and duties of each such employee at the time of his discharge or release?


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Has the matter of moving farmers out of Newfoundland to Ottawa district farms been discussed?
2.	If so, has a decision been reached?


Mr. Mitchell:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A group of workers have been moved from Newfoundland and placed in employment on farms in the Ottawa district.



FEED GRAIN


Mr. Fair:: Has a recent order been passed which has the effect of denying to farmers who use trucking service to transport feed grain from lake ports to their farms or feed lots the freight subsidy now paid to railroads?


Robert McCubbin: No. From the inception of the freight assistance program in October, 1941, down to the present time, freight



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all correspondence since the 15th day of January, 1948, and to date, between the international joint commission and the government of Canada relative to suggestions and recommendations as to means or methods or public works to be undertaken to prevent a repetition of the flood on the Red river of 1948.


Mr. Pearson:: I have had a word with the hon. member for Lake Centre about this motion, and have informed him that all the information asked for was tabled by my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), on May 25 last. In the circumstances I hope he will allow this motion to be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



SYDNEY HARBOUR DISTRICT-SUPERINTENDENT OF PILOTS

Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: For a copy of all correspondence from March 1950, to date, in connection with the matter of appointing a superintendent of pilots for the Sydney harbour district.



METEOROLOGY


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved:: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the convention of the world meteorological organization signed at Washington on October 11, 1947, and tabled on February 14, 1949, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: The object of this resolution is manifold:	First, to facilitate world-wide
co-operation in the establishment of networks of stations for the making of meteorological observations; second, to promote the establishment of systems for the rapid exchange of information; third, to promote the standardization of meteorological observations; fourth, to further the application of meteorology to aviation, shipping and agriculture; and, finally, to encourage research.
Because of the rapid progress of aviation and the universal interest in meteorology, it is becoming increasingly important to achieve world-wide co-ordination of weather services. It was decided at two international meetings held at Toronto and Washington to recommend the establishment of a world meteorological organization. It is a specialized agency of the United Nations. The cost to Canada will not be extensive, being in the neighbourhood of $3,000 or $4,000.
We have an excellent network of observation stations throughout the various regions of Canada, and we co-operate with the United States, with whom we operate joint weather stations in the north. There are a number _ of weather stations on the north Atlantic as well as on the Pacific.
The convention has been signed by forty states, and will come into effect when there are thirty ratifications. It is hoped that parliament will accept this convention. The following countries have deposited instruments of ratification:	Australia, Burma,
Czechoslovakia, Dominican republic, Norway, Peru, The Philippines, Sweden, and a number of others.
I recommend the formal adoption of the convention of the world meteorological organization.
Meteorological Convention


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, it may not be necessary to debate this resolution at any length, but no notice- was given on Friday that it would be up for consideration by the house today. Therefore I would move the adjournment of the debate. I would ask the minister to have distributed to hon. members copies of this convention, which apparently was tabled over a year ago.


Lionel Chevrier: It was tabled and distributed to hon. members.


Howard Charles Green: That was over a year ago, and many of us do not have copies.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think there would be any difficulty in obtaining them from the distribution office. I have no objection to an adjournment of the debate.
Motion (Mr. Green) agreed to and debate adjourned.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, a news item from Montreal which appeared in the press last week indicated that two residents of Montreal, Mr. and Mrs. Vern Tremewen, had had difficulties with the authorities in Mexico and had been lodged in jail, Mr. Tremewen having been badly beaten while in custody. I understood that these people were Australian citizens and perhaps would be making a plea through the United Kingdom authorities in Mexico, but yesterday and the day before the radio referred to them as Canadian citizens. Would the minister of external affairs care to clear up the matter, so we may know the exact situation?:


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to say what I can to clear this matter up, as there seems to be some misunderstanding about it. When I read the reports in the press I asked for a report on the incident. My information is that Mr. and Mrs. Tremewen are Australian citizens. They are now living in Montreal, but have not yet acquired Canadian citizenship. Therefore when Mr. and Mrs. Tremewen got into difficulties with the Mexican authorities, they asked for the intervention, through the Australian high commissioner in Canada, of the United Kingdom representative in Mexico. I believe it is the custom, when a nation of the commonwealth has not its own representative in a foreign country, to use the United Kingdom representative in that country. The

Inquiries of the Ministry intervention of the United Kingdom representative was, I believe, speedy and effective, and the Australian citizens in question were quickly released, If they had been Canadian nationals it would have been our duty to intervene. If as Australians they had asked for the intervention of the Canadian ambassador in Mexico we should have been very glad to put him at their service, but they took the other and the normal course.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I did not give him notice, but I am sure the matter came to his attention. It has to do with the imprisonment of Mrs. Bessie Ellis-Reid, of Ottawa, on two charges of violation of wartime prices and trade board regulations. I read the report in the press on Saturday and made some investigation myself. It would appear that there was unnecessary harshness in the imprisonment meted out to her. I should like to ask the minister if he is in a position to report on the matter.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Yes; I saw the newspaper report in question, and at once had inquiries made as to what the circumstances were. I have received a report from the secretary of the wartime prices and trade board, which, as the house is aware, is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the rental regulations. The Mrs. Ellis-Reid referred to in the newspaper article, who resides at 264 Gladstone avenue, Ottawa, was charged under the wartime leasehold regulations with renting one unit of housing accommodation which had a basic date rental of $10 per month at $15.40 per month, an increase of some fifty per cent, and another unit which had a basic date rental of $14 per month, which was increased to $17 per month. Both properties are located in Shawville.
Leave to prosecute was issued on February 10 last, and the Department of Justice appointed Mr. J. O. Laflamme to act for the board. Mr. Ste. Marie, of Hull, counsel for Mrs. Ellis-Reid, requested two adjournments, which were granted, and on May 17 the case came to trial. At the outset of the proceedings Mr. Ste. Marie asked to toe relieved of his duties, and this was granted by His Honour Judge Millar. Mrs. Ellis-Reid handled her own case and pleaded not guilty to both charges. At the conclusion the court found her guilty on both charges and sentenced her to a fine of $5 and costs or eight days on each charge.


John George Diefenbaker: What were the costs?


Douglas Charles Abbott: They have not yet been determined. I am coming to that later. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Lemire, the clerk of the court, the secretary of the wartime prices and trade board was advised that Mrs. Ellis-Reid definitely refused to pay the fine and costs and emphasized that the lawyer was crooked, that the judge was crooked and that she only had $8 in the bank. At this point, Mr. Lemire, the clerk of the court, offered to consult with the judge with a view to granting time within which to pay the fine and costs. However, Mrs. Ellis-Reid definitely declared that she would never pay one dime to the court. Mr. Lemire advised her that the only alternative was to serve sixteen days in jail, and Mrs. Ellis-Reid said that was what she intended to do. She was imprisoned on May 17, and was released upon serving fourteen days in jail, two days apparently having been allowed for good behaviour.
I am informed by the enforcement counsel of the board that he has had several telephone conversations with Mrs. Ellis-Reid, and that she is an extremely difficult person to deal with.
As to the question of costs, the board has not received a final report from its counsel, owing to the fact that he is waiting for an account from the clerk of the court covering court costs in this prosecution. Since the alternate jail term was served by Mrs. Ellis-Reid, the board of course will be liable for such costs as are assessed by the court.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says he
has not the information as to the costs. I ask him to table the record of the conviction and the evidence in these cases, as well as the judgment; because my information is that the costs were $196.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told the costs were high, but I have not that figure as yet. As to the tabling of the record of the conviction and the evidence, if that is in accordance with the rules of the house I shall be glad to do so.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister's department reached any decision on the matter of expanding the Eastern Passage defence airport to accommodate larger aircraft? Has the question of a new airport for the Halifax area been discussed? If so, has any decision been arrived at?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that question
should be directed to my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier).


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member for Cape Breton South is referring to the Dartmouth airport-I am not sure from the wording of the question handed to me by my colleague-that is a matter which would necessarily come under the Department of National Defence, and I would not be able to answer the first question. With reference to the second question, whether or not a new airport for the Halifax area has been discussed, I can say to him that no recent discussions have taken place.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) asked whether any consideration had been given to placing the employees of the Newfoundland hotel, St. John's, Newfoundland, on the same rates of wages as those paid in other Canadian National Railway operated hotels; if so, when will the new rates come into effect, and will they be retroactive to October 1, 1949. The answer is that if and when the Newfoundland hotel is entrusted to the Canadian National Railways, negotiations will be entered into with the authorized representatives of the employees of the Newfoundland hotel for the purpose of reaching an agreement as to wages and working conditions.


William Joseph Browne: Who is in
charge of the hotel at the present time if not the Canadian National Railways?


Lionel Chevrier: Negotiations are being
carried on between the government of Newfoundland and the federal government through Canadian National Railway officials. Until those negotiations are completed it will be impossible to deal with the matter referred to by my hon. friend.


William Joseph Browne: That is not the question I asked the minister. I asked him who is in charge of the hotel at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot answer in any
other way than to say that the government of Newfoundland has asked the government of Canada to take it over, and the government of Canada is negotiating with the government of Newfoundland through Canadian National Railways.
Inquiries of the Ministry



SUPPLY FOR NEW BRUNSWICK PUBLIC BUILDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I shall have to make inquiries and let my hon. friend know.']
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. It is based on a complaint from certain New Brunswick coal producers that, according to reports, all tenders for supplying coal to public buildings in New Brunswick stipulate Nova Scotia coal. Is the report correct, and if so, will the minister reconsider the desirability of allowing New Brunswick coal to have the preference in these tenders, particularly since it was used last year in practically all New Brunswick buildings without complaint?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, before I came in the house I was handed a copy of this question.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I sent it on Saturday.


Alphonse Fournier: I missed it on Saturday and I caught it .today. I have been handed all the details as to procedure in the tenders. I see there is a notice for tenders for coal for the maritime provinces. One paragraph reads:
Tenders should be made on the forms supplied by the department and in accordance with departmental specifications and conditions attached thereto.
I have tried to read the general specifications, and I cannot see any limitation in that part of the tender. Further on there is a sheet annexed which is sent to those who wish to tender. It gives a list of all the areas where coal is needed in the rnari-times. It is headed by this note:
Do not write your quotations on the present list. It is not a tender form but merely a guide to help you select the name(s) of the town(s) where you may wish to supply coal.
These things are always complicated in my department, however, and I see further on that in New Brunswick they give the names of the towns and the quantities, and I think they even mention mines, but 1 do not see any mention of the Minto mine. If that is what is implied by this document, I shall give instructions today that tenders may be received from the New Brunswick mines. I cannot say that they will get any preference of course, because they would have to supply the best quality, and so forth, in order to get the contract; but I can have those instructions sent out in half an hour or so.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Can the Minister of Transport say when the

Inquiries of the Ministry annual report of the Canadian maritime commission will be tabled?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not sure when the Canadian maritime commission will be presenting their annual report. An extensive report was prepared and tabled last November or December, toward the end of last session.


Howard Charles Green: I believe they have three months from March 31 within which to make a report to the minister, so I should think they would have to file it with him before the end of the present month. I am wondering if we shall be able to get it before the end of June.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall have to make inquiries and let my hon. friend know.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the treasurer of the Manitoba flood relief fund for this building I should like to announce that we hope to increase our donation as the result of a softball game to be played in front of the centre block at 6.45 on Thursday evening. The two teams will be composed of the youths of the House of Commons and the experienced team from the press gallery. The honorary battery will be our two Victoria Cross men, and the first batter will be the Speaker of the house. We hope the collection will be taken up by a lady from the Senate and a lady from the House of Commons, though we are not sure of that yet; and we trust that we shall have a silent but heavy donation to the fund. The teams will be led to the field by an hon. senator playing your-I will say our-beloved bagpipes. We ask your hearty- co-operation.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: again bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that some six weeks have gone by since this house passed, as orders for returns, two questions standing in my name relating to travelling expenses of members of the public service for 1949. Is the minister in a position to give me any hope at all that this return will be brought down?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of Stale):: have done my best to hurry the preparation of the answers to these questions, but I find that in some of the departments the work is

exceedingly complicated, and up to the present I have had no report from two departments. I am trying to get the returns as quickly as possible. I shall make a further effort to expedite them.


Gordon Graydon: Which departments are in default?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I could not be sure at the moment.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 252, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer a few remarks on this bill. As you know, this is the outcome of an experiment we have been conducting for the past four or five years. Since the summer of 1946 the wheat agreement between the United Kingdom and Canada has been debated in this house on various occasions; and in order to clarify some of the statements that have been made I should like to point out that the agreement was first announced in this house on July 25, 1946, by the then minister of trade and commerce. On July 30, 1946, speaking of that agreement, at page 4037 of Hansard the minister said:
There is no question that the wheat producers have made possible the success of domestic price control by immediate sacrifices in their 1945-46 and current export prices. These sacrifices have also assisted in overseas rehabilitation. The government is convinced that the outlined policy will give fair and comparatively stable returns to the producers, so far as it is within the power of the government.
There, I think, we have the nucleus of the whole control system from that time on as far as prices to consumers in this country were concerned, and to a large extent as far as prices to consumers in Great Britain were concerned.
Later another measure was introduced having to do with agricultural support prices, and so on. It was the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who negotiated this agreement on behalf of the then minister of trade and commerce, and he was given full credit for it at that time. Several times since then the Minister of Agriculture has indicated that the prices of other agricultural products were more or less determined on the basis of the price of wheat, which has been controlled and is still controlled.
As I have said on other occasions, there was no opportunity to debate that announcement at that time. It was put through by

order in council; and when the leader of the opposition at that time asked when it might be debated, the reply of the then minister of trade and commerce was that on his estimates, which were still to come before the house, there would be an opportunity to discuss the contract. It was discussed to a certain extent later that year, in the following month, and I am going to quote what the Minister of Agriculture had to say on August 14, as it appears at page 4810 of Hansard:
When we are at the end of the four-year period, if in the last six or twelve months we find ourselves in the position that world markets, so-called, are not offering as much for wheat as we are getting for it, I hope people will still stand behind us to the extent they are standing behind us now. Even if wheat stays above $1.55 during the whole period, I hope people will still feel that it was worth while trying. If we are successful in this experiment, then we can talk to the grain trade people with some assurance. If they are able to show us at the end of the five-year period that we were all wrong, that over the length of time the farmer got less than he ever got before under similar circumstances and that the other system would have brought him more, then we shall be in a position to discuss the matter with them on an even footing. I am sure anyone who has taken this position and finds himself wrong will be quite prepared to discuss it from that point of view. In the meantime we are convinced that this is the best thing for the farmer. As long as we are convinced of that, and having another four years in which to try it out, we can put the policy into effect in a way that will at least help us to determine how this long argument between farmer and grain trade in western Canada ought to be settled in the interests of the great masses of the people.
On August .15, 1946, at page 4848, the minister put on the record in detail the terms of this contract. In one of the paragraphs there is this statement:
In determining the prices for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.
That is termed the "have regard to" clause, and is significant. In the same contract it was set forth that the United Kingdom might resell any of this wheat or flour to any country at any price they desired. The entire agreement is there; anyone who wishes to refer to it may do so.
Since that time the Minister of Agriculture has on various occasions said there has not been a world price for wheat. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and I pinned the Minister of Agriculture down during the course of a debate, and he and the then minister of trade and commerce admitted that the Canadian wheat board, in arriving at the Canadian price for class II wheat, used the American grain exchange as a yardstick, along with other factors. The admission can be found in Hansard. I believe
Canadian Wheat Board Act everyone in the grain trade throughout the world, as well as those holding official positions, recognize that the price for class II wheat is the world price.
I have recited the argument of the Minister of Agriculture that this was an experiment for four or five years. Certainly it is explicit in his argument that on behalf of this government he was taking a long gamble in assuming that at the end of the contract period the bottom would have fallen out of the wheat market and Britain would have to pay more under that contract than the prevailing world price. As I have stated before, no one in the world ever took as long a gamble in selling wheat as was* done under that contract, because the government contracted to sell 600 million bushels of wheat over a four-year period, and the greater part of the wheat had not even been seeded. You talk about the grain exchange! I am not saying anything in favour of the grain exchange, because I have always argued in favour of the Canadian wheat board. But I do believe we should be fair, and listen to all the arguments on both sides.
The very opposite to what the Minister of Agriculture set forth in his argument at that time has happened. He said that if wheat were selling for much less than the contract price after the war, he hoped we would stand behind the contract. Since then there has not been a day When the world price for wheat has not been considerably above the contract price. I am sure that on July 31 of this year, when the contract ends, the wheat producers of Canada will have suffered a loss amounting to many hundreds of millions of dollars. They have not only lost money on the 600 million bushels sent to Britain, but for some years the price of wheat made into flour in Canada was tied to that price. Roughly there is about 70 million bushels of wheat annually used that way in this nation. The price for that 70 million bushels of wheat bore a relationship to that contract, so that over these years the farmers have suffered a loss in subsidizing the consumers of Britain and Canada. I do not wish to labour this point, but there are many new members of this house who are not conversant with the contract and with the debates which took place at that time.
On May 30 of this year, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce returned from discussing this situation in Britain, he made a statement. I asked him this question, which appears at page 2985 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if at this conference a basis of settlement under the "have regard to" clause was discussed for the great loss suffered] by Canadian wheat producers as a result of these United Kingdom-Canada wheat contracts?

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand the wheat board act will be discussed later In the session, and I do not care to amplify this statement at the moment.
He pointed out that the matter of wheat had been discussed by him with the Canadian wheat board officials and the proper officials in Britain. The Minister of Agriculture has stated that within the last six months of the experiment we might be in a position to decide the matter. We are now within a period of weeks of the termination of the final contract. Surely the minister is now prepared to tell this house the result of the discussions on the basis of the "have regard to" clause. The final settlement on the basis of the "have regard to" clause has been postponed until July, 1950. I have pointed out, as have other people more conversant with the subject than I, the great loss, running somewhere between $500 and $600 million, that has resulted to date. The year's business is not completed; therefore no one will know the exact figure until July 31 of this year. Surely the minister will say at least on what basis the United Kingdom proposes to make up this gigantic loss. The Minister of Agriculture pointed out that the wheat producers would not suffer any great loss, because if the United Kingdom failed to make up the loss-he was then referring to the matter of these contracts', and the fact that if Britain did not take as much wheat under the contract this year she might take timber, salmon, and other things-then the federal treasury of this country would make that loss good.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has quoted the Minister of Agriculture. Will he tell me on what page of Hansard I can find that quotation?


James Arthur Ross: I shall get it for the minister. I have not got it before me at the moment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have never heard him make that remark.


James Arthur Ross: I do not know whether the minister was in the house at the time. I had the page marked; I shall give it to the minister before we pass from the committee stage. Not only that, but the Minister of Agriculture said that the Prime Minister had requested him to make the statement. I cannot give the exact wording, but I can give a rough approximation of it. He said that the federation of agriculture and other officials had visited the cabinet before the opening of this session, and the matter had been discussed. The minister prefaced his remarks by saying the Prime Minister had asked him if he was going to

speak in the debate-I think it was the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but I would not be sure. The Prime Minister said that if he did intend to speak, the government's intention in this regard should be cleared up. Roughly, that is what the Minister of Agriculture said, but I shall give the minister the proper page reference in Hansard.
I should think that in fairness to those who spoke when we entered into that contract the minister should at this stage tell us the basis of the discussion with the United Kingdom for settlement of this contract, and, if there is to be no settlement by the United Kingdom, then on what basis the government proposes to make up the loss to those producers. It has been intimated that we could properly discuss this subject when the bill was before the house.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few short comments to make at this time. I can say that the members of this group, as did other members of all parties, supported the original United Kingdom wheat agreement. We believed at that 'time, and we believe today, that such long-term agreements, which enable us to have a market for a large quantity of wheat, are in the interests of our producers. I cannot see how any hon. member could now go back and criticize that agreement, and at the same time complain that a new agreement similar to that one has not been signed. My only wish is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) could have announced a further United Kingdom wheat agreement to provide for the sale of the same large quantities of wheat as were provided for in the first agreement.
The farmers believed that they were being given protection as to price, not only during the period of that agreement but over a longer period after that agreement came to an end. Our producers also felt that because of the "have regard to" clause, if they did make great sacrifices within that four-year period, those sacrifices would not have been in vain, but would have been made up either by the United Kingdom government or through a continuing price stabilization policy carried on by this government, a policy which would take that great sacrifice into consideration.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we in this group, today as in the past, support the continuation of the Canadian wheat board as the sole marketing agency for wheat. In that stand we believe that we have the support of the organized farmers of western Canada. If there is any criticism as to the extent of the wheat board's operations at this time, it comes from the fact that the wheat board is

not the sole marketing agency for all grain produced in western Canada. We hope that the time is not far distant when this government will extend the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board Act so that all grains may be included under it. At the same time we should like to see the wheat board engaged not only in the buying, but also, as the sole agency, in the selling of oats and barley. We object to the grain exchange being used for the sale of oats, barley, rye and flax at this or any other time.
I believe that the wheat picture is not nearly as bright as some might have us believe. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day assumed that the rock bottom floor under the amount of our shipments to Britain this year would be 100 million bushels, I think he demonstrated how serious may be the market situation for wheat in the future. During the last four years we sold, on the average, 150 million bushels of wheat to the United Kingdom each year. During the present year our contract calls for the sale of 140 million bushels. We therefore see the prospect of losing the United Kingdom market for wheat to the extent of between 20 million and 40 million bushels. I am afraid we may have great difficulty in replacing that market with other markets in other countries.
If I read correctly the reports from the Department of Trade and Commerce, we are likely to have a large carry-over of wheat at the end of July; in fact, I believe it will be a much larger carry-over than we had a year ago. According to a report issued by the dominion bureau of statistics, on May 18 we had in Canada a visible supply of wheat of 117,500,000 bushels of wheat; on May 19 of last year, almost one year ago to the day, we had on hand only 99,800,000 bushels. On May 18 of this year the visible supply of wheat in Canada exceeded the visible supply of a year ago by 17,700,000 bushels. All I can say is that if that trend continues we may wind up at the end of this crop year on July 31 with a carry-over of between 90 million and 100 million bushels of wheat. That carry-over- exceeds the normal carryover in pre-war days, and it is a carry-over that might well become unmanageable if it continues to grow. In the face of that possible large carry-over, I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce should have endeavoured to obtain a further United Kingdom-Canadian wheat contract.
As I have said before, I am not at all happy about the reduction in the initial price for wheat. I believe that it represents a serious blow to western Canada. A year ago
Canadian Wheat Board Act the farmers received a further payment of 20 cents a bushel, amounting to $213 million. They are not receiving any large further payment at this time, and the initial price or initial payment will be lowered by 35 cents a bushel on August 1. If the farmers market a normal crop of some 300 million bushels this year, they will sustain a drop in income, because of the lowering of the initial payment, of approximately $100 million. That will add up to a drop in income to western farmers during the coming year, on account of wheat sales, of something in the neighbourhood of $300 million.
Unless something is done to increase the income of western farmers, our people will not be able to purchase all the farm machinery, manufactured goods and lumber that they have been purchasing in the last few years. Western Canada has proved to be the best market for manufactured goods produced in our country; and in my opinion to allow this substantial drop in income is not in the best interests of any part of Canada.
There has been a great deal of discussion as to what happened to the agricultural producer over the last four or five years, and as to what sacrifices he has made or losses he has sustained because of the government's wheat policy. I have before me the last report of the Canadian wheat board. It shows that in the first three years covered by the United Kingdom wheat agreement, class II wheat sold for $2.39 a bushel. During the period of the United Kingdom wheat agreement, up to that date, we had sold to the United Kingdom 339 million bushels at $1.55 a bushel, or 84 cents a bushel less than the average price for class II wheat. During the same period we sold 146 million bushels to the United Kingdom at $2 a bushel, 39 cents a bushel less than the price of class II wheat. That represents a substantial contribution by the agriculture producers of our country. Moreover, not only were our farmers called upon to make sacrifices because of the United Kingdom contract, but they were called upon to make sacrifices because of the domestic price of wheat set by the government from time to time.
According to the same report of the wheat board, during the first three years covered by the United Kingdom wheat agreement, the Canadian consumer obtained 38 million bushels of wheat at $1.25 a bushel, $1.14 a bushel less than the average price for class .II wheat. The consumer obtained 112 million bushels at $1.55 per bushel, 84 cents less than average price for class II wheat. The Canadian consumer obtained 52 million bushels at $2 a bushel, 39 cents less than the

Canadian Wheat Board Act price received for our class II wheat. According to those figures, that represents a contribution by the wheat producers of western Canada to the Canadian consumer within that three-year period of $159 million. Because of that great sacrifice, and because of the contribution made by the wheat producer to the Canadian consumer, the farmer believed-as did I up until the last few days-that funds would be made available for the support of wheat prices if that action became necessary in order to provide stability.
Speaking in the house on May 30, the Minister of Trade and Commerce made it perfectly clear that under the present bill setting out the wheat board policy for the next three years the government does not intend in any way to support the price of wheat. He went over the history of pooling arrangements, and said that the only way pooling arrangements could be sound was to establish an initial price for a given year at 60 per cent of the July cash price for wheat.
The minister should not forget that during those pooling periods farmers were pooling their own grain on a voluntary basis, and of course it was in their own interests to have a sound pooling arrangement. But now the government is doing the pooling, and has done it for a number of years. According to the annual statement of the wheat board, during the last three years the Canadian consumer received wheat at a price which meant that the farmer of western Canada contributed to the consumer to the extent of $159 million.
In my opinion, if there is any equity and any fairness, that contribution by the wheat producer to the Canadian consumer should now result in the government guaranteeing a substantial initial payment to the wheat producer, so that his standard of living may not be allowed to drop, even though such procedure might cost the public treasury some money.
The farmer has made his contribution to the Canadian consumer, and now the consumer should be prepared to make his contribution to the agricultural economy, if such contribution became necessary because of falling prices. But under the present bill each pooling period is to stand on its own feet-and when I say that, I am using the minister's own words. In other words, under the present bill the farmer is not going to recoup a single dollar of the loss he sustained in the last four or five years. Moreover there is no guarantee that even with the lower floor price he will be able to sell all the wheat he produces.

A plan was discussed last November before the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations by which surplus food commodities might be moved to needy countries from the countries in which those surpluses occurred. The proposed arrangement may have had some faults, but the fact is that our government blocked any consideration of it as it was placed before the organization at that time. Speaking for the government, the Minister of Agriculture said that national policies would be able to deal with surplus commodities. Well, I hope the government will now act on that statement and take every bushel of wheat the western farmers produce. The government had a chance to support an international pooling arrangement for the sale of agricultural surpluses, but in its wisdom it decided that national policies were the best means by which to deal with surpluses. So now it is the responsibility of the government to make sure that wheat surpluses are either disposed of or stored, and that the farmer is not asked to bear a disproportionate share of the government's wheat policy in the future, as he has been asked to bear it in the past.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) asked me a question, but because I did not have Hansard before me at that time I was not in a position to answer. I have now before me the page of Hansard in question, and from it I should like to quote the words of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as they are found at page 569, the issue of March 8, 1950. Then there is another matter of privilege-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would you mind reading it?


James Arthur Ross: Yes, but it is lengthy. The Minister of Agriculture is reported to have said:
What I want to say Is what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said to the farm delegation when that point was raised at the time the Canadian Federation of Agriculture met us a short time ago just before the opening of the session.
I shall read it all, so that no one can say that I have left some out. It continues:
When the remark was being made the other day the Prime Minister asked me if I intended to speak -and I said that I probably would-and suggested that that matter ought to be answered in the house just as he answered it to the farmers.
There is another reason that I am referring to it. It has not particularly to do with the affairs of my department; it has to do with the Department of Trade and Commerce. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was not here at the time that the farm delegation met the government and he therefore was not a party to the discussion. But he was here when the discussion took place as to whether or not the exchange would be made. What I wish to say to this house, and through this

house to the country, is that the Prime Minister stated to the farmers that it was decided during the first discussion that every dollar the wheat pool was entitled to as a result of the British agreement would be paid into the pool by the end of this crop year, on the basis on which the British agreement called for the deliveries, and that therefore there would be no possibility whatsoever of any loss being taken by the farmers of western Canada as a result of that exchange. The money will be paid into the pool by the government of Canada and any loss which is taken-if any loss is taken; and we do not expect that there will be any-would naturally be taken by the treasury or by a settlement that we get from the British under the "have regard to" clause rather than by the farmers themselves. I thought it was necessary that that matter should be cleared away at this time in order that we may avoid discussion of the idea in the future.
I think that is clear. Then, another point-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It may be clear to you, but it
is not clear to me. The minister was talking about exchange loss, was he not?


James Arthur Ross: We had expected that
this amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act would not be brought up in the house while the committee on agriculture was sitting, as it is this morning, to discuss the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, in which many of us are vitally interested. The result is that we cannot have the members in the house. Indeed, the Minister of Agriculture himself is tied up in that committee and cannot be here to discuss a bill which is most important, and an arrangement which on behalf of this government he negotiated back in 1946. It is unfortunate that the government cannot arrange the business of the house so as to meet the convenience of members.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are not discussing past
negotiations in wheat. We are discussing a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. If we could keep to that it would save a good deal of time, and also leave my hon. friend free to go to the committee on agriculture.


Robert Fair: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that it has been found necessary to have the committee on agriculture and colonization sit this morning at the same time Bill No. 252 is being discussed in the house. Apparently that was unavoidable, but it has meant that those of us who belong to small groups have had to split up into still smaller numbers in order to be represented in both places.
Bill No. 252 will prolong the life of the wheat board until the end of July, 1953. Lest there be any mistake about it, I want to state again that we Social Crediters are in favour of the wheat board continuing in operation. While many people who do not understand the functions of the wheat board have blamed t for some of the things that have occurred
Canadian Wheat Board Act in the past, as a grower of grain I am quite satisfied that the wheat board is the best organization we have had up to date.
The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) have covered many of the points that I had intended to deal with, and it would be needless repetition for me to go over them again. But I do want to stress the fact that the wheat growers of the prairie provinces have been subjected to unnecessarily heavy losses because of the operation of the British wheat agreement and the supplying of cheap bread to the Canadian people for the past number of years. Many people do not realize this, nor do they realize that because of the concessions made to the Canadian people the wheat growers of the three prairie provinces lost approximately $600 million in the crop years 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949. That was quite apart from losses that were suffered on other agricultural products because of government policy.
I submit that there should be some settlement of the losses that have been sustained. The quotations read by the hon. member for Souris, as well as one I intend to read in a moment, should definitely prove the fact that these losses have been suffered by the farmer and that at least certain ministers of the government agree that that is so. The Ottawa Journal of February 10, 1949, contained the following article:
War sacrifices of farmers entitle them to fair prices.
Canadian farmers were "entitled now" to prices which would justify their wartime sacrifices, agriculture minister Gardiner said last night. He was speaking to the annual meeting of the Ontario Concentrated Milk Producers Association at the Chateau Laurier. More than 150 delegates are attending the two day session, the largest in several years.
"Because there have been declines in the United States, people here are suggesting that food prices should drop to that level, forgetting that prices there rose during the war to a peak never experienced here."
The whole idea in preventing high food prices in Canada during wartime was to allow a "levelling out" afterwards, Mr. Gardiner remarked.
He was "inclined to agree" with the popular statement that consumers did not appreciate what farmers did during the war in keeping the cost of food down. Mr. Gardiner said he was "surprised that farmers had not been able to sell that idea fully."
To reduce the cost of food would mean "bringing down returns to farmers".
"People are inclined to forget that farmers, and dairy farmers in particular, were asked to hold their hand on prices during the war-at a time when they might have charged almost what they wanted."
That statement was made by the Minister of Agriculture, who I believe knows agricultural conditions in Canada as well as or better than any of us. I am sorry to see that no steps are being taken by the government to settle up the losses sustained in the past. On

Canadian Wheat Board Act different occasions during the first few sessions, particularly on the last day of the session before the last general election, I have asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) what the government intended to do about making good those losses, but up to the present time no statement has been made. I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will tell us what the government policy is, so that we may know whether the farmers will be asked to continue to carry these heavy losses.
I should like to know why the price of wheat has dropped the way it has. We find that today the cost of living index is at the highest point on record, 164, and we know that after the last war when the wheat board was established, we received an average price of $2.63 for wheat under wheat board operations. At that time the farmer's costs were not half what they are today. Over the past four year period the initial and interim prices have amounted to only $1.75.
The setting of an initial payment of $1.40 for next year is one method of inducing people to bid lower prices for our wheat. It is an admission by the government that the price of wheat should come down. As far as I know, the prices of most of the things the farmer must buy are still climbing; in only a very few cases has there been a drop in prices.
Many people realize that this question is of interest only to the farmers or grain growers, and I have been trying for some time to show that when the farmer has money, then Canadians as a whole are prosperous. Just as soon as the farmer is prevented, either by lack of crops or by poor prices, from having sufficient money to buy the products of industry, then the workers will find themselves on the street because there will be no jobs for them. This should be taken into .consideration by the government when dealing with agricultural products.
I want to say again that I am glad that the life of the wheat board is being prolonged. While the government and the wheat board have been doing a good job in getting rid of our wheat, I do not think sales should be pushed without adequate prices being received. It would be much better for us to grow a smaller amount of grain and sell it at prices which have a proper relationship to the things we have to buy.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. members who have preceded me, I regret that the agriculture committee is sitting at this hour, because of necessity many members who are interested in this problem and who represent wheat growing areas are attending that committee

and consequently are unable to be here. This problem is one of the most important that has come before the house, from the point of view of those who represent prairie constituencies.
I agree with what has been said by hon. members who have preceded me, and shall not repeat their argument that the farmers are entitled to more consideration in regard to initial price. All of us support the wheat board method of marketing, and I do not think there is a member from a prairie constituency who will take any other view. We want to see it continued, and our supporters want to see it continued. We believe it is the proper method of dealing with this particular matter.
I believe a vast majority of the producers would like to see all grains marketed through marketing boards which would be more representative of the producers than is the wheat board.
I want to say something this morning about the initial price. The bill leaves it to the governor in council to set the price. I quite agree with the statement that has been made that the initial price which is to be set is too low when we consider the contributions that the farmers have made over the past number of years, particularly during the war. I also want to express my regret, as I did when the minister made his announcement on May 30 as to the new United Kingdom agreement, that the agreement is not for a longer period of time and for an adequate price, as I think our producers expected it would be.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Fair) has made the point well that at the present time the cost of living is at the highest figure in the history of our country, and that this is reflected in the cost of production of farm products. The costs of production of all farm commodities have reached unprecedented heights. Consequently I think that the initial price this year should be different; and it should be set out in the bill now before us, instead of leaving the fixing of the price as provided in the bill. Of course no one can say what the price of wheat is going to be in the next year. The minister made an optimistic prediction the other day, but no one can tell. Indeed, the prognostications that economists, members of parliament and others have made over the past few years as to the price of wheat and the manner in which the economy would develop in the course of a year or two, have in many instances proven to be wrong. Consequently it is very difficult to make any prediction as to the future.

1 remember, when the British wheat contract was before the house on August 15, 1946, the conflicting views that were expressed sometimes by the same speakers.
I have Hansard for that date before me. I remember Mr. Bracken, then leader of the opposition, making various predictions. He said, for example, at page 4822 of Hansard for August 15, 1946:
. . . Britain is expected to pay more for our wheat two years from now than the world price when it may be lower, I say that as an insurance that this will be done, it is valueless.
Again on the same page he said very much the same thing:
This, Mr. Chairman, is the end of the government's policy of selling cheap wheat to the hungry nations of the world other than Britain, and it will be a handicap to us in trying to build up a market in all these other countries which so interpret this arrangement.
Again he said:
I predict that in two years, or a little more, this agreement will blow up, when the advantages to Britain are gone and when her own people will be wanting to get food at the world price, as they have always wanted to, and when the world price will probably be lower than it is now.
That merely illustrates how very difficult it is to predict what is going to happen over a period of time. I thought that perhaps the opposite might happen, and that wheat might go up. I certainly thought that the cost of production would rise. We have no guarantee now that the cost of production will fall. At that time I said, as reported at page 4825 of Hansard:
I believe the government would be well advised to consider this suggestion that in the event of the costs of production rising for the next few years, as they will do largely because of the government's failure to maintain the ceilings, any difference there may be between what the farmer receives for his wheat and the increased cost of production should be made up out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Let us remember that at that time, when we were discussing the price under the British contract, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) thought that the price then being negotiated was fair because he put the parity price at $1.41 or $1.42, and not $1.55, which some of us were suggesting. Today, with the cost of production where it is, if we are going to consider a parity price for wheat the initial price Should be very much higher than the $1.40 which the government proposes to set. Indeed the minister's own statement the other day, when he thought that the average price we might get this year for wheat might not be less than the price we got last year, would also warrant a higher initial price.
I regret very much indeed that the government set a lower initial price, because, as
Canadian Wheat Board Act was stated by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) a few moments ago, that seemed to be an invitation to our customers to bid a lower price than we might otherwise get. That is one of the great difficulties of the bill and the whole arrangement. I am not going to try to estimate the wheat growers' losses; some have been suggested this morning, although you could argue that if Canadian wheat had been thrown on the market the United States price might have been considerably lower than it was, and therefore when we made a comparison the loss would not have been as great.	.


Robert Fair: People have to have wheat, anyway.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and the hon. member for Battle River may be quite right when they give the figure of the losses as some $600 million. We do not know about that, but it is certain that there was a considerable loss. It is also certain that farmers of Canada assisted the government in maintaining price ceilings and took a great loss as to the amount of wheat consumed on the domestic market. I think that cannot be gainsaid. Consequently I regret that the initial price is not in the bill and for a longer period. I regret that the amount of wheat we are likely to sell to _ Great Britain is so much less than many of us had hoped. It is only 100 million to 120 million bushels. With a hungry world all around us we should be able to get rid of any surplus that our farmers produce. Unfortunately, however, economic conditions are such that Canada has to trade, and unless we can get something in return for our wheat we cannot trade. The nations that need it often cannot give us anything for our wheat. We are in a difficult position with a sale of only 100 million or 120 million bushels of wheat to Great Britain.
I do not want to prolong the discussion. I have heard the views of the hon. members for Souris, Assiniboia and Battle River. I hold similar views myself, and I believe that if the hon. members who are attending the meetings of the standing committee on agriculture were here they would express similar views. I want to move an amendment which I believe is wholly in line with amendments we moved earlier on somewhat similar marketing measures. I believe the amendment to be thoroughly in order because it expresses a view contrary to the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill is that the governor in council should set the initial price. I believe that parliament should decide on the initial price. We in this parliament have the obligation of doing justice
3184	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act to the group of producers who contributed so largely to the maintenance of our own price ceilings and to the feeding of the world during the war years.
I therefore move, seconded' by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight):
That Bill No. 252 should not now be read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the provision of an initial payment, for the periods covered by this bill, of $1.75 per bushel for No. 1 northern wheat basis in store Fort Wil-liam/Port Arthur or Vancouver.
Those, of course, are the points. I wish we could include Churchill as well. In any event I think the house should express its opinion on this matter. I believe the amendment is quite in order, and that as a parliament we should see to it that something better is done than simply to leave the fixing of the initial price to the governor in council, and particularly, to permit the comparative low initial price already announced to go into effect this year. This will not in any way delay the progress of the bill. It is not our purpose to delay it, or to interfere in any way with its passage. We believe in the wheat board method of marketing, but we do want the house to express an opinion on the initial price.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I should say a word ' on the amendment in reference to the discussion that has taken place. First I should like to refer to the quotation from a statement by the Minister of Agriculture read by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). From his remarks I had understood that he was referring to a statement of general application to the marketing of wheat, but on looking up the quotation I find that the reference is to only twelve and a half million bushels of wheat for which delivery is being deferred.


James Arthur Ross: I believe I stated that in my opening remarks.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think you did so.


James Arthur Ross: Yes; I was referring to lumber and salmon and other commodities that were taken out this year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member is quite correct if his remarks are limited to the twelve and a half million bushels of wheat which the Minister of Agriculture stated would be paid for at the United Kingdom-Canada contract price. As a matter of fact the arrangement with the United Kingdom provides that an order will be placed for the twelve and a half million bushels at the contract price for delivery in August; therefore no adjustment arises under that item. I just want to make it clear to the house that remarks of the Minister of Agriculture on that occasion had no relation


to the marketing of wheat other than the twelve and a half million bushels to which he was then referring.
Now I come to the question of the so-called losses. I find it hard to understand the reason why people who have so little use for grain markets should be so confident that the price quoted on a United States grain market must be the world price, notwithstanding the fact that Canadian wheat is denied access to that market. We are told that the Chicago price of wheat throughout the whole speculative period during the 1940's was the world price. I would point out that far more wheat was sold for cash under the United Kingdom-Canada agreement than was sold under the so-called world price, the price quoted on the Chicago market. Practically everything exported by the United States at that time was either given away for military relief or sold under the Marshall plan with funds furnished by the United States to buy wheat from the United States. It seems to me the price at which the bulk of the wheat is bought and paid for might well be regarded as the world price, and I therefore suggest that it would be much more reasonable to call the price under the United Kingdom-Canada agreement the world price than the price quoted on the Chicago exchange. The latter was merely a domestic price which the government paid the trade for wheat shipped for military relief or sold under credits established under the Marshall plan.


James Arthur Ross: What about Canadian
class II wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canadian class II wheat was
sold at any price that could be obtained. We speak of the loss of markets. In 1946 and 1947 we lost in nearly all markets except the United Kingdom, for the reason that we had contracted to sell practically all our exportable surplus to the United Kingdom. We had a few bushels extra, and we sold those to old customers at the prices that those customers were paying others for wheat at that time, which was the price that they were willing to pay us. For the wheat we sold outside the United Kingdom we received the class II price then prevailing; but I would point out that the class II price for which we are selling wheat today is by no means the Chicago price. It is about 30 to 40 cents under that price; but it is the price which customers outside the international wheat agreement are willing to pay for our wheat. However, there are so few customers outside that international agreement today that the class II price is not very important in so far as the marketing of Canada's crop is concerned.
What is a fair price for Canadian wheat? Well, we sent to Washington to discuss the

proposed international wheat agreement a group as representative of the wheat growers of western Canada as I thought could be found. It included at least one representative from each of the three pools, one from the United Grain Growers, and at least two independent farmers, chosen for the prominent part they had played in Canadian agriculture. What did those men recommend to the government as a fair maximum price for Canadian wheat? First they recommended $1.70; which was later, through negotiation, increased to $1.80, which our advisers obviously considered a fair maximum price for western Canada's wheat crop. The minimum price also was established on their recommendation. As hon. members know, that is on a sliding scale. For the current year it is $1.50. For the next crop year it will be $1.40; for the following crop year, $1.30; and for the year following, $1.20. That was the recommendation of a carefully selected group of representatives of the wheat growers of the three prairie provinces. The significant figure to which I want to call the attention of the house is the maximum price they recommended to the government, which finally was $1.80 in United States funds. The counterpart of that maximum price today in Canada is $1.98 in Canadian funds.
Then we come to the question of an initial payment. I think those who believe in pooling wheat believe that pools should stand on their own feet. Certainly that is the theory on which pooling was established in this country by the Alberta wheat pool back in 1923. Certainly that is the theory upon which pooling was carried on during the period in which it proved to be practicable. It was a departure from that principle that wrecked pooling in this country in 1929 and plunged the pools into debts which they have only now succeeded in paying off. The year after those debts were financed by the provincial governments a further departure from that policy brought about the ultimate collapse of pooling, and resulted in the taking over of the marketing of wheat by the federal government.
Those who believe in pooling should for that reason believe in sound principles of pooling. It is suggested now that an initial price be established that might very well lead to the bankruptcy of the 1950-51 pool in its first year under this amended wheat marketing act. Why would we do that? It seems to me that if pooling is sound policy then sound pooling principles should prevail. Why does the amendment provide that the government shall establish the initial price? Because the government hopes to be able to vary the initial price during the year in favour of the farmers,
Canadian Wheat Board Act as it has done in working out the five-year pool. The five-year pool started with the initial price of $1.35 per bushel. After a period that was raised to $1.55 per bushel, and it was raised again to $1.75 per bushel. When we speak of the initial price for the five-year pool, we should remember that that price was raised from time to time as conditions within the pool made possible, and always under conditions which gave the government reason to believe that the new initial payment represented a safe price. In other words, when the government fixed the price at $1.75 it fixed it at a time when the pool could not have been made bankrupt by any circumstance that could then be foreseen, arising out of known conditions of completing sales of all pool wheat. The initial price was always a safe price.
We have set the price at $1.40 for the crop year of 1950, and we have done that because it is the minimum price under the international agreement for that year, stated in United States funds. It is true at the moment Canadian funds are at a ten per cent discount from United States funds, but that may well be a temporary situation. The historic position of the Canadian dollar is at par with the United States dollar. How long the discount situation will continue, I do not know. It may continue for five years or ten years, but there is also the possibility it may not continue for very long. There are certain factors that raise a doubt in my mind as to whether that period may not be shorter rather than longer. That is another element that has to be considered in fixing the minimum price. However, if by next February the pool has accumulated a considerable surplus through paying a low initial price, certainly the initial price will be increased, payment made for past deliveries and a new initial price established for future deliveries. It has never been the policy of the government to accumulate large sums in the pool, when these sums can with safety be paid to the growers.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister permit one short question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe he has missed my point. My point was that, owing to the sacrifices made by the farmers at a previous time, the initial price should now be set at $1.75. If necessary, compensatory adjustment should be made from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, just as we do for certain other agricultural products.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. Mend is suggesting that his amendment may cause a drain on the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, and I was about to suggest that this is so-


Major James William Coldwell: I am not suggesting that, but should the price of wheat fall, it could be done that way, as for other agricultural products.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member's suggestion may lead to a drain on the public purse and that would make the amendment out of order.
I believe the mover of the amendment has made a suggestion which puts his amendment out of order.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not wish to prolong the argument, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to you that the amendment in out of order, because it threatens a drain on the public purse, and for that reason cannot be moved by a private member. If there is any doubt about it, I am quite willing to let the matter go to a vote of the house.


James Arthur Ross: Will the minister say something about the proposed basis of settlement under the "have regard to" clause in the contract? When he made his statement the other day he did suggest we could discuss it when this bill was before the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not see anything in the bill that refers to it, but I should be glad to have anyone discuss it who wishes to do so.


Robert Fair: Is it the minister's intention to make a statement on that point?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. I must remind hon. members that we are not in committee. I heard the minister express some doubt whether the amendment was in order. I have examined the citations in Beauchesne's third edition referring to amendments, and I should like to say that the amendment merely refers to the fact that "consideration should be given", and is therefore not an order to the government to spend money out of the public treasury. I have examined the citation, but if the doubt cannot satisfactorily be cleared up, the best way to decide the question is to let the house express its opinion. Therefore, if the house is ready for the question, it is on the following amendment, moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell):
That Bill No. 252 should not now be read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the provision of an initial payment, for the periods covered by this bill, of $1.75 per bushel for No. 1 northern wheat basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver.
I shall ask all those in favour of the amendment to say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Call in the members.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On the "have regard to" clause?


Robert Fair: And the compensation for loss.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I made a statement on the so-called losses. I questioned the figures presented by my friend when he referred to $400 million, $500 million, and $600 million, calculated on the price of domestic wheat on the Chicago market.
Before the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Before putting the amendment, may I say that I am not convinced that the amendment is in order. The division bells rang before I had an opportunity of coming to a conclusion on the matter. I shall therefore put the amendment.


Robert Fair: I did not present those figures. I presented figures brought down by the government in reply to one of my questions. If the figures are wrong, then the minister will have to take the responsibility for them. It is the price of our class II wheat upon which hon. members are working, and that is the price for that class of wheat sold on the open market. The minister must take the responsibility for any misrepresentation of the figures.


James Arthur Ross: If I may just refer to this question again, at page 2985 of Hansard the minister certainly implied that we could discuss this clause when this bill was before the house.


Mr. Wylie:: I was paired with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


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


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-La-prairie (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The house having reverted to the order for motions:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take advantage of this opportunity to make a report on my recent journey to London to attend the meeting of the north Atlantic council, but before doing so I should like to say a few words about the commonwealth meeting held in Sydney, Australia, to discuss economic assistance to south and southeast Asia. At that meeting the Canadian government was represented by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew), and I am sure we are all glad to see him back in his seat today after what I know from experience must have been a long and arduous trip.
The commonwealth meeting at Sydney was an important one. This government appreciates its importance, and is anxious to join with other commonwealth governments in co-operating to improve conditions in that particular area of the world. Although there is no limit to our good will in this matter and in other similar matters, naturally there is a limit to our resources. In expending those resources we have to take into consideration other commitments. However, that is the only reservation to our co-operation with other commonwealth countries in this matter.
At the Sydney conference the representatives of the commonwealth who met there recommended a number of points to their governments. It was proposed and agreed that assistance for economic development in that area should proceed by progressive stages under a general plan covering a period of, I believe, six years. Plans for economic development to that end are to be drawn up

External Affairs
during the coming months, and the commonwealth scheme for technical assistance for the area is also to be organized within the next few months.
Assistance under this scheme would be available to non-commonwealth governments as well as -commonwealth governments in south and southeast Asia. It is hoped that other than commonwealth governments will participate in that assistance. This and related proposals of the conference will be under study by the Canadian government in the near future, when we shall have had a chance to receive a report from the Minister of Fisheries, who reached Ottawa only last night; and when all the necessary information has been received. That is all that I can say about the Sydney meeting at this time.
With regard to my journey to London, by an unexpected and possibly symbolic coincidence I found myself concerned during that visit with the two most important international political agencies of our day, the United Nations and the North Atlantic treaty organization. In London I attended the second formal session of the north Atlantic council. I also had the privilege of an interesting discussion with the Secretary General of the United Nations, who had just completed a series of consultations with the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States, France, and the U.S.S.R.
It is my firm belief, and indeed it is the principle upon which the foreign policy of this government is based, that the North Atlantic treaty and the United Nations complement each other, that the aims and purposes of the larger body are sustained and strengthened by the smaller, and that the greater security which the members of the north Atlantic community enjoy by reason of their association together contributes materially to the political stability which is essential if problems of international order are to be solved.
The central purpose of the United Nations, security for all states through general collective action and vigorous international policies to remove the causes of war, remains the objective which this government, and I am sure this country, is prepared to support by every possible means. We continue to believe that in the long run lasting peace can be established only on the basis of universal action. We continue to believe also in the urgent necessity of pressing on toward that ideal; of taking advantage of every genuine move which brings it nearer to realization. So in London we began the final communique of the north Atlantic council meeting with this paragraph:
They-
	*
The members of the council.
-reaffirmed the adherence of their governments to the principles which inspire the United Nations charter and their conviction that common action under the treaty is an integral part of the effort which all free nations are making to secure conditions of world peace and human welfare.
Whether we like it or not, the technical developments of our time are leading us towards "one world." If we do not get there as a result of peaceful co-operation we will almost certainly have that end imposed on us by force at the conclusion of a devastating war. Naturally we want to move towards world unity the peaceful way, and we are more likely to do so if political and economic stability are maintained over as wide an area as possible. That is the reason why the North Atlantic treaty is a constructive contribution to the objectives of our larger policy. To the extent that it increases the security of -the members of the north Atlantic community it also increases their ability to co-operate in the work of the United Nations, to fulfil their commitments under the charter, and also to base their policies -on the assurance that "one world" may be attained by peaceful means since no one will risk the attempt to impose it by force.
Therefore I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we must never cease to emphasize that the north Atlantic pact is for peace alone. I am more convinced of this than ever before since our discussions in London. I can assure the house, if any assurance is needed, that if any member of the north Atlantic group had aggressive intentions or tried to engage in provocative diplomacy-and this of course is not the case-the other members of the group would neither follow nor support that member. There need be no doubt on that score no matter what the so-called communist "partisans of peace" and their misguided followers may say. The nations of the north Atlantic community who are co-operating for peace can, I think, face the days ahead with renewed and indeed increased confidence because of the decisions* that we took at the recent London meeting. In a general way the significance of this council session rests in the evidence it gave of the ability of free nations to meet extraordinary circumstances by vigorous and imaginative measures. The north Atlantic alliance was formed in the first instance in response to a physical threat, the threat of an aggression against the members of our community. Against a common danger we agreed to stand together and use our resources collectively for defence and peaceful development. I have always believed, however, that the North Atlantic treaty was a response to a deeper and more

significant compulsion than that of fear. All the circumstances of our times, political, economic, technical and cultural, point to the necessity for greater unity amongst the free nations of the world. And by unity we mean far more than paper agreements for common action in certain contingencies. We mean a genuine coming together of peoples on as wide a front as possible.
We have learned, and indeed all history teaches us, that this is a process which cannot be forced, and which cannot develop except in a favourable climate. We know that it is most likely to prosper amongst people with a common background and similar ideals, and that it must take full account of the realities of national identity, national loyalty and national traditions. In other words, we are faced in our time, in the sphere of international organization, with the old familiar social and political problem of freedom and organization. It seems to me that the North Altantic treaty, arising out of the emergencies of the post-war situation, is an attempt of far-reaching importance to solve this problem within an area where success is least difficult.
Many of the conclusions of our meeting in London are of course necessarily secret, because they affect the details of defence planning. Nevertheless, if you will examine the published conclusions of the council, you will find evidence which I think supports my judgment about the importance of the meeting. In the first place we have taken a decision in the military defence field which I think is without precedent in peacetime. We have adopted the principle of "balanced collective forces" as the basis for our defence. Here is the text of paragraph 5 of the summary of conclusions:
The council unanimously agreed that if adequate military defence of the member countries is to be achieved it must be along the lines of the most economical and effective utilization of the forces and material at the disposal of the North Atlantic countries. They accordingly urged their governments to concentrate on the creation of balanced collective forces in the progressive build-up of the North Atlantic area, taking at the same time fully into consideration the requirements for national forces which arise out of commitments external to the North Atlantic area.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, this is no less than the principle of the international division of labour to be applied amongst the members of the north Atlantic community for collective defence. We are now pledged to do within the framework of the North Atlantic alliance what each of us has already been doing within our national defence system. We shall try to agree amongst ourselves which of us is the best able to concentrate on certain types of defence preparation.
External Affairs
This principle may come to mean the further application to defence of new techniques and tactics of scientific warfare; and eventually, possibly, the abandonment of the old concept of defence by great masses of conscripted infantry, the bulk of which would be reservists called up on the outbreak of war.
In this planning allowance has to be made for the fact that certain states have commitments which are external to the north Atlantic area. Allowance has also to be made for the specially exposed position of some states to meet an initial attack. The acceptance of "balanced collective forces" does not of course imply a strategy by which less exposed countries, or at least countries less exposed to ground attack, can collect their resources of men and material behind the ramparts of sacrifices made by others so that eventual victory can be achieved. North Atlantic strategy cannot mean, and our agreement does not imply, a strategy of liberation after destruction and occupation. There could be no hope for Europe in that strategy because the next time there may well be nothing to liberate.
On the other hand our strategy cannot be based on plans for national action alone, through national forces developed for national territory alone. The new principle recognizes, if I may pick out a purely hypothetical example, the waste and futility of one country trying to build battleships, let us say, if there are enough of these already in the navies of other members of the group. This principle in its turn must rest on the firm assurance that the other battleships, if I may continue that example, will be at your service if you need them. Therefore I think, Mr. Speaker, that this decision in favour of balanced collective forces is of vital importance. Of course it is a decision of principle only. Many bridges will have to be crossed before its application can be worked out in practice. We do not yet know how it will affect the detailed responsibilities of any particular member of the alliance. As far as this government is concerned, in our defence policy we have already accepted this principle and have been trying to relate our policy to the defence of an area rather than merely to the defence of a country. We have been going on that principle and we will gladly do what we can to continue its application.
In this field of defence preparation the council also took a number of other important decisions. A beginning has been made by the two defence committees of the council, one military and the other financial and economic, in working out the details of a unified defence program for the north Atlantic community.

External Affairs
The reports of these committees were reviewed and carefully examined, and directives were issued to guide these committees in their future work. To quote from the communique, "these directives emphasize that the problem of adequate military forces and the necessary financial costs should be examined as one, not as separate problems." It was recognized that while in present political circumstances defence requirements must come first, nevertheless it might be dangerous and indeed disastrous if the defence effort in any country were carried to a point where it strained and weakened the economic and social fabric of that country. That is one reason, I think, why the north Atlantic nations must plan their defences as a team. That is why there must be the closest co-operation in planning and in production, and the greatest possible standardization of weapons and equipment, a matter which we also discussed in London. Only thus may it be possible for some, and perhaps most, of the members of the Atlantic community to avoid the economic and social dangers of unnecessarily swollen defence expenditures, which would open the doors to the exploiters of domestic discontent.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic nations must supply their peoples with guns and butter until guns are no longer needed. How much of each will have to be determined by each country in the light of its own special position and of the general situation. Personally, however, I think it is idle and indeed it could be mischievous to try to lay down formulae and mathematical criteria for the purpose of determining exactly how much each country should do. It may be that the development of a new iron ore field by one country would be a far greater contribution to general security than an additional division of infantry; yet no one wishes to make the comparison, with all its implications, between blood and iron. So we in this north Atlantic group must have, as we do, faith that every member will do its full and fair part in ensuring our collective security. As a result of the decisions we have taken we may now be advised by the agencies we have set up as to the most effective kind of individual contribution we can make to the collective effort. It then remains for the individual governments to decide how this advice and these directives can be made effective by national action.
Other decisions which were important in the field of defence concerned mutual aid and shipping. In London we reaffirmed the principle that self-help and mutual aid are important parts of our defence measures. Again the detailed effect of this decision will have to be worked out. Within the vast area

of our alliance, however, there are more than ample resources to meet our defence needs, and tremendous actual or potential productive capacity, much greater than exists or can be developed in the communist despotisms. There are many ways in which we can assure distribution of these resources in a way to meet the demands of the defence program. Mutual aid is only one of them.
The decision to establish a north Atlantic planning board for ocean shipping is another step of great potential importance in the preparation of a unified system of defence. By this means we hope to be able to foresee and meet in advance any emergency that may arise in wartime in connection with the organization of our merchant shipping in the north Atlantic.
These decisions, Mr. Speaker, have carried us a long way, I think, in the preparation of a unified defence system for the north Atlantic community. They are not, however, military decisions alone. A large part of their effectiveness, a large element in the strength of the north Atlantic alliance, rests in the fact that we are -not taking decisions about defence unrelated to other problems, and that we are not concentrating merely on military preparations. In this connection I should like to read another part of the council's final conclusions:
In formulating their directives the council proceeded on the basis that the combined resources of the members of the North Atlantic treaty were sufficient, if properly co-ordinated and applied, to ensure the progressive and speedy development of adequate military defence without impairing the social and economic progress of these countries.
That is a proposition with major implications, and we are able to state it with conviction not merely because we have adopted the principle of division of effort but also because we have written into our treaty, in article 2, a -commitment to economic and social co-operation on a wide front. In the light of our determination to proceed with adequate defen-ce measures and at the same time fortify the economic welfare of our north Atlantic community, which is such an important part of our defence, the consideration we gave to article 2 in London takes on a new and added significance. We all agreed that this article is a fundamental part of our pact and that the greatest possible value must be attached to the concept of social -and economic collaboration in the north Atlantic community, which it embodies.
The question is continually being asked in regard to article 2 to whether or not we intend to set up some special machinery for this kind of collaboration among the members of the group. Well, it is too soon to answer that question; and of course we can dwell too

much on machinery. We have a good deal of machinery at the present time. Sometimes we hear it said that we are going in for harness rather than horse. I think in our north Atlantic and European arrangements we have both horse and harness, and possibly we should concentrate on the production of hay. So at this time I am not able to state that any special machinery will be set up, as a result of our meeting in London, to carry out the principles of article 2.
I should like to explain the line we took in London on this point. There now exists in Europe a very effective economic organization of European states, the organization for European economic co-operation or OEEC. We do not wish either to duplicate the work of this body or to impede it, because it is doing good work. At the same time it seems quite clear that the economic problems of the western world cannot be solved by a purely European body. Yet we cannot suggest to OEEC that it should transform itself into a north Atlantic council body to make article 2 effective, because it includes a number of states of economic importance which do not belong to the north Atlantic alliance: Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Greece, Austria, Turkey, and above all, Germany. In these circumstances, it seems to me that it is extremely important that we should avoid putting ourselves, and the countries of western Europe, in the position of having to make a choice between OEEC and the North Atlantic treaty machinery as an instrument of economic co-operation.
To avoid that dilemma, and as a constructive step forward, the governments of France, Great Britain, the United States and Canada have suggested the possibility that, for the time being, the United States and Canada should enter into informal, but I hope effective, relationship with OEEC. This suggestion was made after consultation with Mr. Stikker, the Netherlands foreign minister, who is chairman of OEEC. I expect that it will be considered by OEEC itself sometime in the near future. The circumstances connected with this decision were made known to the house in a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), I believe on May 18. We are hopeful that, whatever form of organization eventually emerges, it will develop into an important agency for social and economic co-operation between free Europe and free North America; co-operation which may one day lead to an Atlantic commonwealth of free states.
Independent of this OEEC development the council, at its meeting in London, and to emphasize its recognition of the importance of article 2, decided to direct its committee of deputies to study and report as to what
External Affairs
further action can be taken under article 2 of the treaty. This report is to be made available for the next meeting of the council in September. These studies will refer to both economic and social questions, and consideration will also be given to the possibility of greater co-operation in preparing and making available information about the aims and objects of the north Atlantic alliance. May I quote again, Mr. Speaker, the relative paragraphs of our communique, where the council, through its different deputies, was charged with the duty to
. . . promote and co-ordinate public information in furtherance of the objectives of the treaty while leaving responsibility for national programs to each country;
consider what further action should be taken under article 2 of the treaty, taking into account the work of existing agencies in this field.
While most of the decisions taken at the north Atlantic council meeting were, as I have pointed out, decisions in principle, decisions in principle are of little consequence unless the details are worked out and given effect. We discussed for some time the question of setting up some kind of more permanent machinery to follow up our work, and to see that the work is made as effective as possible. There were two ways by which this could have been done. One was by making the central figure the secretary general, and by building a machine around him, an international secretariat under the north Atlantic council. The other procedure would have been the establishment of a committee, which would meet in more or less continuous session as deputies of the members of the council, and who would be assisted by the necessary secretariat. The latter course was adopted, and the adoption of that course, I hope, will in a sense put the north Atlantic council into permanent session. It is expected that the governments concerned will appoint their deputies shortly, and that the deputies will then elect a chairman who will become, I suppose, the key figure in this permanent machinery which we set up.
The paragraph in the communique dealing with this point reads:
To enable the council effectively to carry out its responsibilities and to exercise them continuously, each government will appoint a deputy to its council representative. Each deputy will be in a position to give whatever time may be necessary to ensure that the responsibilities of the council are carried out effectively.
In the intervals between meetings of ministers, the deputies, duly authorized by their respective governments, will be responsible, on behalf of and in the name of the council, for carrying out its policies and for formulating issues requiring decisions by the member governments.

External Affairs
This committee will have its headquarters in London, and it will not be surprising if the United States member of the committee is chosen as its chairman.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few general observations arising from the meeting in London, and from private discussions which I had there from time to time. I was profoundly impressed by the new spirit of hope in Europe and the United Kingdom. There is certainly no reason of any kind for us to be unrealistically optimistic about what is happening or what may happen, and this is certainly no time for us to lower our guard in any respect. Nevertheless, there is a new feeling of confidence in western Europe itself. Both the United Kingdom and western European countries have made great strides in economic recovery, particularly during the last eighteen months. In this recovery aid from North America has been very important, but the countries themselves, by their own efforts, are primarily responsible for the advances they have made. The recovery of morale in western Europe is perhaps of even greater importance. I think it is not an exaggeration to say that that is due in large part to our North Atlantic treaty, and the action which has been taken under it. By this treaty western Europe has been given assurance that it will not be left alone to face the dark threat from the east. In this connection the military aid being provided by the United States under the mutual defence assistance program is of great importance in strengthening immediately the defences of western Europe.
But here again the European countries of the North Atlantic treaty are not leaning on their oars. They are making great progress, and expending every possible effort to strengthen their own position. The recent French proposal for consolidating western European coal and steel production under a single control is indicative of the imaginative approach to their problems that western European nations are making. That is a very important development, as I see it, the importance of which may be as political as economic. It may mean a long step forward in ending the ancient feud between Gaul and Teuton, which has caused so many dark things to be written on the pages of European history. I believe that this is an example of the new approach by Europeans to their problems, and we can only hope it will be successful, both politically and economically.
It has become increasingly apparent that the nations of western Europe and North America must stick together if they are to assure their economic or military security.

The recent north Atlantic council meetings in London have, I think, done something to further cement this essential association.
May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, though it may sound a little egotistical for me to do so, by reading from my own statement at the final session of the council. It expresses my own views better than I could possibly express them in any other language at this time. I said then:
We have done a good week's work. We came here to take further steps to prevent war by strengthening our determination to resist aggression collectively. and our ability to resist it successfully. We have taken those steps.
We have also strengthened the structure of the Atlantic community, now arising out of the destruction of world war II. Our Atlantic community, which is a part of the larger community of the United Nations, is now strong in the power which freedom gives, and in the freedom which power makes possible. We are coming together for peace and human welfare, in a deeper and more permanent way than could ever be brought about by a military alliance alone.
Nevertheless, the resolutions on which we have agreed, and the words we have uttered, will be of little avail unless our governments and our peoples translate them into action. I am satisfied that this will be done, and that its doing will make a good contribution to peace and human progress.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of supply.




Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, following the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in connection with the important mission to London from which he has just returned, I wish to make some comments in connection with this and other matters relating to the present foreign situation.
Whatever may be said in a debate such as this, I think the first words of members on this side of the House of Commons ought to be to the effect that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke in London and took the stand he did with respect to the North Atlantic council decisions he spoke not merely for the government but also for parliament and for the nation, and that parliament and the nation will give him wholehearted and unanimous support in that stand.
I suppose it will be only natural for members of this house who have sat here for a number of years to recall the conditions of previous years and reflect upon the extent to which our foreign policy objectives have slowly but surely made an almost complete

turn from isolation to full-blown co-operation in world affairs. It is a far cry from the day some fifteen years ago when this house heard declarations by virtue of which this country made a hasty retreat from international co-operation in connection with the oil sanctions having to do with the Abyssinian issue. It is a far cry, too, from the days when, just prior to world war II, the government-and the people were perhaps largely behind them-said that they were proud of the fact that this country had no international commitments of any kind whatsoever. It is also a far cry from those days when we were just on the threshold of world war II, and when we debated in this house the problem of Canada's remaining neutral in the event of a world-wide conflagration. But fortunately for our people and for this parliament, those days have gone; and the decisions of the North Atlantic council, which have been so well described by the minister this afternoon, have seen Canada and her friends of the north Atlantic community now going the whole way in burning the last vestige of the bridges of isolation for this country.
The defence of the north Atlantic community is now to be shared by the twelve nations which are signatories to that pact. We had already been committed on principle to that very thing, but this last council meeting did far more than that. It put flesh upon the dry bones of the original pact, and, as a first step, it has translated that principle into the first stages of action. We are now to have, as the minister described it, a specialization with respect to our defence, and balanced collective forces with the minimum of duplication of effort within the north Atlantic community. In other words, each partner is to do what it is best equipped and fitted to do.
Up until now the fulfilment of our commitments under the North Atlantic pact was largely predicated upon one of the signatory powers being the victim of an aggressor. We have now gone the next step forward and have made that commitment applicable before any aggression has taken place. I think it will be evident to everyone in this house that, with this further step forward, when t-his integration of our armed1 and economic effort has been effected, we shall have committed ourselves to the policy that we shall not-nor shall any of the nations in the north Atlantic community-any longer follow a go-it-alone policy. Conversely, the collective obligation which we have now assumed to help a nation that is invaded becomes that much stronger. We are now in a community chain, and each link in that
External Affairs
chain becomes much more important than it ever was before; because if one link of the integrated defence or economic forces is broken, of course the whole chain itself becomes gravely weakened. In other words, we have joined in a common policy for the defence of the north Atlantic area.
I think all of us had an additional concern in our minds as the minister and the communiques from time to time brought to the people of this country the message as to what was done at London. We all remember that prior to the last world war great stress was laid upon the alleged impregnability of the then powerful Maginot line. We saw that Maginot line circumvented. We saw it made useless as a defence against aggression. One of the things we have to watch for and to concern ourselves with now is that in this north Atlantic community arrangement, this integrated defence arrangement and plan, we are not isolating our north Atlantic community and are not failing to lay sufficient emphasis upon other parts of the world scene, which parts might easily prove to be the soft underbelly of our whole defence structure, whereby Soviet imperialism might readily avoid striking the strong Maginot line of north Atlantic defence, swing around and outflank us in southeast Asia and other vulnerable areas. We must see to it that the back door to Asia is not left open. I was glad to hear the minister state that there would be a further report forthcoming with respect to the Canberra talks, from which the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) has just returned. I was glad, too, that the Big Three ministers, meeting, as they did, almost concurrently with the north Atlantic council, placed considerable emphasis upon the situation in southeast Asia.
After all, Russian objectives perhaps are not so much pointed at the moment at the stone wall of the north Atlantic defences as they are toward southeast Asia-yes, and toward Japan. The reasons are of course clear to all; because were they to be successful in concentrating their immediate endeavours and their attack on that part of the world, it would mean that not only would key strategic positions be lost to the democratic cause, but there would be a loss of important sources of raw materials in that part of the world, with all the attendant dangers flowing from such a loss.
The loss of Burma, Thailand and Indochina, and the outflanking of Japan, Okinawa and the Philippines, would leave these latter areas strategically, economically and politically in a position of almost untenability. It needs no stretch of the imagination to see the

External Affairs
position in which our good friends of Pakistan and India, who are not yet self-sufficient in the matter of food, would be placed were such a successful flanking movement to take place.
I am most anxious that while we are balancing our economic and military defences in the north Atlantic community we shall not allow ourselves to become isolated, only to find that the flanking movement around that great economic and defence "Maginot" line has struck in softer and more vulnerable spots. We should, so far as possible, lay as much emphasis as we can upon trying to stop the aggression which is so obviously taking place in southeast Asia, and which, were it carried to the conclusion one can visualize, might easily weaken the structure of the north Atlantic community itself.
I know the people and parliament of Canada will support the government in its practical and realistic efforts to enforce peace against any dangerous combination which understands only the language of force and power. I sat in this House of Commons years ago and heard members from time to time- and they were honest, sincere and patriotic members-offer the considered opinion, which was shared by a great many people in Canada, that if this or any other country attempted to prepare for war, somehow or other it was taking a step toward war and away from peace. How often we heard the statement made-and it was accepted in many parts of the country-that if we manufacture weapons and train men, those weapons and men will be turned against some enemy, and in such endeavours we would be moving toward war.
The period in between the two great wars saw us taking that principle to heart, but the unpreparedness of those days did not bring peace; it brought war. It might not have been the only reason for the war, but in any event it is sufficient to show all of us that our being unprepared did not stop aggression, did not stop the holocaust of a second world war. I believe therefore that the people of Canada are ready to try another principle, are ready to see if we cannot enforce peace and make those who would break the peace keep it by being sufficiently strong to avert attack at any time.
In this tough world, where tough and realistic men are anxious to achieve world domination, we must meet fire with fire. As General Eisenhower in effect said, not long ago in an address at Columbia university, unpreparedness, in the condition in which the world now finds itself, is just as criminal as war itself. I am quite sure that when a few

moments ago the minister, on behalf of a peace-loving people, voiced the government's aims in connection with the north Atlantic community, said that it was driving toward peace as the chief objective, he said what the people of Canada wanted to hear. The people of this country do not want preparations for war; they want preparations which will ensure peace rather than have world casualty lists published for a third time.
It is the hope of all members of the north Atlantic community that the realistic movement now being made toward peace may lead to a permanent, just and lasting peace. In return for the support that parliament and the people of Canada will give the government, perhaps in a measure greater than it could have expected, parliament and the people will expect the government to tell the whole unvarnished story with respect to the position in which we find ourselves under these new north Atlantic arrangements. In view of the support thus given, the country is entitled to as much information as can be made public, having in mind security considerations. Canadians can take whatever message in this respect there may be, and will be prepared to shoulder whatever burdens the alliance of the north Atlantic community may involve.
However, having said that Canadians can take it, one must add at once that they should know exactly what the future holds for them on all political fronts. They would like to know whether, in the opinion of the government and those closely associated with it in diplomatic affairs, this means that we are moving closer to peace than to war. They would like to know if this is a step, even though a short and halting one, toward a full-blown north Atlantic political and economic federation.
A few moments ago the minister used the word "commonwealth" in describing the movement of the north Atlantic community. Perhaps this gives more point to the question I have just asked. Do the present activities of the north Atlantic community imply-and I believe the people are entitled to know this-that, one day, through the various steps taken, there will be only an Atlantic army, navy and air force, having in mind the integrating features of the plan just placed before parliament and the people? While in a matter of this kind costs are perhaps a secondary or tertiary consideration, the people of Canada ought to be told what additional cost is involved. After all, if we have to tighten our belts, we ought to know how far we have to tighten them. It is only a matter of information. Whatever may be the cost of peace,

it can never equal the tragic cost of war. I think the Canadian people are ready to assume their full burden. Secretary of State Acheson, informally addressing a meeting of the congress of the United States, indicated in general terms what the United States people would have to face by way of heavier burdens. Our people ought to know that too. It is part and parcel of the information which the government ought to give our public today.
After all, the government may not be able to take the public into its confidence on all military matters that may be involved, but it ought to take the public into its confidence as to how much it expects of them.
The next question I should like to have answered is this: What part in the economic defence plans will Canada play so far as security is concerned? I know the minister was hesitant about that, for reasons which I think were proper; but I hope that as soon as that information can be given, it will be given, subject to security considerations, to parliament and to the Canadian people. In other words, the Canadian people ought to be told the full implications of this new policy of balanced collective defence; because there is no better way of securing and maintaining the unanimous support of the public of Canada, common-sense and responsible citizens that they are, than to tell them the full facts. When they have the full facts, the Canadian people never let their leaders down.
I should like to make one reference, if I may, to the concurrent meetings of the north Atlantic council and the foreign ministers of the United States, Great Britain and France. I think it was fortunate that those meetings were held at the same time, because, as the minister pointed out a few minutes ago, they helped to clarify the situation with respect' to economic considerations affecting their respective countries and their relationships with those parts of the north Atlantic community that are in Europe. However, for those in the house who might wish to refresh their memories with respect to what was agreed to by this country in connection with the economic and social aspects of the North Atlantic pact, I should like to read into the record article 2, which reads as follows:
The parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and wellbeing. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
External Affairs
It has been pointed out by many statesmen of the world that you cannot separate peace from prosperity; they are indivisible. For that reason there is an economic part of the North Atlantic pact which is indivisible in respect to this country. While perhaps in the early meetings the question of military aid had to be emphasized, still I think that Canada, the third trading nation of the world, whose economic prosperity depends upon the economic health of the world at large, realizes that article 2 becomes a vital and important part of the North Atlantic pact.
I summon as a witness to my argument with respect to the economic aspects of the quest for peace the words which were uttered within the hearing of all of us in this chamber the other day by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, who said:
But democracy, In Pakistan or elsewhere, Is of little use to the common man unless its advantages are made available to him in his daily life and his standard of living is raised at least to a level which gives him a substantial stake in the way of life which he has chosen for himself.
Then he went on to say:
. . . for there can be no progress without peace, no peace without progress and the removal of the economic disequilibrium, so apparent in Asia, which keeps more than half the world in poverty and the ferment of discontent, or without international co-operation, which we believe to be the greatest need of all countries, great and small.
Another great and powerful statesman, Prime Minister Nehru of India, spoke in this chamber last fall and uttered words just as strong in support of that argument. The economic and social life of the world is bound up in this whole question of striving toward peace in our time. When these matters of defence are being discussed by the deputies, our choice of a permanent deputy for Canada will have been of great importance, because he will have to deal not only with defence problems, but with the equally important problems of the economics upon which the prosperity of this country is so completely predicated.
In connection with the military and economic defence measures that are to be taken, I should like the minister to tell us at a convenient time whether civilian defence was considered at that meeting. The minister pointed out that while civilians were in the front line in the last war, they are going to be in a much more dangerous position in the next war if there is one. I am afraid that civilian defence is quite often overlooked or relegated to the background in our consideration of defence matters. I submit that it should be placed further up in the priority rating, because, after all, safety and security from outside aggression, whether in other

External Affairs
countries or in our own, are of prime importance to the people of Canada as a whole.
I think it is important to realize just how much alarmed the people on the other side of the border are with respect to the matter of civilian defence. I have in my hand the current issue of the United States News and World Report, which in one paragraph gives an example of just how much alarmed they may be over there. This is one of the statements made:
Key industries-
This is, in the United States.
-will have to be put 100 feet underground if they are to be assured of protection from the hydrogen bomb that scientists consider a coming weapon. W. Stuart Symington, new head of the national security resources board, is trying to decide how to break the bad news to the public about what civilian defence will cost in preparing against war involving atomic weapons. Idea until now has been to play down the need for vast new programs costing untold millions to provide the public with the protection it would want in another war.
I point that out as one indication of how those in another part of the world feel with respect to this matter.
I also want to ask the minister, if there was any discussion with respect to civilian defence, whether civilian defence formed a part of the integrated defence program of the north Atlantic community. In some places the prospective costs of civilian defence so far as individual nations are concerned may very well be such that they ought to be pooled in the interests of an integrated and balanced collective defence system. I do not mind saying, Mr. Speaker, and I think I reflect the views of many, that, from the information parliament has, Canada is alarmingly and dangerously behind in her plans for civilian defence for the safety and security of our citizens in case of some unwanted eventuality of the future. I should also like to ask the minister if he will indicate at the proper time whether there was any formal or informal discussion while he was in London, of the vexed question of the recognition of the Chinese Red government. Secretary of state Acheson, in answer to one of the questions propounded to him at the unofficial meeting of congress the other day, indicated that there was .some slight sliding from the original position which the United States took as to the recognition of the Chinese Red government. He indicated that the United States government were not now prepared to support its entry into the United Nations, or to give it that much recognition, but that they would not veto such a proposal. Perhaps the minister will enlighten us, at -a convenient time, as to what changes have taken place in that position during the last few weeks.
[Mr. Graydon.l
I want to come now to another point having to do With our relations with our great and friendly neighbour to the south. In that regard the minister clarified our position in what I thought was an admirable speech he made in London, a speech which was favourably commented upon by many newspapers. Parliament will support him in what he said on that occasion. Nevertheless certain proposals have been made by persons who perhaps carry some weight in the business world of the United States, and perhaps a private member of the house may be pardoned for making certain observations about them at this time. In doing so I want to indicate clearly that I think a nation that has reached maturity in world affairs should avoid, as I am going to try to avoid, the temptation of barking at every wagon that goes by in the international show. Nevertheless I think most Canadians were calmly amused at an article which appears in the current issue of a magazine called Look which is published in the United States. The article was written by George E. Shea, Jr., financial editor of the Wall Street Journal. I am not going to attempt to read the whole article, because it is lengthy. The heading of the article is, "Why the United States and Canada should be one country". In the article he says:
The frontier between Canada and the United States is becoming today an oppressive cord that threatens to strangle the progress and security of both our countries. Dating back to the revolutionary war, the border for many years has meant little more than an inconvenience. People may have thought idly that it made little sense. But they have put up with it as one submits to any senseless but harmless routine. Now, however, the arbitrary division of the continent is beginning to hurt both countries in two fundamental ways: (1) it is serving to hold back the development of Canada's wealth; and, as our natural resources are gradually exhausted it is also restricting United States economic welfare; (2) it is weakening the .ability of the two countries to ensure the military security of the continent in an age of new intercontinental weapons. The time has come to think seriously of making the United States and Canada one country or, to start with, at least one economic unit.
First of all I want to say most sincerely to the author and to the magazine in question that we are very grateful for the highly complimentary things the author said about Canada. We regard it as a very high compliment that a nation as great as the United States should consider a marriage with us, even though it may be a marriage of convenience, with a rather substantial marriage settlement or dowry attached to it; because the author goes on to make one reference that I thought was interesting. He said:
How senseless the frontier is has been pointed up sharply with the recent news of Canada's fabulous oil bonanza in Alberta.

If our point of view would be helpful to the average United States citizen, then perhaps it ought to be stated. I should like to say to the author of the article and to the American people: You are our good and friendly neighbours. Let anyone in the world say anything against you and Canada will rise to your defence. We like you and admire you. We find it easy to work with you. Our nations provide a compelling example of how two nations, one small and one large, can make peaceful relations permanent. You are doing all right, and so are we. Please do not embarrass us with this latest proposal for national marriage. No matter how highly we feel complimented by the offer, we are sorry; we cannot accept the ring.
In addition I want to echo the well chosen words that the minister used in London as to this very point. I think they provide a complete answer. This is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in London, as reported in the Times:
In this central theme of his speech, Mr. Pearson carried on the thought of his previous speech to the Pilgrims, when he spoke of Canada as the little fellow between two giants. Canadians, he said, had a special part to play in the world because they were "bilingual, not merely in the French-English sense, but in the sense that we speak English and American." Canada is a North American nation, living an American life and thinking American thought; yet at the same time extremely content and wholehearted in her membership of the British commonwealth.
Mr. Pearson was at pains to reassure his audience that his country was not passing through a transitional stage towards becoming a United States satellite; but in thinking they needed any such assurance he was unnecessarily modest. The time is long past when Englishmen could think of Canada as capable of becoming the satellite of anybody.
Now I want to pass to another point, and say to those who were responsible for the article from which I have just read that we might be talking about other and less romantic things than a national marriage between the United States and Canada. There is the question of the renewal of the Hyde Park agreement in some modernized and modified form. Perhaps in that respect I should quote the opinion of some Americans themselves, as it appeared in the current issue of Newsweek. This writer, dealing with Canadian affairs, spoke of this very thing:
As Pearson prepared to give the Commons a fuller explanation of what Canada got itself into at London, a big question was what military contribution Canada could make. The United States-Canada joint defence program had been a onesided affair so far, with Canada using up scarce dollars to buy American parts and equipment. The first Canadian arms sale to the United States since the war will be made in the fiscal year beginning July 1. Purchases between $15 million and $25 million will offset approximately the amount of dominion arms buying in the United States.
External Affairs
Buying and selling: It is not known what Canadian items will be sold. The best guess is medium artillery and special equipment for Arctic warfare. The defence department thinks there is no chance of the United States taking the CF-100, the long-range all-weather Avro jet fighter, which Canada desperately wants to sell.
The arms deal represents a modification of the "Buy American Act" which had been construed to prevent such purchases. This removes a longstanding issue between the two countries. Canadians had complained that they had to spend their precious dollars for American military equipment, while the United States always found some excuse for not buying Canadian-made equipment.
That temporary solution is all right as far as it goes, but I should think there is a very great need for a permanent revival of the-Hyde Park agreement in some modernized form. I am particularly interested in this, in common with many others who are so very proud of the CF-100, which is manufactured at Malton in the county of Peel, which I represent. Both the management and the workmen who have had to do with the production of that great aircraft take pride in its achievements, and we are hopeful that in time it will find a market in the country to the south.
In my concluding remarks on this matter I should like to deal with the economic aspects of our north Atlantic position as they concern our domestic affairs here at home, because they are interrelated and vital to the success of the pact itself. Although full details of the obligations are not yet known, it is becoming evident that the economic aspects of the Atlantic pact are and will continue to be very much to the forefront in the days that lie ahead, as I was attempting to indicate previously. The Prime Minister foresaw this aspect of the developments as far back as-1948, when the idea of the North Atlantic pact was crystallizing in the minds of government leaders, both in Europe and on this continent. As evidence of this, the Prime Minister's radio speech to the Canadian people on November 11, 1948, called upon us to support the North Atlantic pact. In that speech, obviously with the economic aspects in view, the Prime Minister stated that it was the opinion of the Canadian government at that time that a security treaty such as was proposed could not be fully effective if it was nothing more than a military alliance; and with that I think this parliament agrees. Fifteen days later the Secretary of State for External Affairs, at a press conference at The Hague, stated that Canada would commit herself freely to military measures specific enough for security.
While full details of the obligations of the-signatory powers are not yet public, it is evident that as a nation we have made our commitment from the military point of view" and from the size of the estimates for national

External Affairs
defence this year in Canada we are moving toward carrying out these commitments. There is little evidence, and certainly there has been no announced government policy, as to the other and equally important aspects of our responsibilities under this pact, namely the economic aspects, and what we are doing, and more important what we propose to do, in the way of development of our resources to meet the demands that will fall upon this nation in fulfilling our obligations under this pact.
Perhaps before we entered into a balanced, integrated defence policy under the pact there was not the compelling pressure upon us to develop our own natural resources that there is at the present time, though I believe we should have been doing something along that line in preparation for what looked like an obvious eventuality. This aspect of responsibility is equally important in respect to any military measures pledged by this nation, first because it is the sphere of co-operation from which the greatest assistance may rightfully be expected from Canada, and second, because it is the determining factor upon which the extent of the military measures which can be sustained by this nation must necessarily be determined.
As a nation of only fourteen million people we cannot be expected to contribute anything like the numbers of men that could be supplied by some of our allies in the Atlantic pact. What we lack in available manpower, however, because of our population, we more than make up in agricultural, industrial and natural resources, of the very kind any gigantic defence program in modern warfare must have if its efforts are to 'be sustained and successful. In the last war the contribution made by this nation in material resources, so essential to the success of our own forces and those of our allies, exceeded all expectations. Today the challenge to the defence preparedness of this nation by virtue of our obligations under the Atlantic pact and the ever-present challenge of world domination by communism makes our marvellous contribution in the past pale into insignificance. The demands upon Canada in this particular field will be even greater than ever before in our history.
There is growing evidence that the economic resources of the United States, partic-cularly in the field of raw materials essential to any continental defence preparedness program, are showing signs of becoming exhausted. Considered in the light of expected demands in accordance with obligations under the Atlantic pact, the result is alarming. The most recent issue of the same United States publication from which I quoted just a few moments ago, Look, has
[Mr. Graydon.l
this to say as to why the United States and Canada should be one country. I quote this paragraph:
The United States suffers just as much from the frontier. We are losing out especially today because we are turning from a "have" nation into a "have-not" nation.
Whereas we used to ship oil, copper, zinc and lead to the rest of the world, we now have begun to import all of these essential materials. And the proportion of imports in every case seems sure to grow. The same thing is happening in iron ore and timber. We used to be able to produce more of these things than we could possibly use. Now we use more than we can possibly produce.
Then the article goes on to mention other matters with which I shall not weary the house at this stage of my argument; but the main argument is based on the fact that Canada has the natural resources but not the development, while the natural resources of the United States are becoming depleted. We cannot continue to be unmindful of the fact that our failure to develop our natural resources is a source of wonderment to others, even to our most friendly neighbours.
Nor is this assertion of failure to develop our resources to the point Where it may be considered as at least equal to our obligations, first for our defence and second under the Atlantic pact, confined to sources outside of Canada. I should like to quote an inside source as well.
Only recently, General Howard, the general manager of the Canadian Industrial Preparedness Association, said this in Ottawa, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of March 30, 1950:
"There is too much thinking of preparedness in terms of men, arms and munitions when we should be considering how many tons of steel, rubber, lead, tin and even paint we need," Major General C. B. Howard, C.B.E., of Montreal, said in Ottawa yesterday.
Speaking on "Canadian industrial preparedness" to a luncheon meeting of the Ottawa branch of the Naval Officers Association of Canada, General Howard, who is general manager of the Canadian Industrial Preparedness Association, said the navy, army and air force were only parts of a plan of defence. Research and industry, he asserted, were equally important in the defence plans of this country.
He went on to outline eight points of a plan for complete mobilization of Canada's material and industrial resources. Some of these might fit in more particularly now, in view of our integrated scheme for 'collective defence. These were his points:
1.	Complete mobilization of industrial resources.
2.	Efficient and effective attention to distribution and employment of manpower in the armed services and in industry.
3.	Mobilization of Canada's financial resources with mutually satisfactory financial arrangements.
4.	Distribution to industry of designs and data on all designs not in normal course of production.

5.	Adequate and authoritative inspection of design branches to avoid duplication and production of certain items.
6.	Storage and distribution arrangements to the armed forces.
7.	Supply and storage of materials in short supply.
8.	Shadow government department or departments to deal with problems of supply and priorities.
Some of us might be inclined to disagree with some of these proposals, but I mention them all to point up one of the important things about which I am in agreement with General Howard, and that is the importance of developing our natural resources, in view of our extended obligations under the North Atlantic pact.
Unfortunately parliament and the country at large are not in a position to judge accurately whether or not our efforts to develop the resources of this country are adequate under the circumstances, because neither this parliament nor the country has been told the full extent of Canada's obligations under the Atlantic pact. There are, however, grave doubts in the minds of many people, both within and without the boundaries of Canada, as to the adequacy of the development of our resources to meet the demands which would fall upon this nation should the day ever come when the signatory nations to the Atlantic pact find it necessary to defend themselves against aggression. True, our annual defence costs today are not far short of the total ordinary expenditure of the federal government before the last war. True, there must be strict avoidance of panicky overspending, and the taxpayer must be assured that every dollar spent in our defence, whether direct or within our obligations under the Atlantic pact, be spent to the best advantage.
But the Canadian people want some assurance from the government that our resources are being directed into the most profitable channels and in a manner that will assure an adequate defence program; that will make it possible for this nation to carry out its obligations under the Atlantic pact, in the sphere of activity where we can make our best and most valuable contribution. The people also want some assurance from the government that present plans for the development of the resources of this country are sufficient to meet the demands we may expect in this sphere, as a result of the recent decision of the Atlantic treaty conference. Recently press dispatches reported that the Atlantic treaty nations had agreed, by united efforts, to build up a system of defence capable of withstanding any external threat directed against any of them. As a result of this decision, Canada as a nation stands obligated to come to the rescue not only of
External Affairs
any signatory nation that is attacked, but to the defence of Europe, under the obligation to build by united efforts with the countries of western Europe "a unified system of defence." This means that our obligations up until now were projected into the future, dependent upon one of the signatory powers being attacked. Today, as a result of this recent decision of the Atlantic treaty council, our obligations are now due. Carrying out these commitments involves the economic phase of our obligations. The second decision, having to do with the creation of balanced collective forces, involves the question of trained manpower, and directly concerns the Department of National Defence.
With regard to our commitments under the economic aspect of our obligations under the Atlantic pact, however, the minister of external affairs should give some indication to parliament and the country just what program the government has in mind. While there may be some justification for secrecy with regard to efforts directed to meet obligations under the collective forces commitment, no such reason exists for secrecy as to plans for the development of the resources of this country and our industrial and agricultural potential.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to conclude by saying that this is a critical stage in the life of a young, progressive, peace-seeking nation such as ours. It calls for calm fortitude, national unity, and prayerful determination on the part of our people. It calls for the best and most constructive statesmanship parliament can apply. Let us resolve to march as one toward that goal of permanent peace upon which the welfare, happiness, and survival of our peoples are so completely predicated.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we heard from the minister a statement which was interesting, concise and important. I very much regret that it was delivered before a house so sparsely filled. This was due not so much to lack of interest as to pressure of other affairs. This morning we had an important debate on agriculture. Many of the members who were interested in the problem before the house were unable to be present and participate. This afternoon the social security committee, as well as other committees, is sitting. It is unfortunate that this debate is held under these circumstances.
I must say I appreciated the minister's statement this afternoon, and I shall look forward with a great deal of interest to the report to he made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) with regard to the Sydney conference. He will place more fully before

External Affairs
the house the discussions with regard to southeast Asia, and the manner in which we can assist the people of that area in building up their economy and their resistance to the threat of totalitarianism. When I speak of "totalitarianism", I am thinking not only of totalitarianism in the communistic form but totalitarianism which does exist, and indeed may extend to some other part of Asia, owing to the reinstatement of other reactionary regimes such as once held sway in those countries. I often think that the democratic powers have been placed in a difficult position with regard to Asia Minor and Asia in that, from time to time, the force of events has compelled them to assist regimes that were anything but democratic or which [DOT]did not conform in any respect to our democratic viewpoint. I shall therefore be interested in hearing what the Minister of .Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) has to say about the Sydney conference and the aid to southeast Asia.
I was glad to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) say that, on his visit to the United Kingdom, he found that both in the United Kingdom and in western Europe there was a new spirit of optimism and that conditions evidently were improving in that area. I think perhaps he is right when he says this is due largely to Marshall aid and perhaps to a greater feeling of security because of the North Atlantic agreement. But, after all, the strengthening of the economies of the western European countries and, indeed, of the economies of the nations throughout the world, is our best assurance against the outbreak of another war. We of this party will continue to give every support to, and to exert every influence we can on, shaping a Canadian international policy directed toward ending the cold war and endeavouring to find a secure basis for future peace. As has been stressed this afternoon both by the minister and by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), there is no question about it that the ending of this cold war and the finding of the basis for peace depend in no small measure upon the economic health of the world. We believe that this economic health must be planned more specifically than it has been planned in the past. We need effective planning to raise the standard of living everywhere. We need concrete plans to increase the productivity and means of distribution of the world and to build up particularly the economies of Asia and of Africa, as well as that of Europe, to higher levels and standards. I believe that this involves our steadfast adherence to the principles of the United Nations and its specialized agencies which deal with these particular problems.
IMr. ColdweUJ	l*MI
We are glad that in recent months and years we have seen specific steps in this direction. We have the success of the Marshall plan in rebuilding the European economy; the recent decisions of the north Atlantic nations at the conference which the minister attended, to increase their economic co-operation under article 2 of the North Atlantic agreement; the adherence of Canada and the United States to such organizations as that for European economic co-operation. Then we have the Schuman proposal to which the minister referred this afternoon. This is one of the most remarkable proposals the world has seen for generations. We have France suggesting that there be an integration of the iron resources of France and the coal resources of what was Germany, with a view to their joint development for the benefit of the whole of the European economy. How this will be done will have to be worked out in the future. I am inclined to think that the problem is a difficult one because you have the tug of war between those who believe that it should be done under various privately-owned organizations and those who believe it should be done under public ownership and organization; and governments, like that of the United Kingdom, which feel the need for public ownership, international ownership and administration, are afraid that the privately-owned set-up would result once again in a great private cartel that might even restrict production rather than expand it and thus defeat the very objective that this great Schuman plan should have in mind.
Then we have the European economic commission of the United Nations, and the other organizations that are subsidiary to the U.N., all of which are working for international co-operation and which are all to the good. No responsible political party and no responsible parliament can fail to recognize that the world today is divided into two parts. We have not hesitated to state where we stand in this matter. We stand with those forces that are determined to retain, to expand and to promote everywhere the democratic ideals of human right and of fundamental freedom. We have recognized and have stated that the cold war is due to the fact that the new imperialism-I think that is the correct description of it-of the U.S.S.R. and its ruthless exploitation of the communist parties everywhere in the European and Asiatic countries are the major threats both to democracy and to peace. We have therefore supported the Marshall plan-and are continuing to do so-the Brussels treaty and the Atlantic pact, all of which seek to unite the democratic world, both for its own defence and also-something which is part of its

defence, of course-for possible international co-operation in the economic field. That is not only the policy of this movement; incidentally it is the policy of the democratic socialist groups and parties throughout the whole of western Europe and indeed the whole of the world. At the same time,_ in common with such parties, we will continue to oppose anything that seems to be contrary to the principles of the United Nations charter and to the aims of international economic co-operation. We believe that it is equally important to stand against pressures of capitalists who would try to rebuild the world on the old plan of economic imperialism of the pre-war sort and those who want to control the world under the new type of imperialism that is promoted by the Soviet union and her satellites at the present time. We believe that the thing we must do is to join together with all democratic countries in the world in standing firmly against any infringement of freedom and democracy, from whatever quarter it may come.
We are glad indeed that the government, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has consistently supported the United Nations and its subsidiary organizations. We think that this country more and more should endeavour to see to it that all the positive agencies of the United Nations should be strengthened and should be used. What we want to see, of course, is the prestige of the United Nations restored at once to the extent to which it has been lost; and I think there has been a loss of prestige in the last year or two. But most of all, we want to see the prestige of the United Nations greatly increased. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) mentioned the recognition of the new government of China. That, of course, has been a matter of discussion and controversy in most democratic countries. But it seems to us that when we fail to admit that the new government of China is in power we are cutting ourselves off from four or five hundred million people in Asia.
After all, we have in the United Nations governments that are perhaps more thoroughly dominated by the communist party than is that of China. In this I find myself reinforced by the opinions of Nehru, the government of the United Kingdom, and other people throughout the world who believe that recognition under international law does not mean that recognition of a country implies approval of its government. However, if we want to maintain contact with this great country in Asia, then we should reconsider our position in respect of the new government in China and grant it recognition.
External Affairs
In passing may I observe that I believe a new attempt should be made at the forthcoming meeting of the assembly to reach an agreement on the thorny problem of atomic energy. In a speech over the radio by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) some time ago he seemed to imply that there might be some modification of the position that had been taken, and that there was hope that with some modification agreement could be reached. We have regarded it as essential that whatever is done shall include within the agreement the right of the United Nations authority engaged in atomic energy inspection to be free at all times to examine within every country any atomic energy project and, indeed, anything which may look like an atomic energy project, including the mining of the radioactive material.
I hope a new attempt will be made, because our people are greatly disturbed. Recently a petition was circulated across Canada for the banning of the bomb. In my opinion the petition was deceptive because it excluded the one vital thing, and indeed when it was first presented to me in draft form I refused to endorse it unless a clause were inserted demanding the right of unrestricted inspection in every country of the world by a United Nations commission. Without that, in my opinion the banning of the bomb or the signing of petitions of this kind would not only be ineffective but would lull us into a false sense of security. I wanted to say that, although the matter was not discussed this afternoon.
Economic co-operation must be stressed by the representatives of Canada. I know Canada has been interested in article 2 of the treaty, from the beginning. So far as those of us in this party are concerned, we have laid great stress upon it both in the house and in the country because, after all, to the extent that the nations can improve their economies, just to that extent are we strong and to that extent can we remove the causes of discontent in which some totalitarian ideology may take root and flourish. Again I use the expression "'some totalitarian ideology," because, while we may be concentrating upon the communist ideology and its totalitarianism, we must not forget that there is a real danger that, given the right conditions, we may see a revival of something resembling fascism or nazism in European and, indeed, Asiatic countries.
Consequently we need to stress that, as quickly as possible, the economic conditions of the various countries shall be greatly improved. Apart altogether from

External Affairs
the Schuman proposal of international development and control of iron and coal and steel, I believe we need to go beyond that and have some international arrangement so that transport, electricity and some of the other vital and fundamental aspects of our economic life may also be utilized and controlled socially and internationally.
The Schuman plan, in other words, is in our opinion a step in the right direction, and we support it; but it does not go far enough to meet the needs at the present time. Although I do not wish to discuss the matter in detail this afternoon, there is of course the matter of co-operation in all phases of world trade, to improve the trading relationships of countries so that, for example, they may have access to our food supplies, such as wheat, and we may have access to some of the things they produce and which we could use, such as vegetable oils, perhaps, and even raw rubber-although we have a synthetic plant. There would be numerous other commodities which, if available, would enable us to improve our standard of living. Together, then, we could guarantee higher standards and greater freedom for all mankind.
At all times Canada should encourage the forces of progress, wherever they exist, and assist everywhere in the realization of that part of the United Nations charter which calls for the recognition of human rights and fundamental freedoms. If we are going to have racial equality and religious freedom we must see to it that we have no prejudices and intolerances in our own country. In other words, example is better than precept. Every time we permit in our own country something which looks like intolerance, or the refusal to recognize certain democratic rights of association, of speech, of worship or of religion, it is used by the enemies not only of our own country but of democracy throughout the world.
We need political democracy and we need economic democracy as well. We talk about raising the standard of living, so I regret very much that some few months ago our government did not support wholeheartedly and fully the food and agriculture organization plan for distributing food to the needy people of the world. As a matter of fact in the economic and social council Canada opposed international action to maintain full employment.
I think that not only is that a mistake, but that it casts a reflection upon the good faith of our country in connection with its international efforts for a better world. Apart from the North Atlantic pact, which 
I believe, as the minister said, is an essential part of the United Nations, we should press constantly for the establishment of an international police force under the security council, so that a nation like this, or any other nation in a similar situation, may not have to expend so tremendous a proportion of its manpower, its energies, its basic resources, and what we might call its wealth, upon preparations for military defence. Indeed, those preparations for military defence may very well place in danger the very cause that we have at heart, but as long as we have no security through the security council of the United Nations we must consider ways and means of defending our own country and assisting in the defence of the group of countries with which we are associated.
I welcome the decisions that have been made over the months for the north Atlantic group of nations to co-ordinate their defence preparations, and I believe that Canada must carry out fully her obligations within these agreements and understandings; but I hope the time is not far distant when these obligations will be carried out under the aegis of the security council of the United Nations.
I was glad the minister stressed what he called the division of effort. I think those were the words he used, or they were words to that effect. Indeed this is a new form of division of labour in the world so that we and other nations can decide what we can do best. I held the view, even before the last war-sometimes I was criticized for having said it-that Canada's best contribution could be made in the realm of economic aid. I still think that, should war break out again, in all probability this country would become a greater source of economic aid than it was in the last war. We might even become the arsenal of democracy. That does not mean that we should not participate in the armed forces of the Atlantic group, but I think we should endeavour to see to it that we play our part in the most effective and efficient way that can be determined in consultation with those nations that are united with us under the Atlantic treaty.
I believe the democratic world has the physical, economic and spiritual forces to win, let us say not the war but the peace.
I have heard, with a good deal of interest, many leading statesmen of the world state, as President Truman stated only a few days ago, that war is not imminent or inevitable. Nothing is inevitable. I still believe that if we remain strong in ourselves, if we improve the standards of living of the people

across the world and strengthen the democratic institutions in this country and the democratic people with similar institutions, war may never come. That is what we should hope and pray for. But of course we should not live in a fool's paradise, believing, while we may think it is not inevitable, that we are not threatened at the present time by the expansionist demands and projects of communist totalitarianism under the Soviet union. As days go by we must be vigilant lest we find that we are threatened by the expansionist ideas of other great countries in the world. I believe that if we use the economic, physical, spiritual and moral resources that we have we can win through and with like-minded peoples maintain the peace of the world.
Then we might as a nation assist in building a world society from which war will be banished permanently and in which all the peoples of the earth may live in peace and freedom. That of course is what the minister visualized during the course of his remarks -one world. Undoubtedly the day will come when there will be just one world, but we must make sure that we are laying a foundation for a democratic and free world. When there is government at the international level, when there is a freely elected parliament of man, then we shall have achieved the age-old desire of men that war be banished from the world.
As I close, let me emphasize that I believe that that can come only when the resources of the world are used to the advantage of all the peoples of the world and when the standards of living of the world have been raised and poverty, misery, want and disease, as far as those evils are undeserved, have been banished for ever from our midst.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the statement made this afternoon by the minister of external affairs and, as was so well said by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I look forward to the supplementary statement to be made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) following his return from a long journey to India, New Zealand and Australia. While it is in mind, may I say that I would like to have had the minister explain a little more the statements or declarations that came out of the meeting at London having to do with the relationship of the policy laid down there to Africa and the development of the colonial possessions of the various countries in that continent, which I understand has as its objective the final independence of those colonies. Naturally Canada is not very much 55946-203
External Affairs
interested in the continent of Africa, especially as far as colonies or possessions are concerned, but we do have an interest in that we will share, as a member nation in the Atlantic union, in the responsibility when action is contemplated in that country.
The trouble I usually find with the pronouncements that come out of London or ministers' conferences or Atlantic pact meetings is that they are couched in language that nobody can clearly understand. I do not know whether that is done deliberately or whether it is unavoidable, but the fact is that I find they are usually capable of many different interpretations. I wonder if the people who draft them do not expect the average citizen, and I am only one of them, to experience some preconceived emotional reaction rather than to understand some of the objectives we are really struggling to achieve.
I have been watching the press ever since the minister went to London and have been reading the pronouncements that have been made. I must confess that I was not able to make too much of some of them. I found also that the minister's statement this afternoon contained terms that were difficult for the average man to understand fully. I must confess to an occasional feeling of uneasiness about where all these international commitments are going to lead the people of Canada and finally leave us when eventually peace is attained through co-operative action. Sometimes I wonder what the language of the minister envisions. I read a speech he made while he was in London, I believe. On that occasion he spoke of the necessity of surrendering our national sovereignty, as a prerequisite to the achievement of world peace. I wonder exactly what it is that the minister wants Canada to do, and I suppose not only Canada but the other signatory nations. To my knowledge he has never made his views clear in this respect. This is the time to do it, and I think he should do so.
The people of Canada surely ought to know exactly what we are going to be expected to do with respect to the surrender of our sovereignty, our liberty as a nation. I for one am not satisfied with the rather nebulous things that have been said up to this time in that regard. There is a substantial portion of the Canadian people who, like me, wonder if those individuals who are planning the course of world events have not in their minds the final establishment of a world government to which this and all other nations will one day wake up to find that they have surrendered every effective sovereign right they ever possessed. That is the fear in the

External Affairs
minds of a good many people; and, once they are surrendered, it is mighty difficult to get them back.
I speak for all my colleagues when I caution the minister to look out. We think that Canada should be prepared to co-operate with the Atlantic community nations and other nations of the world-but of course we are speaking now more particularly of the Atlantic nations-to the fullest possible extent in any bona fide effort to bring peace and security to this old world. Canada has always conducted herself in the past in such a way that our reputation for honesty and trustworthiness is well known, and is never doubted by anyone in the whole world. That being the case, I contend it cannot be necessary for us to surrender permanently any part of our sovereignty. Our word is our bond. Our actions in the past have so often spoken for us that we should never have to put up any further security to seal our good intentions. Therefore in any integration of our economic and military strength with those of other nations we demand that every safeguard be set up so that the future will not find us short as to our right of self-determination in very important aspects.
The minister should make himself crystal clear as to what he expects Canada and other nations to do in the surrender of their sovereignty. I maintain that the American nations -and I mean all the American nations-must preserve their liberty and never be found in a position where they cannot order their own affairs as they want to order them when it becomes necessary for them to do so, as it doubtless will.
Canadians generally will be pleased to hear that the policy to be followed by the Atlantic nations is not a strategy of, as the minister said this afternoon, the liberation of European countries after occupation and destruction. If he did not use these words he at least implied that the strategy to be followed would be one of defending rather than rescuing. I am all for that, but let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that that is the spirit of the British commonwealth at its best. The British commonwealth has always held defending rather than rescuing as a tradition. That is the principle by which the British commonwealth grew and waxed strong in right and justice.
It must also be comforting for people generally to know that the nations of the north Atlantic union are showing considerable inclination to plan their defences as a team. I do not think that there is any question about the necessity for the strongest and closest possible team work. No doubt the closer and more effective the co-operation amongst these

nations the less social and economic disruption there will be within them. No people can be counted upon to do their best if they are discontent or at the point of protesting against the economic burden. The minister said in his address this afternoon that the north Atlantic nations are not concentrating merely on military preparations for strong defensive measures. That was pleasant to my ears. He declared that due regard would be had for the economic and social stability of the member nations now and in the years to come. We Social Crediters as you know, Mr. Speaker, have consistently taken the position that our contribution to the Atlantic pact, and to movements for world peace and security, cannot be very great or effective unless we keep the production of every kind of wanted material and service at a very high level. That is Why, in the course of the budget debate this year, we advocated the setting up of a commission to survey Canada's potential productive capacity in order to make sure that we are not overlooking something, to make certain exactly where we stand with respect to our policy to produce the things that we and the world need.
Not only that; we need to know to what extent we can take advantage of our capacity to produce. That is why we have constantly laid emphasis on production. We are glad to see that very important studies are going on at the national research council. There is a committee now studying the affairs of the council. Just the other day when we visited the laboratories on Sussex street we saw some things that gladdened my heart at least, and made me feel very proud of what that body is achieving. One thing that impressed me was that there are certain studies going on with respect to the ability of Canada to become self-sufficient in the production of oils and fats. It was most impressive when I saw what they were doing. I found, for example, that certain scientists are pressing forward with all their strength and ability to help Canadians to know that we have right within our boundaries the source of all the fats and oils that we need for food purposes, as well as those that are being developed in the west for industrial and home use.
I was amazed to find, for example, that we had made considerable strides towards almost self-sufficiency in cooking fats through the use of such common things as rapeseed of which we can produce an almost limitless abundance. They have even gone so far as to recover quantities of palatable and edible cooking fats from the lowly stinkweed and mustard seed that we thought hitherto were just a nuisance to man instead of being a potential blessing if we use them rightly.

There are so many other things that we are finding out, but I heard one of the scientists say, "it burns me up when I find I cannot impress people in this country with the necessity for using these things." It is easy to go out and buy when you have the wherewithal to buy. It is another thing to produce. The mark of a successful nation, of a nation full of vitality, is its ability to make use of the things that are at hand. The only way we can do that is to concentrate our attention upon the findings of the national research council and others who are engaged in investigations of that kind; then, when the information is disseminated, try to direct the minds of our industrialists and our people generally into those channels where they will believe that they should be using Canadian products in so far as they possibly can. Some day we might be called upon to fall back on our own resources, and then if we have the know-how we might be able to prevent unnecessary suffering that might result from impotence.
The minister said little about Germany. I had hoped he might be able to throw a little further light on what he was able to give us in the external affairs committee not long ago. Since he appeared before that committee I believe there have been some important developments, especially in eastern Germany. We are told now that it is known the Russians have been able to organize a fairly substantial army. They call it a secret police body, but in reality it is an army. Just how the presence of that army in eastern Germany affects the security of the people in western Germany, it seems to me ought to be given the most careful consideration. I do not know whether the minister has anything further on it; but, if he has, I for one would certainly appreciate some statement with respect to it when he speaks.
I should also like to have him give us something about the way the western nations are making headway against the determined drive by Russia to win Germany over to the Russian way of thinking; whether or not the combined communist-nationalist ory that is arising in eastern Germany is beginning to take hold in the minds of the people in western Germany. The people of Germany are susceptible to that sort of thing, and especially are they swayed by anything that has the touch of nationalism, particularly nationalism for Germany. It might be that the minister has something he could say to reassure us in that respect, but perhaps he has not.
I should like to join with the member for Rosetown-Biggar in pointing out that, when 55946-203^	|
External Affairs
the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations suggested the world pool idea for the distribution of surplus food, and then the officials of the international monetary fund were allowed to influence them against it, that division of the United Nations lost a great deal of prestige. We have argued this matter many times, but somehow or other there seems to be a disposition on the part of the officials of this country at least to support the action that was induced by the officials of the international monetary fund. The time is coming when that international pooling will prove to be an absolute necessity; it is not far ahead. I am satisfied that the officials of this country who have charge of these affairs must, sooner or later, come to see that that is the only solution to this recurring problem of surplus food materials. The sooner we get at the setting up of that organization the better it is going to be for us all. I know the minister has had little, if anything, to do with that part of our international relations, but 1 merely echo what the member for Rosetown-Biggar said in his address. It is a very important consideration in future international relations, and may well become one of the great factors upon which international peace and security will be based.
I shall conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I think Canada ought to be prepared to go all-out in its efforts to co-operate to the fullest possible extent with the Atlantic nations in* their efforts to achieve world peace and security. I will back the minister in anything he does to achieve these worthy objectives. But it seems to me that one of our most important considerations is now being neglected. I have not heard anything coming out of any of the United Nations organizations, much less the Atlantic union, to the effect that one of the things we must do, if -the nations of the world are going to get out of the present impasse and clear away the clutter and debris of the cold war, is to get back to the rule of law. That does not mean just the rule of national law or international law. It has far wider implications than that. Every single blessing that man enjoys is predicated upon a law. If the laws upon which those blessings are predicated are broken, we cannot enjoy the blessings. You can see that in every phase of our activity, our human relationships. We have had floods in our country. I am just as satisfied as I can be that fundamentally those floods that have occurred in Manitoba came as a result of a broken law:	men defying the laws of
nature, denuding the forests or ploughing up lands that ought to have been left to grass so as to restrain the run-off; that is only an

External Affairs
example. The depletion of our forests is another example of an instance where men are setting themselves up as arbiters, and are defying the natural and fundamental laws. So it is with every aspect of our endeavours with human relationship. I believe that as a nation we ought to be concentrating upon getting people to realize that until they begin to observe law, in every one of its aspects, we cannot hope to achieve world peace. I am looking forward to the day when we shall be engaged actively on a program of this kind, and I pledge the minister my support in everything he undertakes that will lead us to that goal.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: External Affairs
by the powers that have control over him now and which apparently, for anything we can see, will control him for an indefinite future. But there he is, and one must go on hoping that there will be means of gradually influencing him, just through events as they pass.
I was greatly interested to find that Gouzenko somewhere said that the thing which convinced him finally that there was something genuine about our way of life, and that it was not all a gigantic hoax, was the election of 1945. Apparently he was impressed by finding that the opposition to the government was actually free to go out and express its views. Of course, we should have liked a great deal more freedom, but nevertheless we were on the whole comparatively free. That is a thing which is worth remembering. It is worth our remembering also how many people who get to this country from the other side of the iron curtain escape before their time comes for going home; and of course the very existence of the curtain itself holds out some hope they believe our way of life is what we believe it is.
To revert to what the hon. member for Peace River said, it we really practise the rule of law, if we really practise racial non-discrimination-and incidentally, that appears to be one place where we have something to learn from the Russians, as I understand it-and the other things, then it may be that there is hope in that direction.
In that connection, I should like to read a word or two from an authority which you will all be interested in and will all respect. The other day Sir Alexander Cadogan, speaking to the graduating class at McGill university, had some wise words to say. He spoke about the need of our being tranquil. He spoke about the need of not giving way to excitement and nervousness. He said quite frankly that we might have many years in which to control ourselves in the same kind of tense situation that we have now. Then he said this, which I thought was most interesting, and I am reading from the Montreal Gazette of May 30:
He warned against fatalistic despair and a current danger of ''too easy and hazy optimism, of rather loose and too hopeful thinking." No early or easy solution could be expected; it might take generations to reach the goal.
Meanwhile, free nations should do all possible to provide themselves with defence against attack.
Then there is this part that I thought was particularly apposite, and particularly practical if you take the long view:
And a positive effort should be made to convert other nations to freedom and out of tyranny. "If we the free nations can put our house in order,

labour without ceasing to develop our own resources in peace, contrive that benefits are justly shared, show that our way of life can bring happiness, that freedom of belief, freedom of speech, the right to question and criticize make for material and moral progress and strength," he said, "then it may be that we shall convert others by the teaching of hard facts which cannot forever be suppressed, and that those others may refuse longer to live under the tyranny that now oppresses them."
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are not prepared to believe that there is something in that, it is hard to go on believing anything at all; and so I put it before you.
I think I have nothing further to add except to say that I think the advice from this great diplomat who, I suggest, has had to "take it", as we say, from the Russians at numerous international conferences in a way that passes my understanding, is something that we can well consider; we may well mark his words. I add that to what I said earlier about defence, and I will close by reminding you of these words that we have heard quoted quite often, and I am going to venture to make one small change in them. You will remember the line from one of Shakespeare's historical plays: "Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety." Nobody now believes that there is any great safety to be plucked but we perhaps might greatly daring venture to change the line to read: Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, courage.


Mr. White (Hasiings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, there is another matter to which I wish to refer, if no one else wishes to speak on this present topic.	.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Secretary of State for External Affairs wishes to speak on this subject, he should do so before we change to another subject.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question. Is it understood that as soon as this debate finishes we will go into external affairs, call one item and carry on the discussion?


Howard Charles Green: No.


Alphonse Fournier: No. The minute this motion carries we will call an item in a new department, the Department of the Secretary of State. That item will stand. I understand that if the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) speaks on another subject, it will be impossible to continue this debate.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, if that is so, I would like to make a few comments on the minister's speech. I feel that all is not nearly as well as it ought to be in connection with our external affairs. Somehow or other I get the idea

that you cannot rely on what men say publicly nowadays, that what they say when they are preparing to go to a San Francisco conference or to a Bretton Woods conference or to some other conference is deliberately designed to veil the truth and to convey, to people who hear and read, something which is altogether different from the facts that underlie what is being said.
I believe that in the case of the Atlantic pact and the developments going forward before us at the present time a similar thing to that is going on. So that the great rank and file of the people simply do not know what is being plotted against their peace. I should like to devote some time to a discussion of that general point of view. I may be wrong, but I am very much afraid I am right.
I should like to refer to an article appearing in the Christian Science Monitor of May 27, 1950, page 1, by Roscoe Drummond. From that article I should like to read several quotations which I believe will make very interesting reading for the folks who live out in the country and who do not ordinarily have a chance to read the news as near, shall I say, the root of things. They will be surprised when they hear what Mr. Roscoe Drummond thinks ought to come out of the apparently innocent-looking economic proposals of this most laudable Atlantic pact, which has promised us everything but the millennium, just the way the United Nations did-everything but the millennium. And the Bretton Woods agreement-all we needed to do was to sign that worthless thing, and immediately we would have no more trouble at all, financially and economically! That was just the beginning of all our troubles!
And this is another of the same kind. May I read from this article. These are the things which Mr. Roscoe Drummond thinks ought to be achieved in order thoroughly to implement the economic proposals which constitute an integral part of the Atlantic pact:
1.	To hold more frequent meetings of the Big Three foreign ministers in order to concert American, British and French foreign policy.
No serious objection to that.
2.	To build up the machinery of the North Atlantic peace alliance so that it can begin to play an economic and political role, not merely a defence role.
What is envisaged by that economic role? What is envisaged by that political role? I am deeply concerned to know what they mean. Then:
3.	To put American military leadership at the top of a new supreme western defence staff to bring about a totally integrated Atlantic defence.
External Affairs
What is the meaning of "totally integrated"? I wish I knew.
4.	To seize moral and intellectual initiative in the cold war and keep before the whole world the peaceful purposes of the free nations.
Just as though we needed anything to tell the world what our peaceful purposes are. Dear me, we have been voicing them abroad, all over the world, for several years. If they are what we say they are, everybody ought to know by now.
5.	To bring Germany into full-scale peaceful partnership economically and politically, with the west.
"Full scale peaceful partnership economically and politically"-sounds very beautiful, but what does it actually mean? Then, a little further on, he begins to particularize. These are the things he would have done if we brought these beautiful words into some sort of implementation:
1.	To make the United States nearly a full partner in the development of a union of the western nations.
Now, what would that union be like? What would be meant by "a full partner", or "nearly a full partner"? That is not made clear at all. He does not try to make it clear. It seems to me that we in this debate right here and now ought to know something about what these things mean. Then:
2.	To require Britain to decide before long whether it is going to play a role of active leadership in western Europe or whether it is going to force France and Germany to seek a settlement by themselves.
What is meant by "a role of active 'leadership in western Europe"? Why in the world should there be any group of people whose business it is to be "requiring" Great Britain? This kind of thing absolutely astounds me. Here is a nation that stood out to save mankind twice since the turn of the century, and impudent people like this are talking about requiring her, as though she did not have sense enough to know what she wanted to do, and enough intelligence to go ahead and do it. One would think that the world's major villain was Britain, that she had been responsible for all the ills of mankind for at least two hundred years, instead of having been the saviour of mankind twice in. our generation.
It is time we knew something about what all this means. Then he asks this question:
3.	Will the United States become a partner in the unification of the western nations?
There is the word "unification" again.
No theoretical answer would seem possible at this stage. But events are moving in that direction.
And then, further down:
It is becoming evident that no realistic defence of western Europe can be had unless it is organized

External Affairs
economically and politically as well as militarily, with America as a participant, not merely as friendly counsellor and aide.
How in the world was it that we came successfully through two great wars in the last fifty years, if it was impossible to organize for successful war, without the ghastly thing which this man envisages? How did it happen? We came through successfully, and Great Britain led us.
It is astonishing, is it not, that, as soon as the United States is to lead, she cannot do the job without all these complications. This is really something that needs a complete explanation, I would imagine. And then, here again:
M. Sehuman, in his plan to pool French and German coal and steel production-into which he invites all others who would join-has put the issue in so concrete a form that the British government almost inevitably will have to give a conclusive answer in the next few months.
What does this mean? Does it mean that once again Great Britain is the archvillain in the piece and that all the virtuous nations such as France, the United States and Germany have got to devise means of forcing Britain to declare her hand and to do their will? Again it says:
-and this will effect the whole range of British association with the continent.
That is a most astonishing remark to make. And then again:
There is every reason to believe that M. Schuman's proposal to pool French-German coal and steel production is designed not to keep Britain out of the continent but to encourage, even to stimulate, it to come in.
In the moment or two I have before six o'clock I should like to lay this fact down, one which I think is quite obvious: Along about 1940 or 1941 we began to find propaganda coming through all the newspapers of the land, and especially through United States newspapers, to the effect that the major objective of the war was to disintegrate the British commonwealth. That kind of propaganda has continued right up to the present time.
If the men who were guiding and inspiring that propaganda are the men who are guiding and inspiring the proposals in connection with the Atlantic pact, then, Mr. Speaker, I submit there is grave cause for warning.
The one power that under God has been equal to the task of saving the world twice in fifty years must be destroyed so that she cannot save the world again? I shall continue my remarks after the dinner recess.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Mr. Blackmore.l


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock I was discussing what I feared to be the dangerous implications in what is being said and what has been said in respect of the Atlantic pact. It is not that I desire to oppose anything which appears to be genuinely and scientifically founded on a basis of fact and which gives out frankly all those facts, which explains those facts to the people and shows how its proposals will overcome difficulties which have lain at the base of war, but none of all these good qualities are observable in anything which has emanated as yet from the Atlantic pact or any discussion thereof. I now propose to go into some detail in respect of the matters which I raised.
First of all I should like to take what are likely to be the results of the economic clauses proposed in the Atlantic pact, if the hints which appear in the newspaper reports which I quoted1 before six o'clock happen to be founded upon reality. Before we take up what might be and what look as though they will be the results of the economic clauses of the Atlantic pact, may we consider for a minute or two what could be if there were an Atlantic organization soundly based. I believe people the world over realize what could be and they are longing and praying in their hearts and trusting that the men who are charged with the responsibility in respect of their affairs in these terrible times will be actuated by genuine and honourable motives to bring about what could be in, the world.
We could have a system of mutual aid similar to that which obtained during the war and as a result of which and by the use of which we could have an era of freedom from the danger of international trade competition such as the world has never known. We could have a distribution of purchasing power within each nation on the basis of Social Credit proposals, which I do not propose to discuss. We could have the creation and distribution of purchasing power internationally as though the Social Credit system were going to be applied internationally, which it could be, but which again I am not going to discuss. The result of the application of such a system would be the expansion of productive power and the expansion of the ability of the people of the world to use that productive power. We could have in this world an abundance, or we could have abundance in any portion of the world which we organized into a community such as the

Atlantic pact community, the British commonwealth, the United States or the Dominion of Canada.
But we find not the slightest hint that any one of all the men who have to do with organizing in connection with the Atlantic pact or the United Nations or any of our international organizations contemplates or would tolerate the introduction of such a system of distribution and the consequent encouragement of production. On the contrary, we find a stubborn refusal on the part of those men to even discuss these matters. As a result what is going to follow? If we do not have an expansion and abundance, we shall have restriction and scarcity. Is that what is going to come out of the Atlantic pact? Let us see.
First of all, because we will not adopt a scientific method of distribution we are bound to have a restricted economy and loss of freedom. Let us see what evidence we have that such a thing is being contemplated and is ready to be implemented. I should like to quote from an article headed, "Britain submits objections to the Schuman steel pool plan" which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor of May 29, written by Volney D. Hurd, as follows:
The Schuman plan calls for an overall authority able to override the various participating governments in the field of coal and steel.
I quote again:
The Schuman plan calls for an arbitrator who would be given the right to make a final decision in the case of a difference between the powers. This, in effect, puts the final sovereignty into the hands of a single man.
Are we to believe that the minister of external affairs and the government of Canada are solemnly and sincerely supporting a proposal under which that can become the case? In our British nations we have fought a thousand years to free ourselves from the domination of one man, and now with reckless fanaticism we have the men in charge of the great British nations actually contemplating, in a fatuous manner, the placing of their collective interests and welfare under the control of one man over whom they can exercise no possible control, either in the matter of his appointment or that of his responsibility after he is appointed.
These men come and tell us that that is the only possible solution they have for war, that that is what the Atlantic pact contemplates! I wonder what has become of my admirable French Canadian friends who on every occasion stand up and fight for provincial autonomy. They stand up here in the house occasionally and seek to break themselves further away from the British connection
External Affairs
because they say it is imperialism. Yet they sit tamely and allow imperialism beyond anything the world ever dreamed of to be contemplated right before their eyes. Merely because that imperialism masquerades behind an international front called an Atlantic pact or a United Nations organization! It is high time that the people of this and other nations began to give some attention to what is going on. For example the Schuman plan proposes complete control by a single man over coal and iron. How would Canadians like to be told how much coal or steel they may or may not produce? Just imagine a man issuing an edict from Geneva telling us if he chooses to do so, for example, that we must cease to produce coal in Canada and buy it all from the United States, or cease to produce iron and buy it all from Great Britain. That is implied as clearly as day in the quotations I have read. How would we like to have some one man able to tell us whether we could or could not produce lumber, wood pulp or textiles? It is all implied in those passages I have read, and if the minister cannot satisfy us that those passages do not apply then undoubtedly we must assume that they do.
Suppose we have one man in charge of all these things. I ask where can there be found on earth a man informed enough, wise enough, unselfish enough and free enough from external and hidden influence to govern a dozen nations in respect of trade and industry? Hon. members sit here in the house and find a single minister having more than he can do to handle one department in one nation like Canada. Imagine a man undertaking to handle the trade and industry of seven, eight, nine, ten, twelve or fifteen nations!
Who will control that man if he is chosen? There are three groups, any one or all of which may control him. The first one is the United States of America, the second is international finance and the third may be any one of two or three other evilly disposed international powers. Having him in a place where no parliament on earth can get at him directly, he will be as unanswerable to us for his acts as a super-royal commission with its headquarters on Mars,
What could be achieved by such a union as is contemplated by the Atlantic pact? Face the facts squarely. Suppose there was complete unity of the fourteen or fifteen nations it is proposed to unite in the Atlantic pact. What may we expect to occur? Something similar to what has occurred in Canada. What has occurred in Canada? All members of the house who come from any province other than Ontario or Quebec know whai; has happened

External Affairs
in Canada. Control over Canada has come to Ontario and Quebec. What has happened in the United States? Industrial and financial control of the forty-eight states of the United States has got into the hands of three or four powerful industralized states in the northeastern part of that country, and all the efforts of all the other states put together cannot remove it. What nation would become the Ontario and Quebec, or the northeastern states of the United States, in the great super nation, dominion or confederation, that would be formed ultimately under the Atlantic pact? Which ones of the nations that are going to be involved will become the sharecropper states of the United States, the southern states that are a scandal and reproach to that country today because it does not know how to distribute among the southern states the good things the nation can produce? Have hon. members taken a moment to wonder whether that might not be Canada? How recklessly we are approaching this whole thing!
Why should the unity of several of these nations render them more prosperous than they are individually? We will grant that a number of nations working together can form a productive unit such as the United States, but the United States has not solved the problems which are just wrecking the world. She has not solved the problem of distribution. In the United States right now, the greatest nation on the face of the earth, there are at least one-third of the people who constitute the submerged third of which Roosevelt commonly spoke. The United States has not solved the problem that is vexing us internationally.
Why has the United States not been able to bring about the distribution which is desirable in that country? She is able to produce practically everything she needs. She has forty-eight independent nations joined in one, all in complete unity. There are no tariffs between them. There is free trade, about which we hear so much in this house. There in non-discrimination in trade that our ministers are almost fanatically declaiming about to us all the time. There is no difference in their currency. They have one common currency. There is convertibility, unified control, everything. Why should not the United States govern themselves as a veritable Garden of Eden? If the nations in the proposed Atlantic pact become united could they employing the present financial system do any better job of distribution than the United States has done in their country? Who will show how they could or would? I do not think we would be very happy about the result.
I should like to ask what necessary improvement would come about in a military way
[Mr. Blackmore.l
through the union of these various nations with the sacrifice of national sovereignty that would be involved? It has never been shown that their union would necessarily make the whole united group more powerful in a jmilitary way than the group was in the last war or in the first world war. We hear no scientific explanation. The people who are proposing the Atlantic pact just assume that it will accomplish these and these and these results. We are just assuming that along with them, and accepting everything with the most implicit faith, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) expressed himself willing to do this afternoon. It happens that you do not ordinarily get by on just pure faith. You have to have works along with faith!
Most of the talk is completely unrealistic. I challenge any proponent of the proposed Atlantic pact to contradict anything I have said up to the present time and produce the facts and figures to prove what he has to say.
Let us turn to the possible effect on Great Britain. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that the key to our freedom and security today is Great Britain just as she was the key to our security in world wars I and II. If we allow her to be destroyed, to that extent we sacrifice our own probability of security. Great Britain is now beginning to prosper. News reports now show that. There is an article in the Christian Science Monitor of May 29 at page 3 entitled, "Britain begins to bask in warmth of prosperity". There is a comment upon the slowness of recovery, but there is positive recovery at the present time. Why has Great Britain's recovery been so slow? Largely because of the international complications and restrictions imposed upon her as a result of world * war II when the United States insisted on the Washington loan agreement and Great Britain was forced into the Bret-ton Woods and San Francisco agreements, and so on. Every one of them restricted her in her freedom to do as she had done before and made her position ever so much more difficult.
Nevertheless, in spite of that, Great Britain has made a very fine recovery up to the present time, but she is in a more or less precarious state. The Atlantic pact could easily wreck the British economy. For what other reason are the British so careful about entering into this measure? It is not because the British are not as anxious for freedom as the other nations who are pressing her to enter into it. For the last thousand years Great Britain has striven for the freedom of mankind and has been ready to make any sacrifice to obtain it. What is there in the Atlantic pact for the British? Primarily the British require three

things. They desire security of sources of raw materials; they have to have security of markets; and they have to have the ability to compete in their own home market. Is there one single solitary thing in the Atlantic pact which will guarantee or help to guarantee these things to Great Britain? If there is, I fail to find it; and if I fail to find it I believe it is because up to the present time no proponent of the Atlantic pact has given anything like a clear definition of how these things could be accomplished in Britain. May I quote from the article "Britain begins to bask in warmth of prosperity" by William H. Stringer, of the London bureau:
Certainly, it is agreed on all sides, this is no time for relaxing the post-war drive and self-restraint which have built British recovery. Prosperity still is precarious. German and Japanese trade competition must soon be faced. An American recession could shake Britain to its economic roots.
I ask what the Atlantic pact could do to help Britain resist Japanese and German competition. What would it do? What does it propose to do? What do its proponents think they would do? I wager they have never taken the trouble to get down to these matters and think about them at all. They have drifted around, completely drunk with enthusiasm. They have made no proposal, and in what they have said there is implicit no proposal of any concrete value whatever. Up to the present time what has the government of Canada or the government of the United States or any other government under the present economic system done to increase distribution within the nation, except to tax people according to the socialist doctrine and redistribute the results of that taxation? My reply is that they have done absolutely nothing, and I defy any man in Canada to contradict that statement.
Now let us consider such concrete proposals as have appeared in those small portions of the Atlantic pact discussions that have been revealed to us. What is behind the Schuman plan, about which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) waxed so eloquent and enthusiastic this afternoon? Sometimes I find myself quite at a loss to understand how the hon. member can so completely lose control of his mind when he comes to think of anything international. He seems to think that the moment you get into the international sphere you lift your feet right out of the clay which characterizes this mundane world and go flying off among the clouds where everything is lovely and dreamy and misty and nebulous. So he is exuberant about the Schuman plan; but what does the Schuman plan propose, and why? In the first place the Schuman plan recognizes that German competition in steel and coal is now becoming very keen
External Affairs
and very dangerous, That is clearly set forth in a fine article on page 3 of the issue of May 24 of the Christian Science Monitor by J. B. S. Halper. The Germans are underselling home producers in Belgium of such products as nuts, bolts and wrenches by some twenty to thirty per cent, after overcoming an eight per cent customs levy. They are underselling Belgium, in South America, in Switzerland and Holland. They are even underselling in France and Luxembourg. Now the Schuman proposal is designed to get Germany under control so it will be unable to continue to undersell these nations. That is the whole reason and purpose of the Schuman plan. Is that not a magnificent proposal for the solution of the causes of war? Think of becoming enthusiastic over such a nebulous and vaporous thing! That strikes one as being quite ludicrous and fantastic. The Schuman plan is called a bar to growing cartelization, in recent issues of the Christian Science Monitor. Hon. members can get those issues and read those articles.
The net result, as the information comes to us, is that the only thing proposed by the Schuman plan is the control of cartelization and control of the productive capacity of Germany and her ability to undersell other nations. This is the extent of the guarantee of freedom from war! There is a fine article on page 4 of the June 1 issue of this newspaper headed "Schuman proposal aims to check overproduction" which backs up the sort of thing I am talking about. Considering ali these facts, then, upon what is the whole Atlantic pact based economically? It is based merely on restriction of production, scarcity and regimentation. Is this all the people of this generation, after the unbelievable sacrifices they have made in two world wars, can look to as the new heaven and new earth which the prime minister of an earlier day used to promise?
I wish to turn for a moment or two now to the question of the British empire. One of the amazing things to me is that so few people ever take the trouble to say a word of commendation about the British commonwealth. In recent days in this house whenever one speaks of the British commonwealth he tries to leave "British" out of it, and then he tries to say "commonwealth" in a sort of whisper, as though ashamed of it.
What is the minister doing to build up the British commonwealth? As I said before, the greatest guarantee of freedom and prosperity for Canada as well as the nations of the world is the British commonwealth. It is the greatest potential guarantee. It is an instrument which has been tried and proved and found not wanting over the years and

External Affairs
centuries. For one hundred years, from 1814 to 1914, the British kept the world virtually at peace. What happened after the league of nations entered following the first world war, when British power was destroyed largely through the manipulations of the United States? It was not very long until we had another world war, was it? Today the British commonwealth is great in potentiality. The nations composing it are greater in population than those coming under the Atlantic pact.
Then why not organize the nations of the commonwealth? They are willing to work together. They know how to work together. They have shown they can work together. Why try to destroy the British commonwealth and then go racing around hunting a nebulous thing called the Atlantic pact? That is the way any ordinary person will think, I should say. I believe the British commonwealth has a tremendous destiny ahead. I believe the prophecies in the bible indicate that great destiny. Why not endeavour to pursue it, instead of trying to wreck the noble things we have? I want the minister to know straight from the shoulder that there is at least one member of this house who wants him to do everything in his power to cultivate closer relations between the members of the British commonwealth of nations. I want him to know there is at least one member who wants him to do everything in his power to offset the tendency of any organization or individual in this world to undermine the power of the British commonwealth.
I understand there is more than one hon. member feeling as I do, from what I hear about me, and if all the hon. members were here I would wager seventy-five per cent of them would be in favour of what I have said. Yet with the utmost impunity and lack of consideration for the membership of this house and the people of this country, members of this government representing this nation go out and do things that tend to destroy the unity and strength of the British commonwealth. I want the minister to know that I believe in Britain. I believe in her past, in her present and in her future, as I believe in the past, present and future of the British commonwealth. We do not heed to-slap in the face those who propose an Atlantic pact. Let us do anything that will help improve conditions, but let us not permit ourselves to be led into any traps or complications which will limit or hinder us any more than we are now being limited or hindered.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to deal briefly with one or two of the points that
[Mr. Blackmore.l
have been brought forward in this discussion, I shall try to take the advice of the member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), and not allow my feet to get too far off the ground, or allow my mind to wander nebulously into those clouds which are supposed to descend upon us when we talk about international affairs. I should like to assure him also that it is no part of the Atlantic pact, or the idea of any of those who participate in it, to weaken in any way the British commonwealth of nations.


John Horne Blackmore: I am very glad to hear that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) in his statement this afternoon suggested that in opening this discussion I did not leave the house with any feeling of urgency about the matters under discussion. If I did not it was my inability to express my own feelings, because of course there is a very great sense of urgency about this matter. Indeed, as he pointed out, this sense of urgency is likely to continue for a long time. In dealing with these matters, therefore, we have to deal with a situation of continuing urgency. The hon. member referred to that wise speech of the able and experienced Sir Alexander Cadogan, who cautioned us that this period in which we are now may continue over the years, that we would have to approach the solution of the problems which it involves in a spirit not only of urgency but of coolness. I believe he used the word "tranquillity".
The member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), in following me in the discussion this afternoon, asked me some questions which I confess it will be very difficult for me to answer. He asked, for instance, whether we were moving towards peace or towards war. The member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) put the same idea when he asked whether a war was not inevitable. It is indeed difficult to deal with such all-embracing and fundamental questions as those. In my opinion, of course, there is nothing inevitable in human conduct except life and death. War is certainly not inevitable. But the fact is we now live in a sort of twilight zone between peace and war. There are times when we wonder whether that twilight is between darkness and light or between light and darkness. The fact remains that one or the other is bound to follow. If we order our affairs in a wise, firm and unprovocative way internationally, we have no reason to believe that the twilight will not be followed by light. I can assure the house, Mr. Speaker, that I for one do not feel any sense of complacency whatever as I contemplate the international problems that face this country

and other countries. If I gave that impression this afternoon in anything I said, I assure you I did not intend to do so.
It was pointed out this afternoon that statements of principle are all very well, but we do not hear very much in the house about what we are going to do to convert those principles into performance. The member for Peace River (Mr. Low) mentioned that even the language we use in these international documents is ambiguous. I confess that at times at international meetings, where differences of opinion are often important and where the necessity for agreement is so great, there is a temptation to seize on words which may seem to express the lowest common denominator of difference. I do feel, however, that in the recent meeting of the north Atlantic council we did avoid that difficulty and danger in the language of the communique in which we expressed our views. It is straightforward and to the point. I would have thought it could have been understood by all the members in this house. If there are any particular words which seem ambiguous to my hon. friend I hope he will let me know what they are, and I shall do my best to make them clear to him.


John Horne Blackmore: I certainly will, on your estimates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then the hon. member to whom I have just referred remarked, and his remark was repeated by at least one other hon. member, that he was very worried about all this talk of the surrender of sovereignty. What did we mean, and particularly what did I mean when I used that expression? He went on to say, if I recall correctly and if I am not correct I know he will correct me, that North America must preserve its freedom of action; that we were in danger of weakening ourselves by giving away our sovereignty.
I have never been very worried about this danger. I believe, however, that we should not refer so often to the word "surrender" in connection with sovereignty. What we are trying to do in building up international life and international organization, as I see it, is to put our sovereignty to work, to make it' work for us. The only way to do that, as I understand it, is by agreement with like-minded countries, so that we will gain far more from that agreement than we may lose by giving up some of our individual rights. That is the only justification for a surrender of a national right, that we get something more valuable for it. I suggest that is the basis of a good deal of political development. Indeed, it is the basis of the development
External Affairs
which led the colonies of British North America to give up some of their sovereign rights in order to form the Dominion of Canada.
The member for Peel asked me whether we discussed, in London, the question of civilian defence. We did not. It was not one of the subjects on the agenda of this particular meeting. Of course, it is one of the most important subjects that face us in the field of defence. But the first consideration of this subject internationally would be through one of the technical committees, I assume, which have already been set up by the north Atlantic organization. He went on to ask us what our particular role might be in this new concept of what we now call balanced collective defence; and how much it is going to cost us. Those are pertinent questions indeed, but I am sure the hon. member will appreciate the fact that the north Atlantic organization has been in being for just over a year. We signed our pact just about a year ago. During that year we have accomplished a great deal. I believe it has been an important and effective year, but we have not yet reached the point where we can estimate the detailed obligations of each member of the pact from the principles which we have adopted. That is going on now through the agencies which we have set up. I confess, Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer his question at this time in a form which I believe would satisfy him. I would only add that I should think that, whatever the cost may be, it will not be too high, as he admitted, for any member of the group to pay if it preserves peace and guarantees security. I would also feel, as the Prime Minister has indicated on previous occasions, that the cost of a group insurance policy should be less than the cost of eleven or twelve individual policies.
The member for Peel also mentioned China. He wondered whether we had discussed that at the North Atlantic council meeting. I should possibly have pointed out this afternoon that, in addition to our North Atlantic council meeting, there was in London at that time a meeting of the foreign ministers of the United States, Great Britain and France. They discussed a great many questions which were not on the agenda of the North Atlantic council, among them China. I am not, of course, in a position to reveal to the house what their conclusions were, although they were good enough to let us see them, because that is something which they will have to give out themselves. The hon. member for Peel was particularly interested in the possibility of there being some change in United States policy towards China as a result of these discussions. He mentioned a statement of the United States secretary of state

External Affairs
the other day which indicated that the United States, although not recognizing the communist government of China itself, would not oppose the recognition of that government in so far as membership in a United Nations agency is concerned if the majority of the members of that agency voted in favour of the communist government being members of it.


Gordon Graydon: They would not veto it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They would not veto that position. However, as I understand it, that does not represent any change in United States policy over the last two or three months, because I think that was made clear some time ago. The recent statement of the secretary of state does not, I think, mean that there has been any particular change in that situation.
The hon, member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) spoke at some length on the economic obligations of the pact; this matter was referred to by other speakers, and it is indeed an important aspect of the whole affair. He wondered whether we were taking into account, in our plans for national development of our own resources, the obligations which we may have undertaken by article 2. I think I can say, Mr. Speaker, that the obligations that we have undertaken under article 2 are not obligations which would require any special plans for national development, at least until we get more detailed information as to what we will be expected to do as our specific part of this balanced defence. I cannot give any exact information on the point at this time for reasons which I have indicated. When these matters are worked out in detail and the governments concerned come to an agreement as to how they are going to make their special contribution, it may be that we can most usefully contribute, in addition to what we are contributing in other respects at this time, by provision of strategic materials and all that kind of thing; and that may require some special plans on the part of the government. But I think it would be premature to speculate on that point. Certainly until we get more information as to what we should do or might do, speculation would be premature.
Then, departing for a moment from the London meeting, the hon. member for Peel brought to my attention an article in Look magazine on Canadian-United States relations; and I think he asked me whether I felt that that article would cause me to modify in any way the statement which I made in the speech in London. I have seen the article in question. It is entitled "Why

the United States and Canada should be One Country", by Mr. George E. Shea, Jr. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that my attention was distracted when I tried to read it, because on the page opposite the article were some extremely interesting pictures of a movie actress called Miss Lana Turner. For my part I felt that those pictures dealt more impressively, more authoritatively and more truthfully with the subject with which they were concerned than did Mr. Shea's article.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The hon. member for Peel did not see those pictures.


Lester Bowles Pearson: However, I have the manuscript of my London speech, and I should be glad to read from it so that it may be on the record. The hon. member for Peel mentioned it this afternoon but he quoted from an editorial in the Times. I should like to put on the record what I actually did say in London on this matter, and it still represents my viewpoint. I said in London:
Do not, however, over here-
I meant in England.
*-write us off as a former colony going swiftly through a transitional stage of dominion status prior to becoming a United States satellite. Believe me, that is not true, nor is this the destiny that lies ahead of a country whose future is as bright as any in the world. That future is based on national freedom, on self-reliance and on self-respect. It includes the closest possible co-operation with, but not absorption by the United States.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) this afternoon also referred to the important question of atomic energy, a matter which was of course not on the agenda of our council meetings but which must be in the mind of every person these days. He wondered whether we had made any progress in the last few months in seeking for a solution to this vitally important problem. No progress has been made. Though the secretary general of the United Nations has discussed this matter with the governments he has been visiting in the last few weeks, the difficulty that blocked progress two or three months ago still remains, namely the refusal of the government of the U.S.S.R. to allow its representatives to attend the meetings of the committee of five who are searching for a solution to this problem. The refusal, of course, is based on the fact that the Chinese communist delegate has not been admitted to those meetings.
We here have not been happy about this situation and we have been casting about to see if there is any way in which we could get out of this difficulty. We have been in touch with other governments on that point. So far, however, we have not been successful. It is tragic that that kind of political development

should prevent the discussion of such a matter as atomic energy at this time. If we could resume those discussions we would do our best-and I know I am speaking for the other members as well as for the Canadian members of the group-to find out what the foreign secretary of the U.S.S.R. meant last autumn when he said that the government of the U.S.S.R. were now willing to accept a system of adequate inspection and control in return for the abolition of the bomb. He never explained what he meant by that; and until he gives that explanation, it is impossible for us to be optimistic that the Soviet government would in fact be willing to accept conditions which we consider to be absolutely necessary before we outlaw this terrible weapon,


Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister say what those conditions are?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The conditions which have been laid down in a plan to which the great majority of the United Nations members have subscribed include inspection by a United Nations agency, not merely at the suggestion and with the approval of the government of the country in which the installation exists but inspection at any time that the international agency chooses to send its inspectors into that country, with full freedom to visit and to examine what is going on. Until we get that kind of inspection it would be difficult indeed to feel that a declaration banning the use of this weapon and destroying the weapons already in existence would be safe. That is the reason why we have not made more progress. No matter what the members of the communist party and their followers may say, that is the one and, as I understand it, the only great obstacle in the way of some agreement in this matter. But it is a fundamental obstacle that must be removed before agreement dan be reached. I think, Mr. Speaker, that those are among the more concrete points raised during the course of the discussion. I know I have dealt with them only in a superficial way, but there may be an opportunity when my estimates are under discussion to go into some of these matters at greater length.
Meanwhile I should like to end my remarks by saying that we have reason to be encouraged by what we accomplished in London during the recent session of the council, but we certainly have no reason to be complacent about that meeting or about the course of international developments generally.
Bancroft, Ontario


REFUTATION OF ALLEGED MISSTATEMENTS CONCERNING BANCROFT AS A TOURIST ATTRACTION
George Stanley White: Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly to bring to the attention of the house a matter that affects my own riding and various other ridings in eastern Ontario. I refer particularly to those ridings interested in the tourist business. I direct the attention of the house to an article published in a weekly newspaper, the Montreal Standard, in its issue of December 31, 1949, entitled "Bancroft was Tough". This article was written by Mr. Mackenzie Porter. It was slanderous in many respects, untrue in practically every statement made in it and most unfair to all the people of a very large community. It has given the tourist industry much adverse advertising.
One could only wonder how a reporter or a writer, if Mr. Porter can be classed as a reporter or a writer, or the editor of such a Canadian weekly paper could write or publish such an article without first checking or verifying even a few of the glaring untruths and slanderous statements made in this article.


Mr. Gibson:: What is the name of the paper?


George Stanley White: The
Montreal Standard. Everyone admits that the tourist industry is most important to all parts of Canada. The dominion government, all the provincial governments and many of the counties and other associations have their own tourist departments; and these agencies and departments send out books, maps, pamphlets and other literature to all parts of the North American continent, for the sole purpose of advertising our tourist attractions in the various parts of Canada.
Large sums of money are spent by dominion, provincial and municipal governments. For example, a short time ago a sportsman's show was held at Cleveland. The county of Hastings, in which Bancroft is located, had a booth at this show, and had two representatives from the county there over a period of a week. These two representatives were there for the sole purpose of distributing tourist literature and giving firsthand information with respect to the tourist facilities the county of Hastings has to offer.
For a number of years that county has published a tourist booklet consisting of forty-five pages, entitled "The Highlands of Hastings and the City of Belleville". The hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Follwell), who resides in the city of Belleville, only last week sent each member of the House of Commons a copy of this very fine booklet which outlines some of the tourist attractions in the county of Hastings. The Peterborough Examiner each year puts out a very large special tourist vacation

Bancroft, Ontario
edition which covers the tourist resorts in the Kawartha lakes district, and in the county of Hastings. The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) each year sends members of the house a copy of this vacation guide.
I mention these two publications simply to show the extent of the publications and the money spent in advertising the tourist attractions of this section of eastern Ontario. The steady increase in the number of American tourists coming to eastern Ontario, and particularly to Hastings county, and the large number who have purchased land and erected cottages on the sites clearly shows that this method of advertising by means of booklets, maps and advertisements in American papers and magazines has paid good dividends.
It appears to me most unfortunate that at a time when every community which has tourist attractions is doing everything possible to attract American tourists and American dollars to Canada, a large weekly Canadian paper with a wide circulation should go out of its way to publish an article such as "Bancroft was Tough". I am sure anyone reading the article and for the first time learning about this county would never think of going there for a vacation.
Shortly after the article was published I wrote to the Montreal Standard pointing out the many errors, and the nature of the slanderous references. After a long delay the editor published only certain parts of my letter. To date the editor of the Standard has not seen fit to publish an apology to the thousands of Canadians who reside in the Bancroft district for this most insulting and slanderous attack made against the whole community.
I think all will agree that the press of Canada has every freedom; yet I submit that with that freedom goes the responsibility that no paper should use the power of its pages to slander or to hold an entire community up to ridicule and contempt, as has been done by the Montreal Standard. I submit the editor of this newspaper was guilty of the cheapest kind of ethics-if it can even be called ethical -when he printed an untrue, slimy and slanderous story for the sole purpose of attracting attention to the pages of this newspaper, and thereby increasing its circulation.
As for Mr. Porter, who wrote the article, I can only say that I hope Mr. Porter has the guts-and I doubt if he possesses guts of any nature-to return to Bancroft. If he does he will then receive the type of treatment he so justly deserves.
Bancroft is a village of about 1,100 persons. It is located in the northern part of Hastings

county. To show the "very primitive conditions and shanty standards", to use the exact words of Mr. Porter in this article, I would mention that about a year and a half ago a new school was opened in Bancroft. This school cost about half a million dollars, and is the finest of its kind in the province. The attendance at the school is about 400, and already plans are under way to enlarge it. Modem busses bring the children to the school daily from the surrounding districts. This school is equipped with every device and every kind of equipment used in modern education. Bancroft possesses a hospital which is not equalled by those in the cities of Belleville and Trenton, which are also located in the county of Hastings. The village has a very fine community hall, a new covered rink, a fine swimming pool-and I am wondering how many other Ontario communities with 1,100 of a population have a modern swimming pool. A modern paved highway connects Bancroft to the south with Belleville, to the west with Peterborough, and to the east with Pembroke and Ottawa. Modern busses provide daily services to these cities and towns.
The village has the hydroelectric service, a modern theatre, paved streets, a very fine tourist hotel-and yet this is the "primitive and shanty standards" town described by Mr. Porter in his article "Bancroft was Tough". When he was in the village of Bancroft he was shown the school, the hospital, the rink, the swimming pool, the community hall and the other attractive features of the community. However, he chose to ignore all these things in selecting material for his article.
Bancroft is located in the centre of the finest tourist district of Ontario. The altitude is very high, and in that district hayfever is unknown. There are hundreds of lakes, rivers, trout streams, rapids, and other ideal spots, all within the northern part of Hastings county, rugged hills with wide sweeping valleys, with lakes and rivers providing scenery that cannot be equalled anywhere in the world. There is a lake, L'Amable lake, which rivals lake Louise. Nowhere else in Canada will you find such varied lakes with so many game fish. But Mr. Porter did not choose to write about any of these attractions, nor did he mention the thousands of ideal camping and cottage sites which are so attractive to United States tourists, all with fine sandy beaches with pines in the background, all ideal places to spend a holiday. Mr. Porter did not mention one single constructive thing about Bancroft as a community. He was shown some of the finest lodges in eastern Ontario but he made no mention of them.

You might wonder what Mr. Porter did write about this community. He chose to write about sex crimes, illegitimate children, shanty standards, intermarriage, deformities, Indians, liquor and various other matters on the same high level. Here is one choice extract from the article:
The population grew from 6,000 to 18,000, not always through marriage and very little through immigration.
Here is another choice phrase:
The great-grandchildren of the pioneers scratch for a living.
Another choice extract:
Compelled by the poverty of the earth to live on shanty standards, they have become disillusioned.
Another one:
Intermarriage has sapped their vigour and caused much deformity.
Mr. Porter puts these words into the mouth of the Ontario provincial constable stationed at Bancroft:
When I came here this was the most drunken and immoral area in Ontario.
The constable denies ever making such a statement. The article goes on to refer to criminal offences and Mr. Porter states that many of them were sex offences. These few quotations indicate the nature of the whole article and how little Mr. Porter cared about writing of the true Bancroft. As for sex crimes, I checked with the police authorities and found that it was over three years since there had been a sex crime in the district and then the parties concerned came from the highly virtuous and intellectual city of Toronto.
Apparently Mr. Porter was not interested in writing the truth about this community. He wanted something sensational so he used his limited imagination and vocabulary to use every possible degrading word and phrase simply to make copy. If Mr. Porter had been even a fair reporter he might have told the story of Bancroft's part in the war. He would have pleased everyone in the community if he had mentioned in his article that Bancroft had the fine record of having ten per cent of its entire population in the armed forces, and when I say armed forces I mean the active armed forces. He could have told the story of the Bancroft Red Cross, of the Bancroft bond campaigns. He could have told of the splendid work done by the Bancroft legion.
There was a real story in the history of the Bancroft Lions club, in the large sums of money raised each year. This is a service club that built a covered rink, a service club that made a swimming pool possible, a service club that raised thousands of dollars to assist settlers in a township just south of
Bancroft, Ontario
Bancroft who lost their buildings and belongings in a tornado, a service club that sponsors a very fine regatta each year, a service club that provides sports equipment for young Canadians.
These fine community activities did not interest Mr. Porter. Apparently he thought such things lacked colour. He was not interested in the activities of the community in providing proper supervised sports activities for the young Canadians of the community, nor was he interested in reporting the success of such activities which is reflected in the complete absence of juvenile delinquency cases in the district. Apparently Mr. Porter and the editor, with the idea of printing an article that might increase circulation, deliberately chose to overlook and ignore the facts and the true history of the community and to produce an article on Indians, sex crimes and intermarriage.
I suggest to Mr. Porter and the editor of the Standard that they might well read the daily papers of Toronto and Montreal. There they will find daily reports of acts of violence, often murder, and of rape, robbery, theft of cars, assaults on young women and the doings of vicious young city hoodlums who travel in gangs. Where do these crimes occur? Right in the largest cities1 of Canada, cities that pride themselves on being educated and the cultural centres of the nation.
If Mr. Porter and the editor of the Standard wish to do something for the benefit of the whole country then they should write and publish an article that will tell of the true Bancroft. Let them tell of the great attractions there are there. Let them tell of the few places left in Ontario where the beauty of nature is left unspoiled. Let them tell of the place where you will find people who are loyal, who have genuine friendship for their friends. Let them tell the story of the breed of young men that Bancroft produced during the war. Let both these men forget the degrading matters which were included in this article and produce an article about their fellow Canadians of which they may well be proud.
Surely the editor and Mr. Porter are old enough to know that you should never judge a man by the clothes he wears or by the correctness of his grammar, but rather by the contribution he makes to his community. The record of community contribution and progress in Bancroft speaks for itself. I wanted to protest in the strongest way against this article and the serious breach of the freedom of the press by the Montreal Standard in publishing an untrue, an unfair
3220	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act and slanderous article on a very fine, progressive and worth-while Canadian community.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE
[Stage Direction]
412. Departmental administration, $173,295.
Item stands.
Alphonse Fournier: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 252, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935-Mr. Howe-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Constitution of board.
James Arthur Ross: Could the minister state the average total annual world production of wheat, and what percentage Canada produces?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot give that answer at the moment. I shall ask my officials to come down to the floor of the house and hope to be able to give it shortly.


James Arthur Ross: I do not know whether I understood the minister aright this morning, but I believe he said that the Chicago market did not have any bearing on the wheat we sold, that we were getting whatever bids we could. The minister said also there was forty cents difference between the two markets.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thirty to forty cents.


James Arthur Ross: The last quotation over the week end according to the Globe and Mail shows two cents difference between Chicago and Canadian No. 2.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What location? What basis?


James Arthur Ross: Chicago and Winnipeg.
I suppose Winnipeg would be basis Fort William. That is what is in the newspaper quotations for markets.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister explain why the number of members is being raised to five?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difficulty is that the board has taken on additional duties. One of them is to represent Canada at the international wheat agreeement organization which has its headquarters in London, England. Another


is to market coarse grains. There has been a good deal of illness among members of the board, and there have been two or three changes in the board within the last two years. The pressure of work is heavy and, if the board is reduced from three to two, two members are hardly able to keep up with the work of the board. I am asking the house to make provision for two additional members with the thought that perhaps we will appoint one additional member in the next few months. One member of the present board has been in the hospital for the last two or three months which leaves only two members to function. One of them is on his way to England, and the other has been summoned to appear before a committee of the house which leaves no member of the board in Winnipeg to carry on its work. The provision for additional members is simply a precaution which we may or may not take advantage of. It depends a good deal on whether we can find a qualified man available for appointment.


Major James William Coldwell: That seems a very good reason. I wondered if it was to give more representation to the producers of this country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a thought as well, but the main thing is to get men who are competent to sell wheat. I believe my hon. friend thinks that is paramount, and if we can get them from the producers' interests we will of course be interested.


Robert Fair: Can the minister give us the names of those on the advisory committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would refer my hon. friend to page 11 of the annual report of the wheat board which lists the names. They are Lou Hutchinson, Calgary, Alberta; D. I. Walker, Toronto; J. C. A. Nijdam, Winnipeg; F. H. Clendenning, Vancouver; J. Theo Roy, Montreal; J. H. Wesson, Regina; R. C. Brown, Winnipeg; F. Pettypiece, Auld, Ontario; J. A. McCowan, Summerberry, Saskatchewan; P. Farnalls, Halkirk, Alta; and C. E. Hayles, Winnipeg, Manitoba. '


James Arthur Ross: The minister was going to give me an answer about the production of wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The world production of wheat is about 4 billion bushels and Canada produces from 8 to 10 per cent of the total.


James Arthur Ross: Eight to ten per cent of that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Depending on the size of the crop.


James Arthur Ross: There was another question. I asked the minister two or three times, and he made a statement the other day, about

the "have regard to" clause. I know that he now tries to separate this amendment entirely from the United Kingdom wheat agreement but at another time he insisted they were pretty close together. It would have a bearing on this legislation if the minister could tell us whether there is any basis of settlement arrived at as to the "have regard to" clause in the contract.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The "have regard to" clause reads as follows:
The actual price to be paid for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1948-49 shall be negotiated and settled between the United Kingdom and the government of Canada not later than the 31st December, 1947, and prices for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1949-50 shall be negotiated and settled not later than the 31st December, 1948. In determining the prices of these two crop years, 1948-49, and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.
That is the "have regard to" clause in the agreement. I suggest that regard was paid in fixing these prices. The price for the first two years of the agreement was $1.55. After negotiation the price for the third year was fixed at $2, and after negotiation the price for the fourth year was fixed at $2. What does my hon. friend read out of the agreement beyond the fact that the price for the last two years would be settled having regard to world prices in the first two years?


James Arthur Ross: The Minister of Agriculture said they had agreed with officials in Great Britain to extend the final settlement until July, 1950. That is next month. He distinctly made the statement in this house that would be the date for the final settlement if there is to be any further settlement with Great Britain for the difference between the world price and this price. That was the final arrangement as nearly as the house knows it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The matter of the "have regard to" clause was discussed in great detail during our sessions. with Sir Stafford Cripps and other ministers of the United Kingdom government. The whole situation was reviewed. The United Kingdom is just as positive as I have been in my statements in the house as to what the world price of wheat really was in those periods. My hon. friend said the world price was the price in a local market to which Canadian grain is not permitted access. I wonder what the world price would have been if we had been able to ship our Canadian grain to the Chicago market, which he says is the great criterion for world prices. We went over the agreement while in London. We asked the United Kingdom government what further
Canadian Wheat Board Act settlement it is to make on account of the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned. We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister about the world production of wheat and what percentage of that amount the Canadian production constituted. He gave me the answer, and 1 think that is some proof as to what would have happened if we had been using the Chicago market. I do not think that 8 per cent of the world's market would have made the very great difference that he would have us believe.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will excuse me, he is twisting phrases. He did not ask me about the world market for wheat. He asked me about the world production of wheat which is totally different from the world market.


James Arthur Ross: I am not confusing the two at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not stick to one of them?


James Arthur Ross: I asked a direct question and I got a direct answer. I am stating now, in answer to what the minister has just said, that I do not think that the 8 per cent would have made a great difference. The point I want to make now is that I do not recall a difference of 40 cents in recent days between the price of class II Canadian wheat and the Chicago price, which the minister mentioned this morning.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The chairman of the wheat board, who should have some knowledge of these matters, tells me that the difference today is between 35 and 40 cents.


James Arthur Ross: Did he say what prices would be compared to show that difference?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the United States cash wheat price delivered at seaboard as compared with the Canadian cash wheat price delivered at seaboard.


James Arthur Ross: What was the price of Canadian class II wheat last week end?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The price at Fort William two days ago was $2.08, to which must be added about 17 cents, which brings it to $2.25 at seaboard. That is the Canadian cash price at seaboard, and that is about 35 cents under the cash price at seaboard of United States wheat for comparable grade.


James Arthur Ross: I well remember the many promises made in this house by the

Canadian Wheat Board Act previous prime minister and the present Minister of Agriculture in relation to this contract. This morning I read a quotation in which the previous minister of trade and commerce pointed out that the wheat producers were making great sacrifices by entering into this contract, and further that this was the factor that governed the cost of living in this country in those times. That is still true today. The Minister of Agriculture and the then prime minister repeatedly stated, that the farmers who were making those sacrifices would have that taken into account for many years following the war. However, I take it there is to be no further settlement expected from Britain under that contract?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct; but let me point out to my hon. friend that this house did not enter into that contract in a spirit of sacrifice. The leader of the C.C.F. party read an extract from the speech of the leader of the Conservative party of that day in which he said the contract was no good because when the price went down Britain would not honour the contract. He said that very clearly. At that time more people believed that after the war the price of wheat would fall than believed it would rise; and many people entered into that contract in the belief that they were protecting the farmers of western Canada against a sharp drop in price.
No man can look four years into the future with any certainty. I do not mind saying to my hon. friend that I was as sceptical of this contract when it was signed as any man in this house, because I do not like to sell wheat four years in advance of its production. As I said today, I do not like to sell wheat one year in advance of production. It seems very strange that the people who have been most critical of the wheat contract and the way it has worked out are the people who have been most critical of the government for not signing another contract, in other words for not selling n-other crop before it is planted. Well, next year Canada will get the same price for its wheat as any other country exporting wheat. Perhaps that is the complaint of hon. members, namely that there will be no cause for criticism with respect to sales from the new crop, for the reason that the price of Canadian wheat will be no different from the sales of anyone else. I cannot think of any other reason.


James Arthur Ross: The minister said no one entered into this contract with any thought of sacrifice. This morning I quoted the words of his predecessor in announcing the agreement in this house, when he said it was a

matter of sacrifice on the part of our farmers. The quotation is on Hansard and will speak for itself. Is it the idea after this year, then, to trade through the exchange, as they do in the United States? If there is no contract I suppose that is the way the wheat will be sold, within the terms of the international agreement. Is that right?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, sir. The bill we are asking the house to pass this year provides that the wheat will be pooled and sold by the government at the best price obtainable.


James Arthur Ross: Then what about oats and barley? They also come under this; and we have had one year's experience. I remember the minister announcing last June, I think it was, that the wheat board would handle oats and barley this year. I am not saying he has not carried out his promise, but I can tell you it is not what a great many farmers i'n the western provinces thought would be done. When the minister announced that the board was going to handle oats and barley they naturally thought it would be on the basis he now says the board is going to handle wheat. Without arguing the pros and cons I can tell you that many western farmers were very disappointed when they realized the way last year's crop of oats and barley had been handled. That is what I am coming to now; and then I want to ask on what basis these feed companies arrive at a price. Do they have fluctuating prices from day to day, or how do they work it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The condition under which the western provinces agreed to enact complementary legislation to that passed in this house two years ago was that oats and barley would be sold at the best price obtainable on any market. The parties to that discussion were representatives of each of the three governments, the president of the Canadian federation of agriculture, Mr. Hannam, and representatives of other grain growing organizations. The grower representatives attempted to extract that promise from me and the other ministers present before they would agree to pass the complementary legislation. This government did not agree, but indicated that since that was the obvious wish of all the farming interests represented, that policy would be followed to the extent that the overriding national welfare would permit.
That policy has been followed. Grain is offered by the board each day to any buyer who comes forward at a price the board considers to be the best price obtainable that day. The complaints that have been made in this house have not been that the price of coarse grains has been too low. There have been far more complaints that it has been

too high. Nevertheless the board has followed the mandate given it by the grain producers of both eastern and western Canada, that the coarse grains of the prairie provinces should be sold at the best price obtainable.


James Arthur Ross: That is what I am trying to get at. I have asked questions before, and have not had very satisfactory answers as to the handling of these grains. For instance, at my delivery point the best grade of oats was paid for at 52 cents a bushel, on the basis of the board's price. It is true that freight and handling expenses had to be added at Fort William, and I appreciate that through their participation certificates those producers will receive a further payment which the minister has estimated at 10 cents a bushel, though I hope it will be higher than that. Not long ago I listened to an hon. member from eastern Canada, I think it was the hon. member for Russell, which is just outside Ottawa, who stated that at that time-and the price of oats has gone up since then-the same grade of oats were selling here at $76 a ton less a subsidy of $6 on freight, which worked out at $1.45 a bushel. That is a great difference in comparison with what the producers have been receiving, and it is easy to see that there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction felt by the feeders of this country, no matter in what part of Canada they live. That is what I was trying to get some information about, as to how that was to be levelled up or settled for, because I presume the statement by the hon. member for Russell was quite accurate, though I have not checked it. That represents a terrific spread between what the producer has received and what the feeder is paying for the same grade of oats.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Has the government any control over the difference between the price at which the grain is sold and the price at which it is bought?


Clarence Decatur Howe: None at all; that is not within federal jurisdiction. It could not be within the federal field unless the province of Ontario follows the example of the three western provinces and passes concurrent legislation which would permit this government to enter that field.


Mr.   Baler@: Did I understand the hon. member for Souris to say that oats were selling down here at $1.45 per bushel?


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member is probably as good a mathematician as I am; I was not too good a student at school. I said that in a speech delivered by the member for Russell he said that on April 24 this feed cost
Canadian Wheat Board Act a certain price, and a little arithmetic will show how that works out. According to my figures it works out at $1.45 per bushel.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it is a fairly simple problem to know what oats or barley sells for in Ontario. The dealer pays the cash price at Fort William, which is published in the papers each day, with free freight to destination, or practically free freight. There may be some small transportation charges payable, I am not sure about that point. When oats or barley are sold for anything above the price of the cash*.grain at Fort William the difference represents dealers charges. Dealers charges may be exorbitant or they may not. I suggest they are not as exorbitant as my hon. friend would have us believe.


James Arthur Ross: I am just giving you the figures. I am not making any charge about an exorbitant profit. I do know what we are receiving at the delivery point, and I am simply quoting the member for Russell as to the cost right here. Those are the figures.


Mr. Major:: I quoted figures for oats on April 4, and I quoted $1.25 per bushel delivered to the farmers; that was not on rail, but was after the dealer had received them and delivered them to the farmer in eastern Ontario.
While I am quoting these figures I should like to ask the minister if, in setting the prices next year on coarse grains, it could be borne in mind that the price of western grain should be set at a point which would enable the eastern Ontario farmer to use the grain and still market his product at a fair price.


Mr. Bryce:: I want to take part in this debate, because I am the man who started it in the house. At that time the member for Russell was complaining about paying $76 per ton for oats, and there were all the expenses that had to be paid. I said that oats were being delivered to the dealer in eastern Canada for approximately $64 per ton. If one looks up the Winnipeg Free Press or Tribune, one can find that Stanley Jones, president of the Winnipeg grain exchange, said oats were being delivered for $63.32. The oats which were mentioned by the member for Russell gave the dealer a profit of $480 per car. I inquired about the Ottawa and Montreal prices, and they averaged around $70 per ton. There was $6 per ton clear profit, after all expenses were paid.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I point out that anyone who is dissatisfied with the price he has to pay in his district for oats can buy them from the board at the lakehead. The wheat board sells to everyone.
3224	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. Tusiin:: He . would have to buy a carload.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. If any group of farmers is dissatisfied with the price in their locality they can combine together and buy direct from the wheat board.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: What proportion of coarse grains are sold through the Winnipeg grain exchange, 98 per cent?


Mr, Howe:: Not more than 50 per cent of malting barley and perhaps 70 to 75 per cent of the oats are'fcold in the futures market.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Where do they sell the rest of it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is sold direct to the consumer.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Whereabouts?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Wherever he lives. I am not
supposed to know where each buyer lives or what he does with the grain he buys. I am saying that amount of coarse grains goes through the futures market.


Mr. Wright:: The minister indicated that
the board offers grain for sale at all times through different agencies. One of those agencies would be the Winnipeg grain exchange. I should like to ask the minister if at any time the board sold more for future delivery than the receipts of coarse grain during the period in which the sales on the futures market were made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am advised that they have not.


Mr. Charlton:: The minister made a statement that only 50 per cent of the barley was sold on the Winnipeg grain exchange. What percentage of the feed barley was sold on the Winnipeg grain exchange, and what percentage of the malting barley was sold direct to the breweries?


Clarence Decatur Howe: About 80 per cent of the feed
barley was sold on the futures market.


John Alpheus Charlton: That does not answer the
question. If 80 per cent of the feed barley was sold, we know there was a lot of malting barley sold because you are not accounting for the malting barley at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: About 50 per cent of the malting barley was sold on the exchange a>s well. About 20 per cent of the feed barley is sold directly to the feeders. It is sold outside the futures' market, and I do not know who buys it.


John Alpheus Charlton: What percentage of the barley for malting or feed purposes was shipped to the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: About 75 per cent of the malting barley went to the United States, and practically no feed barley.


John Alpheus Charlton: If an eastern farmer owns
and operates a farm in western Canada as well, can he ship grain from that farm in western Canada directly to his farm in eastern Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: It has to go through the wheat board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: He has to sell it to the wheat board and buy it - back from the man who handles it for the wheat board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend can make a very plausible story out of that, but may I deal with it in two parts? First, we will assume that this parliament decided to introduce a compulsory pool in western Canada. This means that every grower in Canada is entitled to the same price for the same grade of barley or oats. I may say that I have heard of this case before. My hon. friend has his farm in western Canada and is, therefore, a western grower. As such he is entitled to the average price for which barley is sold over the year. If he marketed his barley last fall he would get more for his barley from the pool than the market price of that day because there has been a rising market. If he marketed his barley today he would get less from the pool than he would if he could get his grain outside the pool and sell it at current prices. Well, that is pooling.
I sympathize with my hon. friend's desire to get his grain extracted from that pool and sell it independently, either to himself or to somebody else.


John Alpheus Charlton: He is not selling it at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us look at the theory that he would like to get that identical grain down to his farm in Ontario. The only way by which he could get the identical grain would be to put it in a boxcar and ship it direct to his farm in Ontario. If he did that, he would be very sorry. He would receive no freight assistance on it, and he would find that the average cost of the grain in the pool, added to the freight he would pay for shipping the grain down to eastern Ontario, would give him more expensive grain at the delivery point than he can buy locally. So if he were allowed to handle that transaction, his fellow farmers all over western Canada would lose because they all have an interest in grain that is marketed at a high price. They would be the losers. My hon. friend would be a loser because he would take an expensive way to provide himself with coarse grains in eastern Canada.


James Arthur Ross: Somebody questioned the figures I was using. Then the hon. member for Glengarry I think stated that he spoke that day and used the figure of $70 a ton. I will just quote the member to whom I was referring; it was the hon. member for Russell. This is to be found at page 1559 of Hansard of April 4. He said:
Today the bulk car price for No. 3 C.W. oats is $76 a ton at stations in eastern Ontario less a subsidy of $6 per ton.


Robert Fair: May I ask the minister what the average price of class II wheat was during the 1948-49 crop year as compared with the $2 a bushel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot answer that question. My hon. friend can get the information when the wheat board is before the committee on agriculture. I believe that will be on Wednesday.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister said that the wheat board offered coarse grain every day on the market. Do they fix the price at which they offer it, or how do they arrive at it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It depends on the demand. It is sold at the market price of that day.


Arthur Leroy Smith: All right. But they are the only people who have any.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. There are other people.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They are the only vendors. Tomorrow will be Tuesday; that is, with any luck, it will be. I think this is Monday. As I understand the minister, the wheat board tomorrow will offer what? Will they offer so much barley, or how do they do it? Will they offer 10,000 bushels or 20,000 bushels or what do they offer? Surely it cannot be done in that way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They will offer coarse grains to fill the demands of that day, provided they have coarse grains delivered at the lakehead which enable them to offer that quantity.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then the position of the wheat board is this. They do not fix the price at which they offer at all. What they do surely is to take the buyers' bids and, if they have grain in position- I think that is the expression-'-to make delivery, they then go on the buyers' bids, surely. What I mean is this. They do not pick the price out of the air. Or do they follow Chicago or Kansas City or something like that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They offer oats and barley on the market at a price which to them seems a reasonable price in view of several factors. One is the demand. If there is an active demand for barley or oats, that has an
Canadian Wheat Board Act influence. The price on the Chicago market also has an influence, although the two prices are not comparable. Canadian oats and barley have been selling above the Chicago price. The price of American corn is a factor. There are various factors to be taken into consideration. The officers of the wheat board are trained to analyse those factors and to come up with a price.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I know. But surely the price of anything is that arrived at between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Surely their price must be fixed on the applications, orders or offers they have for coarse grains. Is that not the only way it could apply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Whether or not they are a willing seller depends on the offers that are made. They do not accept any offer that is made.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Oh, I know that you do a little "David Hamming". I admit that. You probably try to get them up a cent or something of that kind. But surely the basis of the price at which it is sold depends, to use your words, on the offers they have for the grain on that day or the night before. That must be the basis of it, is it not? What I mean is this. The wheat board do not fix it at all. It is the buyers who fix it. Is that not right?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Thank you very much.


William Joseph Major: The average price was $1.25 per bushel, delivered to my farm. That is at page 1554 of Hansard of April 4. While I am on my feet, let me say this. The minister has I think stated that any group of farmers could buy a carload of feed from the wheat board. Could a farm association in eastern Ontario buy it for their farmers if they wanted to?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Anyone, or any group of people, can buy coarse grain at the lakehead. My hon. friend suggested that the price be held down to a ratio based on the price of livestock. That is one theory of marketing coarse grains, but it is not the theory of marketing that is imposed on the wheat board by the grain growers of the western provinces. If my hon. friend can persuade the growers to accept that formula, the board will be pleased to carry it out.


Robert Fair: If a formula of that kind is considered, I think you will soon have a demand by western hog and cattle growers for the same freight from all points to Toronto in

Canadian Wheat Board Act order to compensate for the privilege that is being asked for by the hon. member for Glengarry.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said "if".


Robert Fair: I appreciate that.


James Arthur Ross: To come back to this wheat deal, I have an article before me. I presume the minister is dependent upon the international wheat agreement to sell this over 100 million bushels of wheat to Britain. That is right, is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am depending on the undertaking that Britain's North American wheat will be bought in Canada, and that the price will be the current price within the limits of the international wheat agreement.


James Arthur Ross: There is not anything that guarantees that anybody must buy the wheat within that agreement. They do not have to accept the wheat, do they? They can fall down?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Collectively, they must buy the wheat at the floor if it is offered to them at that price.


James Arthur Ross: One article is headed "Canada's Wheat Dilemma", and another "Testing the Wheat Agreement?". The latter reads as follows:
There have been some recent signs that wheat is being sold under the international agreement at below the maximum price at $1.80 a bushel (U.S. currency). Practically all the purchases have been of American wheat, particularly inferior qualities-
We know that much of their wheat is inferior to ours.
-and the actual price paid for these substandard wheats was lower than the margin allowed for in the agreement. It is difficult to discern any clear trend from such few facts as emerge about these dealings, and it is well to remember that American domestic wheat is still firm. Importing countries can be required to take up their full quotas only if the price is at the minimum of $1.50 a bushel. In Canada, the "free" market price for wheat has been falling recently, though it is still $2.14 a bushel (Canadian currency). At the moment this is hardly a fair test of the state of the market, since a large portion of Canada's export surplus is withheld for Britain.
The $2.14 figure is the very figure that I have for a day or two on our market here and it is only two cents under the Chicago market. That is rather significant.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What Chicago price? Cash
wheat?


James Arthur Ross: You can quibble all you like about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Cash wheat Chicago?


James Arthur Ross: The other day, yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What other day? It must have been a good many days ago if the cash wheat, Chicago, has been within two cents of the cash wheat Fort William.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I should like to see if I have been all wrong in my idea of wheat. I am not talking about coarse grain. As I remember the agreement with Britain, it was a short sale of roughly 600 million bushels. The argument advanced was that it was a sale on a recession in price, as I remember it, to begin with. Let me give the government and parliament credit for trying to find a steady long-term market. But that whole agreement, surely, was based on the anticipation as then set out by the then minister of trade and commerce, involving a depreciation in the price of wheat over the years. I do not think I am wrong about that. That was my understanding, in any event.
Time has shown that that anticipation was wrong; the wheat market, instead of falling, advanced. Therefore there can be no doubt, first, that the farmer selling wheat under that agreement, having due consideration for the "have regard to" clause, lost money. There can be no doubt, having made a short sale and the price of wheat having advanced 

never mind the price per bushel-the producer of the wheat took a licking. Let me, in opposition, accept whatever responsibility I may have; but the simple fact is that the producer lost a great deal of money because we made a short sale of 600 million bushels anticipating a falling market-and that was completely wrong. The market advanced, and therefore he did lose a good deal of money. Am I wrong in any of the statements I have made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has his thesis; but the fact is that the sale of 160 million bushels of wheat to one buyer for two years and of 140 million to one buyer for two years removed that wheat as a factor in fixing prices. It was taken out of the market. The price recorded in Chicago was the price with that wheat eliminated. My hon. friend is trying to reason that the price would be just as high if that wheat had been sold on the Chicago market. I do not agree with him.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I have not any doubt about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Unless he can prove his thesis, he cannot prove that the farmer took a licking on account of the wheat agreement.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am merely asking if my reasoning was right or wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was faulty, let us say.


An hon. Member:: Wrong.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Someone- says "wrong" who does not know anything about it. But the point I am getting at is this: Am I wrong in my statement as to the argument advanced by the Minister of Agriculture and the then minister of trade and commerce, that this was a short sale of 600 million bushels over a period of years, and at a declining price; whereas the fact was that the price did not decline, but rather advanced.
Can anyone argue that I am wrong in what I say? Supposing the minister has made a short sale of wheat at $2 and the price advanced to $3; he would lose a lot of money, would he not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: On the same grain exchange?


Arthur Leroy Smith: You would lose a dollar per bushel, on the figures I gave.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is talking about price in a very loose way. If I sold wheat at $2 a bushel on the Winnipeg grain exchange, and the price on the Winnipeg grain exchange went up to $3, I would lose a dollar per bushel, yes. But if I sold at $2 per bushel on the Winnipeg grain exchange, and the Chicago price went up to $3, while the Winnipeg price held steady, I would make no loss at all.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Now, now, now. After all, with great respect, the minister told me just a moment ago that the price of barley on the Chicago exchange was one of the factors in determining prices of barley or oats today-prices of coarse grains.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a factor, but not the only factor.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And it is perfectly true; we know it to be true, that there is this "arbitrizing", as the traders call it, between grain markets as there is between money markets.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. They used to, but not now.


Arthur Leroy Smith: From the illustration the minister gave us, he could not hold wheat at $2 in Winnipeg if it was $3 in Chicago. Nobody in the world could hold it. There just is not any question about that.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: What was the price of oats on the last day on which there was any sale? Perhaps that would be June 1.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suppose the hon. member is referring to feed oats?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Yes, No. 3.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Cash price, Fort William, $1.10 per bushel.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. Harkness:: This section provides for an increase in the number of members on the board from three to five, if required. What is the purpose of that, and is it intended to increase the number to five as soon as the bill is passed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I explained that in detail a few moments ago. If I could have all the members in the house at the same time I would not havq to go over the same item so often. I pointed out that, of the three members of the board, one has been ill for two or three months. Owing to the pressure at which members of the board have been working, illness has been frequent. Then I pointed out that one member of the board has to appear frequently in London to attend international wheat agreement meetings. I pointed out further that today one member of the board is on his way to London and the other has been summoned to Ottawa to appear before the committee on agriculture-which leaves no member of the board in Winnipeg. I offered the opinion that the work of the board might be improved if the personnel is increased to four or five.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry I was not here when the explanation was given before. Who are the members of the board at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Mclvor is chairman, Mr. McNamara is vice-chairman, and Mr. Grindley is the third member.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is that the Mr. MacNamara of the Department of Labour?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since we are going to be selling a large part of our wheat this fall under the international wheat agreement, I should like to know if an importing nation under that agreement has the privilege of buying more than its quota within a given price range? My reason for asking is that I have a return of May 22 which shows that very few countries-but there is the odd one-purchase more than their quota. Is it the right of a country to purchase more than its quota within the price range?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it is prohibited from doing so. It is allowed to purchase its quota within the price; above that it must pay the class II price for the balance. It is the privilege of any country to apply for an increase in quota, which may or may not be granted by the administration. But if it applies for an increase in quota, that increase must apply for the full four years of the agreement.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister tell us, from his own knowledge, how the international

Canadian Wheat Board Act wheat agreement has been working out so far? I mentioned the other day that a number of countries seemed to have purchased very little wheat, even though three-quarters of the crop year has gone by.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It seems to have worked very well to date. I would point out to my hon. friend that no country is compelled to take its quota under the agreement unless it is put at the minimum price, and no wheat has been put at the minimum price'as yet.


Mr. Quelch:: Assume we work out an agreement between the floor and ceiling limit; assume we agree upon a certain price; do we then allow all countries to have wheat at that price or do we work out an agreement with each country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All international wheat agreement countries are quoted the same price on the same day.


Hazen Robert Argue: The importing country can take its quota at the maximum price?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: How is it that Italy has purchased only 7 million bushels out of a quota of some 40 million bushels in the first three-quarters of the crop year? Is the reason that she is not demanding the wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Apparently she does not require wheat and nobody had put it to her at the floor price.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The agreement to which the minister refers was mentioned first in this house last Tuesday. The minister has referred to his expectations of purchases by Great Britain. Is that made possible by some special arrangement under the Marshall plan and its subsidiary organizations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. I have explained that Canada is not a Marshall plan country. I might go further and say that Great Britain has advised that she does not intend to ask for Marshall plan help in connection with her purchases of wheat during the next year. There is an undertaking by Great Britain that her requirements of wheat from North America will be purchased from Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In the narrow sense there may be some force in the minister's statement that Canada is not a Marshall plan country, but I think he will admit that Canada has been getting great benefits from the Marshall plan for years. There is no doubt about that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

On section 8-Declaration for the general advantage of Canada.
Percy Ellis Wright: I suppose the reason why 1953 is fixed as the termination date is that the world wheat agreement will be concluded in that year? I should like to see the government go further and not place any termination date in the act. I think the growers of western Canada are interested in having the wheat board maintained and orderly marketing continued and I do not think the act should be limited to 1953.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We know the world method of marketing wheat up to 1953 but beyond that we are not sure what method will be used. It seems reasonable to ask parliament to pass on the appropriate character of this act when we do know what the method after 1953 will be.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is that because other countries might be operating on what you would call a free market or free exchange and we would have to consider doing the same thing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I make no suggestion as to what the method will be, I simply say that it seems appropriate that parliament should have a look at the provisions of the act before July 31, 1953.


Percy Ellis Wright: Parliament would be in the same position in any event and it could look at the act if the termination date were not there.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It might look at it but it might not deal with it unless there was a provision requiring it to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Preamble repealed.
Robert Fair: Just before one o'clock and before I had an opportunity to reply the minister stated that the pools had been wrecked because unsound initial payments had been made. The minister knows that the pools are not wrecked, that they are all sound organizations, financially and otherwise.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend did not interpret my words in the manner I intended them to be interpreted. I said that the pooling of wheat put the operators of the pools in debt. That was the case in 1930 when the provinces came to the rescue of the three pool organizations. In 1931 the situation was so serious that the federal government relieved the pool organizations of their liabilities and took over the marketing of wheat.


Robert Fair: In 1929 when an initial price of 90 cents, I believe it was, was set, I remember

hauling grain and getting $1.46 at the elevator, Very shortly after that the man-made depression of 1929 started and world prices of wheat fell until it was necessary to bring the initial price down to 70 cents per bushel. The pools were operating on sound business methods but this planned depression threw a monkey wrench in the works and as a result there _ were losses by the pools. I am glad to say ' that they have all been honoured and some have already been paid off.


Hazen Robert Argue: The farmers are anxious to know roughly when they might expect the final payment, and I wonder if the minister could indicate whether it might be before Christmas, next spring or at about what time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every effort will be made to make that payment before the end of the calendar year 1950. The wheat board and the government believe that that can be done.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
528. Departmental administration, $2,175,279.
Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us whether the imperials who were made eligible for the war veterans allowance under the statute passed within the last few days will be paid as from the first of April of this year if they now apply for that allowance? I would suggest that quite a period be set within which they may apply and have the allowance dated back to the first of April. Will the minister tell us what the position is in that regard?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It would perhaps answer my hon. friend's question more directly if I were to read to him the brief directive that has been sent out quite recently to our district offices. It reads:
Re war veterans allowance applications, veterans of British or allied forces.
Reference is made to confidential letter dated January 11, 1950, concerning the possible applications by ex-imperial (or allied or associated powers) veterans not domiciled in Canada at the time at which they joined the forces for purpose of war service in world war I and world war II. As at that time, the proposed legislation had not yet been drafted, district offices were requested to answer inquiries and to give prospective applicants any information relevant to the preparation of their applications but not to accept applications until further advised.
55046-204^
Supply-Veterans Affairs
The bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to render eligible ex-imperial and allied forces veterans to its benefits is now before parliament. The amendment sets the effective date of this proposed change at April 1, 1950.
Therefore it will now be in order to accept applications for war veterans allowance from these ex-members of the imperial, allied or associated forces who appear to qualify.
It will be realized that no action can be taken to adjudicate upon these applications until after royal assent is given to the amending act; but, meanwhile, for the guidance of district offices, the following procedure will be adopted; (a) in the case of those who may have applied or endeavoured to apply on or before April 1, 1950, and would appear to be eligible, their formal applications may be considered to have been submitted and received in the district office as at April 1, 1950.
In other words, I may interpolate, if the bill passes the other place and these applications are accepted then their payments will go into effect as at the first of April, 1950.
(b)	As regards those who may have inquired with a view to apply, or applied subsequent to April 1, 1950, their application will be considered as having been received as at the date of the receipt of their inquiry or application in the district office.
That is whether or not the bill has passed all stages at the time the inquiry is received by the district office.
(c)	All such applications should therefore be dated accordingly and may now be processed in the usual way.
That is with regard to investigations and so on.
You will be further advised with respect to adjudications upon these applications by the board in Ottawa, or by the district authorities when the proposed changes in procedure, now before parliament, have been authorized.
That is the end of the directive.
In further answer to my hon. friend's question, even in the case of telephone calls or verbal inquiries our district offices have been asked-and I know they will comply- to register those at the time they are received. When the applications are finally checked, if they are approved they will go into effect as from the time of those inquiries.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest to the minister it would seem only fair to set a date up to which applications may be made and be dated back to the first of April. Many eligible veterans will not have made their applications yet because the act has not been passed. Some of them live in remote districts where it is impossible for them to keep informed of what the position may be. Why not set a date, say the first of October, and say that any application made by that date will be considered to have been made as of the first of April? We actually had hoped that the allowances would be dated back to the 10th of December of last year when the statement

Supply-Veterans Affairs was made by the parliamentary assistant. I suggest, however, that these men be given until the first of October to make application, ^nd that if they apply before that time their allowances will run from the first of April. Is it not possible to do that even yet?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not believe there will be
any necessity. A good deal of publicity has been given to this matter. A great many applications-I am not speaking in the formal sense but rather of inquiries-were made before the first of April. Others inquired from our representatives here and there, and we are taking these inquiries, verbal or otherwise, as being tantamount to applications. I will be glad to keep my hon. friend's suggestion in mind and give it further consideration if it appears necessary.


Mr. Fulion:: I have had inquiries from men jn the remote areas to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra refers. Inquiries have been made directly to me as to what was being done about it, in some cases saying that contradictory rumours or reports had reached them, and that they did not know where the matter stood or when to go about making application. I have generally answered by telling them that the legislation was introduced and we expected it to be passed fairly soon. I have suggested that they get in touch with their local legion branch in order to keep themselves informed, and so that they could make their applications as soon as the act was passed and it became certain that the allowances would be granted.
I would certainly assume that in those cases these men have not yet even got to the stage to which the minister has referred, of making an inquiry of a representative of the department, because there is no war veterans allowance representative in that area. They may have made an inquiry of their local legion branch. Again I should imagine records would have been kept at the legion branches Which are probably collecting files; but I do pot know of any recommendations issued to the legion branches by either the British Columbia command or any other command to forward such applications or inquiries to the Department of Veterans Affairs district office in order that they may qualify under the arrangement the minister has just outlined. In the case of individual inquiries directed to myself and other members, of which we have received quite a number, and again in the case of inquiries directed to legion branches in centres where there is no departmental representative, it is almost certain that such inquiries will not yet be on file with the department. Therefore these men-who are just as interested in this matter as those living in Vancouver or Victoria

who have made their inquiries to the department-will be precluded from getting the advantage of the backdating of their applications which the others will get. For that reason I would strongly urge that favourable consideration be given the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, even if the minister does not feel that he can put the date as far ahead as October 1. Let him make it July 31, or any date which will give these men a reasonable opportunity to get their applications in so they can be treated the same as the others. I hope the minister will do that.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can assure my hon. friend
that we shall take into consideration the representations that have been made here this evening, and will undertake to put this into operation in a way that will not bring about any unavoidable hardship.


Mr. Herridge:: I want to ask just one
question, because I have had an experience very similar to that mentioned by the two previous speakers. Has the minister's department notified the national office of the Canadian Legion, or the national offices of other veterans' bodies, advising them to advertise pr inform their membership that those who intend to apply should list their names immediately, and so on?


Milton Fowler Gregg: There has been no official
advice, but the executives of the two organizations concerned, that is the imperial division of the Canadian Legion and the British-Canadian veterans' association, were in close touch with my department all the way through, and I believe hon. members will recall that some weeks ago the legion had an editorial giving advice to its membership. I know Mr. Jones of the British-Canadian organization has also notified his membership to get their applications in without delay, and to get proof of service and proof of their arrival in Canada.


Victor Quelch: At the time the Veterans Land Act was before the veterans committee the minister was strongly urged that merchant seamen should be made eligible for its benefits. I recall that the minister at that time stated that in view of the fact that the merchant seamen would be needed on their ships at the end of the war he did not think it would be wise then to bring them under that act. On the other hand, however, he said that some years after the war the situation might be entirely different. At that time there might be unemployed merchant seamen, and it might be possible then to give further consideration to the request that merchant seamen be made eligible under the Veterans Land Act. I am wondering, now

that many merchant seamen are unemployed, whether the government has given consideration to bringing them under that legislation.


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, Mr. Chairman; no such consideration has been given.


James Arthur Ross: A short time ago the minister announced a plan under which veterans other than pensioners could go to military hospitals throughout the country, such as Deer Lodge in Winnipeg, and pay for the treatment they received. I should like to know whether those veterans would have any choice in the matter of the medical practitioner who would look after them, or whether they would simply go there, pay for their treatment, and take whatever medical people were allotted to their cases. Would they have any choice in the matter at all?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, when my estimates were before the committee a week or so ago the hon. member for Nanaimo delivered an address on item 528, the administration item. That is quite customary; that was the first item, and we are still on it. I am quite prepared to answer questions, but if my hon. friend would permit I should prefer to answer them when I have my officials before me, and in this case when we come to the item covering treatment.


James Arthur Ross: I should be quite happy to leave it at that; but the difficulty, which I experienced in another matter this morning, is that we have so many committees meeting now; we are sitting morning, afternoon and night, and it is pretty difficult to be in two or three places at the same time. It might happen that I would not be in the committee when these estimates came up. That is the only reason I raised the question now. It is difficult to follow the matters in which you are interested when the committees are meeting and you cannot be in the house all the time.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Then if my hon. friend will accept my answer, which is given without consultation with my officials, it would be that the veteran who elects to go to a D.V.A. hospital for special treatment or service for which he is prepared to pay will be entitled only to the services of the doctors in attendance at that hospital.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There still seem to be a very large number of temporary employees in this department. In the two or three years immediately after the war, when the activity of the department was at a peak, naturally it employed a large number of people whom it could not be expected to retain when that activity declined, so that a great many of the employees were not in
Supply-Veterans Affairs the permanent civil service. However, it is now five years since the war ended, and the work of the department has declined as is indicated by the fact that the number of employees has been considerably reduced. Under practically every item, however, I see that the number of temporary employees is still very large in comparison with the number who are permanent.
Under this item there has been a reduction of some 74 employees, but at the same time the number of permanent employees has increased by almost 60; and the temporary employees still number 802 out of a total staff of 1,008. It seems to me that by this time the direction in which the department is going, the number of people who will be required as permanent employees, and those who have proved themselves to be efficient, should have been pretty well determined, and there should not be such a large number of temporary employees compared with the number of permanent employees as we have at the present time. It seems to me that it would give a greater feeling of security to the employees, which would result in greater efficiency in the operations of the department, if a much larger number of those in the department were put on the permanent staff, so they would know they were paying into the superannuation fund regularly, and so on. Would the minister comment on that situation?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I hasten to thank the hon. member for his constructive suggestion, and I can assure him that the point he raises is under constant review. He will bear in mind, however, that my department has had a special type of experience during the last five years. My distinguished predecessor and the deputy minister had to expand the department very rapidly in a very short time at the end of the war. That expansion, as reflected in the estimates, continued from year to year. Now we are in the midst of quite drastic reductions, particularly in certain phases of the work of the department, while at the same time making changes and reclassifications in others. As that work is being carried on we are attempting to decide those positions which will be more or less permanent in nature as compared with those of a temporary character; and while we have not made a great deal of progress we have made some. Running over the whole picture on page 312 of the estimates, it will be noticed that as the hon. member has suggested there are some 74 fewer employees coming under departmental administration here at Ottawa.
May I pause here to refer to the point made by the hon. member for Nanaimo the

Supply-Veterans Affairs other evening, as to why the decrease had not been greater in Ottawa as compared with the districts.
One factor, amongst others which are in the same category, is the fact that the $80,000 in a single item appears in the total under Ottawa administration, which last year was part of the item referred to on page 67 under the heading "terminable services". It will be noted at the bottom of the column, "appropriation not required for 1950-51, $2,176,000". That was the large item for medals, production and distribution. The remainder to carry through that task this year has been transferred into headquarters administration under the item of $80,000.
Referring to personnel again, it will be noted that under departmental administration some improvement has been made in permanencies at a time when 74 have been let out. Under "district administration" there is a total of 194 less this year than last, and again some permanencies have been obtained. Under "veterans welfare services", which is a reorientation of the old rehabilitation services, the lesser number of employees is marked. There is a total of 349 less than last year. Under "treatment services" we were perhaps a little optimistic in our estimate. I shall explain that situation more thoroughly when we come to the supplemen-taries. I think we shall have to ask for more than we have in the main estimate there, but as shown in the book there are 487 less. Under "prosthetic services" there is only 1 less. In the Canadian pension commission there are 22 less. The war veterans allowance board has 8 more than last year, accounted for by the fact that we will need a few more junior staff to cope with the large number of applications this year. Veterans insurance has 5 less; soldier settlement and Veterans Land Act has 168 less.
I should like to say that, in making those reductions in staff, and this is related to the point made by my hon. friend, particularly for those who are getting along in years, we are undertaking to utilize all the resources of the national employment service and in our own department to assist them in finding new employment. We have had a reasonable amount of success in doing so. The younger veterans of this last war who have been let out have found little difficulty in finding other employment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just to be more specific on this point, could the minister tell us how many of those people who are listed as temporary employees this year are likely to become permanent employees before the year is out? Are there any estimates of that?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps I could take that question as notice, and attempt to answer it later?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has mentioned the older employees of the department who are now being let out. During the past two years a considerable number of cases of this kind have come to my attention, men who were veterans of the first war and who got jobs in the Department of Veterans Affairs during this last war or at the end of it. They are now being let out. It seems to me this is a course of action which should be kept to a minimum. I know there are bound to be some cases of men who are not suitable and perhaps have to be let out, but the department itself maintains a bureau to encourage industry to hire older men, particularly older veterans. A lot of propaganda has been put out, and I think it is something which needs even greater attention than has been given to it. The older veterans have extreme difficulty in securing employment. It would seem to me the department should make every effort possible to retain those employees rather than put them out. As the minister says, there is an attempt to find jobs for them through the employment service, but in many cases that attempt is not very successful.
Has the minister any figures concerning the older veterans who have been released from his department, and how many of them have succeeded in finding other employment?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, a survey of the older veterans was completed for the year 1948-49. Perhaps that would answer my friend's question. During that period the older veterans whose services were terminated numbered 193; the number placed in alternative employment, 151. A summary of the remainder is as follows:	Declined
employment offered, 4; inherited a legacy, 1; over 65 years of age, 9; under treatment, that is in hospital, 3; granted war veterans allowance, 3; considered unemployable, 2; left the district and we have no information, 4; on part-time employment for the present and will go on war veterans allowance, 3; apparently unemployed, 13.


Mr. McCusker:: I should like to ask the minister if the department has had sufficient experience with that new type of patient that is being admitted, the one who can afford to pay, to determine whether the department is able to collect from that man? I doubt very much whether any veteran, having availed himself of the facilities of the hospital, will pay for them when he is leaving. He will think he is entitled to that, and therefore the department is going to open it up to all veterans who will demand free treatment.

I would rather have seen them admit more patients, if it is patients they require. Evidently it is their desire to control the medical services, the teaching, and the whole medical profession of the country. It would have been better to admit the lower salaried group. I do not think the department will be able to collect from these men anyway, but you might as well give the advantage to those who can least afford to pay for hospitalization.
I should also like to ask whether it is the intention to expand these hospitals. The war has been over for a considerable period of time, and the demand for hospitalization Should be diminishing. I am wondering if the number of hospitals is to be increased, and if so why? I believe the civilian institutions can operate hospitals more economically than the military authorities.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I would prefer to have both questions deferred until the appropriate item in the estimate. I should like, however, to challenge the statement at once that those veterans who are earning their own living, and have completely rehabilitated themselves and have no eligibility due to their service, will not be willing to pay for their hospitalization treatment. They will demand the right to pay the same as a citizen who goes to a civilian hospital.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Has the minister had
sufficient experience to enable him to say that? I know it is a fine theory, but has there been sufficient experience with these people to find out?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Our experience has been very short, Mr. Chairman, but we have had no experience to indicate that the fear expressed by the member for Regina City is justified.


James Arthur Ross: I am bound to agree with the question that the hon. member for Regina has raised. In cases quite recently at Winnipeg, at Deer Lodge, I think his suspicion is being borne out as a fact. Our veterans are not all rehabilitated and making good money to that extent. Some of these people will not be able to pay for some time. I feel sure of that. I do not know how many cases there are, but I think that is going to be the question.
This is a follow-up of remarks of the hon. member for Calgary East, as to why the staffs are not being reduced. It is a build-up all through. There is the other item where they are asking for a vote now for hospital accommodation and facilities, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $11,314,414. I do not expect the minister to explain all that at this stage, but I think that is a huge amount to be asking for in a vote at this time for future years when we have certainly been over the peak, I would think, in
Supply-Veterans Affairs all of these military hospitals throughout the country. There apparently is a deliberate attempt on the part of the department now to retain the present staff. I think it indicates that the matter I asked questions about a while ago and to which the hon. member has just referred is part of the plan.
They are going to accommodate all the old veterans who wish to apply now. I agree with the minister that in the vast majority of cases, where they can, they would certainly want the privilege of paying; they would pay if they could. But he and I and others know many of our comrades who will not find themselves in a position to pay that amount of money. We all know from actual experience that they just will not be able to do it. That is something you are going to have to face up to. Then in a time like this to be asking for another $11 million and more for future years for hospital development I think will require some explanation.
I think the minister himself will admit that the peak for hospital administration and the consideration of these veterans has been passed and the trend is certainly well on the downgrade. I think you will find many veterans who will not be able to pay for that hospital accommodation. I know of others again, on the question that I raised, who are in a position to pay but they feel that they should have some choice as to the medical attendants they might have looking after their particular cases. I have met applicants in Winnipeg going to Deer Lodge who are not satisfied on that basis, and they are veterans who are in a position to pay. They think they should have some choice as to their medical practitioner. They have pointed out the fact which the hon. member for Regina City has mentioned, that that was simply the department endeavouring to maintain that staff of medical practitioners and other staff now that their real usefulness has passed in this country for the time being.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The matter of hospital accommodation to which my hon. friend has referred is one that I shall deal with when we come to the appropriate item.


Mr. Thomas:: I should like to get some clarification on the matter of applications by the imperial veterans. Are we to understand that any applications made after this date or after the date of the minister's letter will not be retroactive till the first of April? Or is it merely for a matter of handling that their time will not be backdated? Are we to understand that only the applications that have already been received for the veterans allowance will be made retroactive to April 1?
3234	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Milton Fowler Gregg: I stated that we were attempting to treat as applications all inquiries from those veterans regarding this matter; and if those applications were received before April 1 and later approved, the benefits would date from April 1. If they have been received after April 1, between April 1 and whatever date the bill receives the royal assent, we would take the date of inquiry or application as the starting time. But I also indicated that I should be glad to look into the whole question of applications and make sure that no avoidable hardship was experienced by the applicant.


Ray Thomas: In other words, if an application were to be received by the minister or by the department today, then the benefits would not start as of the first of April but would start today. Is that correct?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I want to make sure about the suggestion which was made here, that that applicant, through circumstances beyond his control, may have been unable to get that application in by the first of April. If he had wanted to make it and had been unable to do so, I should like to give it further consideration.


Ray Thomas: That just brings up this point. On several occasions veterans have written to me with regard to the allowance. I wrote back to them and told them that the bill had not yet become law, that I did not feel that their applications would be acceptable at that time, but that I would notify them as soon as the bill became law. I would hate to think that I had "beat" somebody out of a couple of months' veterans allowance through an act of my own. It is no fault of theirs. It would be my own fault.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps the hon. member would send me the original letter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister if he would outline for us the present duties of the director of public relations.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The duties of the director of public relations are varied. He is, of course, head of the fairly modest public relations service in each of our districts. Our work, in many phases of the department, requires from time to time information to be passed on to the veteran's constituency. Sometimes it is the older group of veterans, sometimes it is the younger group. For instance, the matter we were discussing a few minutes ago, as soon as the bill receives the royal assent, would lend itself very well to public relations information going out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Showing how generous the minister is being?


Milton Fowler Gregg: When I came to the department there was set up what might be called a house organ, a departmental periodical, which went to our own officers, to those settled on the land, to those in hospitals, to members of parliament, to senators and other people, setting out some of the rehabilitation efforts that were going forward, some of the results on the part of casualty training which is a story that needs to be told again and again not only because it has been a great asset to Canada but because of the effect in morale upon those veterans who have successfully, with the help of our medical people, hospitals and training personnel, brought themselves back as almost full-time productive citizens of Canada. It may be stated that sometimes Veterans Affairs had the minister's picture in it too often, but I can assure my hon. friend that an interdict went out with regard to that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I never would have suggested that.


An hon. Member:: A good idea.


Milton Fowler Gregg: But I am sure that he would be the first to agree with me that men and women who were accustomed to working in teams and were accustomed to taking a great pride in the achievements which they were able to produce, now that they have become scattered all across the country, do appreciate having information as to how their comrades are getting along. In reviewing Veterans Affairs some months ago, rather than have a monthly we asked ourselves if we could perhaps produce the same results by making it bi-monthly. And so it has been during, I think, the last six months, at a cost of some $4,500. The work of the head of the public relations here, and his assistants across the country, is not only to carry out duties with regard to that publication, and to attempt to interpret the work fairly to the public, but particularly to attempt to interpret the part which the veterans themselves have played in their own rehabilitation, and the improvement of their physical condition in the hospitals. I think a great deal of good has been done on behalf of the whole effort.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I notice what appears to be a new position in the details in connection with departmental administration. There is reference to a financial adviser to the deputy minister. Is that a new office? If so, what are the duties of the official?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, that is not a new office. I cannot explain why it was left out of the 1949-50 estimates, but I shall be glad to get that information.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I notice there is a veterans welfare officer under the departmental administration vote. Why would it not be listed under veterans welfare service?. Is there some division of responsibility between the two branches? This item is found about halfway down page 311.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am not able to answer that question. However, in connection with the financial adviser I may say that he has been made permanent this year and is consequently named in the list on page 311. In other years he was shown in the temporary bulk list at the foot of the column.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has told us that the departmental paper, Veterans Affairs, cost $4,500 or $5,000?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, $4,500.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On page 312 of the estimates there is an item of $20,000 for advertising and publicity. What does that include, in addition to that paper?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That amount of $20,000 is to provide for the publication of the departmental newspaper Veterans Affairs to be issued bi-monthly, for $4,500; the issue of the French edition of the veterans charter. Those are just being completed or paid for now, and come to $7,500. Then, monthly advertising in newspapers and veterans publications, $8,000. This covers such items as I referred to a little while ago on matters of special interest to veterans. These give a total of $20,000.


Victor Quelch: I am somewhat concerned about the discussion which took place regarding hospitalization. Is it still the policy of the department to grant free hospitalization to all veterans of the first war who are
Supply-Veterans Affairs indigent? An indigent veteran has been defined as one with an income of less than $1,000 a year. Is that still the policy?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The change made and the additional paying class announced a while ago does not in any sense change the situation under class 5A and class 6 patients.


John Horne Blackmore: As it is within a minute or so of the time for closing, perhaps the committee might rise. I have a matter which might take some time.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION
[Stage Direction]
Second report, in both English and French, of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.

Mr. Bater.

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will consider the government notice of motion in the name of the Minister of Transport. Then we will take up Bill No. 135, to amend the Department of Transport Stores Act; Bill No. 263, to amend the Electricity Inspection Act, 1928; Bill No. 264, to amend the Gas Inspection Act; Bill No. 221, to provide for the payment and distribution of prize money. I am not sure as to the order of those bills. I know we will begin with Bill No. 135, but I am not sure as to the order of the others. When those bills have been passed we will go into supply and take up the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.	,
3237
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 8, 1950