1950-02-22

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct a statement I made yesterday, appearing on page 85 of Hansard, where I said:
At the moment, and last year and the year before, the Canadian National Railways are purchasing as much coal as they can get from mines at both extremities of Canada.
I find that statement is only partially accurate, and I have also learned that the manner in which it was made might be unfair to the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation. So far as 1950 is concerned, the statement as made was wholly accurate. So far as 1949 is concerned, I am informed that Dosco offered the Canadian National Railways
998.000	tons of coal, but the railways were able to place orders for only 646,000 tons. For the year 1948 I have no information.


Mr. Gillis:: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, arising out of the statement he has just made. Can he tell the house why the Canadian National Railways could not stock the additional coal that was offered by Dosco?


Lionel Chevrier: The information that I have is that the reason is one concerning price. I believe that negotiations had been going on between the company and the railway as to the question of price, and because of that consideration it was not possible to take the full amount. Perhaps I did not say this, but in any event Dosco was not able to deliver the amount which the Canadian National Railways finally decided to take. They were some 90,000 tons short of the 646,000 tons. In fairness to Dosco I think I should say that, as the house knows, the output of a mine must be contracted for some time in advance, and if negotiations had been carried on earlier it might have been possible for Dosco to fulfil the total amount of the offer, namely,
998.000	tons.


Mr. Brooks:: May I ask the minister a question arising out of his remarks? He used the words "in fairness to Dosco". Dosco produces
perhaps eighty per cent of the coal produced in the maritimes. Are there contracts with any companies other than Dosco?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there are contracts with independent mines down there; I am not familiar with the position in that regard. By that I mean that I do not know the number of tons of coal they were able to furnish. It was drawn to my attention, however, that the statement which I made yesterday might be misleading with regard to Dosco, and I thought in fairness to them that I should make the correction.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: In view of the International News Service dispatch from London carried in yesterday's Toronto Daily Star, which stated that the United States has suspended an agreement for the exchange of atomic information with Britain and that the ban might also apply to the exchange of such information with Canada, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government has been advised officially or unofficially by the government of the United States of any intention or desire to suspend the existing agreement dealing with the exchange of atomic information.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I have not seen the dispatch to which the question refers, but there has been no intimation whatever from the government of the United States to the government of Canada that would have any bearing on the statements made in the International News Service dispatch.


Gordon Graydon: If I may ask a supplementary question, has there been any discussion between this government and the United States government with a view to having the restrictions under the McMahon Act partly lifted so far as we are concerned?


Mr. St. Laurent:: I would not like to give a concrete answer to the question as put. There have been discussions, and there are constant negotiations between those who represent Canada and their opposite numbers in the United States about the most effective way of taking advantage in both countries of all information available.

Inquiries of the Ministry WHEAT



DEFICIT ON 1945-49 POOL ACCOUNT    QUESTION AS TO REFERENCE OF WHEAT BOARD REPORT TO COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday the report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 194849 was tabled in this house. In exhibit IV it is shown that there is a deficit on the 194549 pool account of $5,235,621.37. In view of this deficit, and of the borrowings which apparently the board has had to make from the banks to meet the last twenty-cent payment made to the farmers, will the Minister of Agriculture or the cabinet have this report placed before the agriculture committee as soon as it is set up, so that the report can be thoroughly studied and the reasons for [DOT] this deficit ascertained?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: There is nothing new in the statement which has just been made. The matter was discussed at the time the announcement was made that it would be necessary to borrow some of the money that would have to be paid out at that time. The payment was made on the estimate of what the position would be at the end of the year in order to meet the situation when the farmers required the money before they went into seeding. The same request was made yesterday with regard to this matter as was made last year. In order to meet that situation the money had to be borrowed in advance. There is nothing new about it. It is a condition that has existed in the past.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister has not answered my question as to whether this report would be placed before the agriculture committee when it was set up. The former minister of trade and commerce had promised that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce in previous years agreed to the submission of the report to the committee, but I think the matter can wait until he comes back and makes his own decision.


Percy Ellis Wright: It has not been done since 1947.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chesier S. McLure@Queens: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Why was the extension of the smelt


fishing season not granted to the Prince Edward Island fishermen as it was to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia fishermen?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: I will give an answer tomorrow. I did not know there was any change in the restrictions.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the representation of the Canadian Legion, is the government considering setting up a special committee on veterans affairs this session?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can he say whether a decision has yet been reached in the matter of prosecuting those connected with the alleged combine in the match industry?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The answer is yes; a prosecution will be instituted.
(See also page 153.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that soldiers belonging to the permanent army must obey orders and move where they are directed, and there are men in the ranks with families moving to Ottawa, is any provision being made for the housing of these men, or must they continue to seek any shelter they can possibly obtain and pay exorbitant prices? Is any attempt being made to provide dwellings for these people?


Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: In the absence of the minister, may I take this as notice of the question?



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. F. H. Larson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech

at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: In rising to participate in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I should like in the first place to join with other members who have already spoken in warmly and sincerely congratulating the mover (Mr. Larson) and the seconder (Mr. Dumas) of the address. They have discharged their duties in a manner which brings credit to themselves and, I am sure, satisfaction to their constituents.
In the speech from the throne reference is made to the international situation; and members who have already participated in the debate, notably the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), have enlarged on that aspect of the speech. If time permitted I should like to make some general observations on matters which have been referred to by other speakers, but on this occasion I will not do so. I hope to have an opportunity shortly, when the estimates of my department are called, to deal with some of the points which have been made by other hon. members during the course of the debate. Today, however, I think it would be desirable if I made a report to the house, as briefly as I can, on the visit of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) and myself, from which we have just returned, to Ceylon and certain other countries of the Far East which we were able to visit after the commonwealth conference at Colombo.
During that mission, Mr. Speaker, the members of our party travelled some 27,000 miles; and for a considerable part of that time we were in the efficient and courteous care of the Royal Canadian Air Force and a North Star plane of that air force. I should like to convey the thanks of the members of our party to the R.C.A.F. for the way in which they took care of us. The aircrew were a credit to their service in the air, and they were good representatives of their country when they were on the ground.
I should like also to express our gratitude to the officials who accompanied us on the journey, and who gave us that efficient, informed and industrious help which we expect from the public service of Canada.
During that trip, Mr. Speaker, we received very much kindness and warm hospitality from all the countries that we were able to visit. On this occasion I should like to acknowledge that kindness and that hospitality. We realized, of course, that it was shown to us not in our personal capacity but because we represented Canada, a country whose reputation and good name stands high in those parts of the world.
The Address-Mr. Pearson
If I may I should like to divide the observations I am making today into two parts. The first part will be an attempt to deal with the commonwealth conference which took place at' Ceylon in January. In the second part I shall deal with some matters of interest in our journey to countries in the far east after the conference.
The Colombo conference took place in the week of January 9. Its official title was: "Commonwealth meeting on foreign affairs." It was the first meeting of this kind that' has been held. Of course commonwealth meetings on foreign affairs have taken place in the past. We have discussed foreign affairs at meetings of prime ministers; we have had discussions between heads of commonwealth delegations at United Nations assembly meetings; but this was the first time that a commonwealth meeting was held which was composed mainly of foreign ministers of commonwealth countries, and which dealt exclusively with questions of foreign affairs.
It was the first time also, Mr. Speaker, that a meeting of commonwealth ministers had been held on the territory of an Asian member of the commonwealth. This is a fact, I think, of some significance. It' is a recognition of the fact that today the commonwealth has no fixed centre in London or anywhere else. It is a recognition also of the importance of the Asian members of the new commonwealth, whose culture and traditions are very different from those of the rest of us, but whose association with us in the commonwealth is of such great value and is so highly esteemed by the other members.
The fact that we met in Ceylon is also a recognition of the importance of Asian problems today, and of the necessity of looking at world problems from an Asian point of view as well as from that of Europe and the north Atlantic. It is just as well to remember that the three Asian members of the commonwealth at Colombo represented 440 million people, while the rest of us, in our home territories, represented only 75 million. This new commonwealth is providing not only a link between the Asian and the other nations that comprise it, but also a very valuable link between the east and the west.
During our conference, Mr. Speaker, we were the guests of the government of Ceylon; and we were grateful, as I am sure the other delegations were, for the hospitality that was shown to us by the government of Ceylon and for the arrangements which it so efficiently made.
The chairman of the conference was the Prime Minister of Ceylon, Mr. Senanayake,

The Address-Mr. Pearson who presided over our deliberations with urbanity and good nature, and did much to make our meetings a success. He introduced or.e custom which to me, at least, was new at international meetings, and I am not sure that it would not be a good idea to copy it at other meetings which I have attended and which have not always been characterized by the good nature and the friendliness of the one we had in Ceylon. When the discussions became a little, shall I say, overzealous, or when we began to get a little tired and lost some of our patience, it was the invariable practice of our chairman to bang the gavel and say: "We will now have a cup of tea". That happened normally three or four times a day, and it proved to be a very useful expedient indeed. I think it might be introduced at Lake Success.
The agenda at our meeting at Ceylon was short, and the subjects set down for consideration were very broad. The agenda included the following questions: The general international situation; Chinese situation; Japanese peace treaty; situation in southeast Asia and the situation in Europe, more particularly the development towards European political and economic union, and the effect of such development on the commonwealth of nations.
In the discussion of these subjects we held eleven meetings. The discussions were informal, friendly, and frank. Straight talk was possible at this meeting because a good understanding existed between the participants. We could disagree, and we did disagree, without danger of anyone wanting to walk out. There were no appeals to passion or prejudice, because there was the honest desire, as is customary at commonwealth meetings, to get together. There were no appeals to the gallery, because we did not have a gallery.
So far as the value of these discussions is concerned, it is true of course to say that nothing spectacular resulted, nor was anything spectacular intended. Commonwealth discussions now do not customarily result in spectacular decisions; in fact they do not result in decisions at all. They result in recommendations to governments for the consideration of those governments. The recommendations made at Colombo are now before the various governments for any action they decide to take.
No single policy was laid down or was attempted, on any of the questions before us at Ceylon. We listened to each other's points of view, and I think that we gained something from doing so. An exchange of views of this kind between governments representing countries from five continents of the


world-from Asia, from Europe, from Australasia, from Africa and from North America -is bound to be useful in modifying points cf view which may have been held prior to the meeting.
So far as the Canadian delegation was concerned, we inevitably tended to give the North American viewpoint on the political questions which were discussed, and a dollar viewpoint on the economic questions. Though we all had our own point of view, a discussion of this kind helps to correct the inevitable distortions in our thinking which may arise, in the case of Canada, for instance, because we have traditionally looked on the world from the north Atlantic, North American viewpoint of a people whose civilization for the most part comes from that of western European Christendom.
The fact that the discussions were held at Ceylon was particularly valuable at this time, because, as I see it, the centre of gravity in international affairs has, to some extent at least, moved to Asia. What I mean by that is simply this: In my view the advance of Russian communist imperialism has been stopped in Europe, at least for the time being. It has not been stopped in Asia, where it is now trying desperately to win power over those millions of people, by allying itself with forces of national liberation and social reform.
It has had great success in China. Until now, continental China, at least, is under the control of a communist government which is allied to Russia. In spite of the publication of the recent Russian-Chinese treaty we are not yet however quite certain what form the alliance has taken. The nationalism of the people of Asia has now finally and fully asserted itself. It is even true to say that in some quarters in this part of the world, people, if they were forced to make the unhappy choice, might prefer even communism to a return to colonialism. The existence of this feeling is recognized now by the nations of Europe and America.
The political mould into which south and southeast Asia was gradually poured during the years following the European incursions four hundred years ago, or more, has now been broken finally, and the great colonial empires of the nineteenth century have either disappeared from that part of the world or are in process of disappearing. No one yet knows what pattern will emerge from that disappearance. No one can be certain, as I see it, that the independence which the people of this area are now exercising can in all cases be maintained in its present form, or whether their internal problems will prove so great that, through weakness, they will fall

prey to confusion, to disorder and to those subversive forces which try to provoke, and certainly know how to exploit, such a situation.
At the present time the countries of south and southeast Asia are making impressive efforts toward the establishment of strong modern nation states, and we of the western world should do what we can to encourage and to assist these efforts. This surge of nationalism in Asia has resulted in political independence for twelve-and if you include Indo-China for fifteen-Asian states in less than twenty-five years. The political danger from this is that, exploiting this movement, communist expansionism may now spill over into southeast Asia as well as into the Middle East. In my opinion there is no more important question before the world today than this possibility.
The social and economic danger arises out of the fact that the people out there are learning that independence is not enough. The agitation for freedom has stirred up in them other desires; for improvements in their conditions of life; for a change from distress, privation and even starvation; for a change from a life expectancy of twenty years and an average income of less than $50 a year. These new democratic governments are attempting to meet these new hungers, these new hopes, these new demands. There is danger not only to their own countries, but to the rest of the world, if they do not succeed in that attempt. But they are meeting these dangers as responsible, free, democratic governments, proceeding stage by stage, without, as they progress, destroying the framework of society or of government.
Communism, however, in Asia as elsewhere, is irresponsibly trying to capitalize on misery and distress and the understandable impatience for change, by promising not only immediate freedom where colonial status remains, but, where freedom has been achieved, a better life at once if only the people will rise in their might and create the chaos out of which communistic rule may emerge. In India, China and Burma, which are now free states, the appeal is to a fuller and better life at once; in Malaya and IndoChina it is to political freedom. Both appeals are strong, for millions of Asian people do not know that from communism both appeals are false.
It was in the light of these conditions that we discussed the situation in various Asian countries at our conference in Ceylon. Malaya, where the situation is now better-although communist bandits, and it is right to call them
The Address-Mr. Pearson that in Malaya, are doing their best to dislocate economic life-is moving ahead to ordered independence under the fine and distinguished leadership of a man we know both well and favourably here in Ottawa, Right Hon. Malcolm MacDonald.
In Burma, which is now free, but which is rent, not by civil war but by civil wars, the position is difficult indeed. Indonesia, now free, and recognized by Canada as a free state, is being attacked by forces from the right and forces from the left. It is having a difficult time. Then there is IndoChina which I propose to discuss separately, because it is a very important point in that part of the world.
It seemed to all of us at the conference that if the tide of totalitarian expansionism should flow over this general area, not only will the new nations lose the national independence which they have secured so recently, but the forces of the free world will have been driven off all but a relatively small bit of the great Eurasian land mass. In such circumstances it would not be easy to contemplate with equanimity the future of the rest of the world.
That, then, Mr. Speaker, was the background against which we held our discussions in the lush and lovely island of Ceylon. Now a few words, if I may, about the understandings and conclusions we reached as a result of those discussions.
In the first place we agreed at Colombo that the forces of totalitarian expansionism could not be stopped in south Asia and southeast Asia by military force alone. They cannot be checked, if, through stupidity or shortsightedness on the part of the democratic powers, totalitarianism is able to ally itself successfully with the forces of national liberation and social reform. If southeast Asia and south Asia are not to be conquered by communism, we of the free democratic world, including the Asian states themselves which are free, must demonstrate that it is we and not the Russians who stand for national liberation and economic and social progress.
The problem, then, for these states is to demonstrate that they can improve, by democratic methods, the standard of living of the masses of their people. That is their problem-one of self-help. But there is also our problem, that of mutual aid.
The conference discussed that problem. We agreed, for instance, to recommend financial help for the state of Burma which had been a subject of discussion among the sterling countries before the conference met. The Canadian government was not included
132	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearson in that earlier discussion. The question is one of a sterling loan to strengthen the financial position of the Burmese government. We are now considering here the position of dollar Canada in relation to that sterling loan. Our special position in this regard was recognized at the conference.
One of the important developments of the conference was the recommendation to set up a commonwealth consultative committee for south and southeast Asia. I was vividly impressed during my brief transit across this area after the conference by the need for capital development in all the countries stretching from Pakistan to Indonesia. There is a great need to increase agricultural yields through the introduction of irrigation systems and the greater use of fertilizer; also for the establishment of at least some new industries.
I was impressed also by the very great need for technical help in those countries.
But if the need is obvious, so are the difficulties. In fact, most of the difficulties arise from the very magnitude of the need. There are so many development projects which clamoured for attention that it is very difficult to decide what should be done. Further difficulty is created by the comparative inexperience of the administrative systems of most of these countries. It is only natural that for some time after obtaining experience, these countries, which are so old in history and tradition but so new to full sovereignty in the modern world, should have to struggle with many administrative problems, which inevitably complicate the task at the present time of long-range planning to raise the standard of living.
Already in this field some useful work has been done by the United Nations in listing and analysing the economic needs of this part of the world. The United Nations four point program, as we call it, also has a bearing on this problem. The economic commission for Asia and the Far East, the international labour office and the food and agricultural organization are all working in this field. Therefore I think that we must be careful in setting up any new agency to avoid overlapping or duplication. We do not want a new committee merely because it looks like an attractive piece of international furniture for an already cluttered-up home.
Yet it is hoped that this new committee which was recommended to the governments at Colombo will be practical and useful and in its results go further than any previous agency in that area. It is hoped that before long the committee will be able to relate the needs of these countries to the possibilities of financial and technical help. But it should be understood that in considering the problem


of what the commonwealth countries can do through this committee to help the area-and I attempted to make this clear at Colombo- the contributions of members of the commonwealth will have to be determined in the light of their financial commitments, not only in this area but elsewhere.
We in Canada have undertaken, along with the United Kingdom, heavy responsibilities in the north Atlantic region which are not shared by other members of the commonwealth. I suggest that those responsibilities must be a first charge on that portion of our national production and income which we may be able to apply as a form of mutual aid toward the support of other countries whose systems of government are similar to ours and which, like us, are threatened by totalitarian aggression. But, within the limits imposed by those prior responsibilities, we in the government are now investigating ways and means of co-operating in the work that might be done if and when this consultative committee is set up. When a further meeting is held in Canberra, probably shortly, to discuss this matter, the Canadian government of course will be represented.
The establishment of this committee represents only a small beginning, although small beginnings can lead to great results. I do not conceal my own belief, however, that any such committee must have a broader basis than the commonwealth; that unless the cooperation of the United States can be enlisted in its work, its accomplishments may prove to be meagre.
However, the commonwealth nations have on this occasion taken the initiative and I think that is all to the good. I think also that the initiative was a sound one, and that the step we have taken may prove to be a valuable one. It certainly is in the right direction.
Now a few words about the situation in Indo-China. We had a thorough discussion of that at Colombo, and we had vigorous differences of opinion as to what the situation was and what might be done to meet it. However, we all agreed that Indo-China occupied a key position in southeast Asia, politically because of the clashes that have occurred there between the communists and the nationalists, and economically because this country is the rice bowl of that part of the world. The communists are now making their greatest effort in Asia in the state of Viet Nam, which is one of the three in Indo-China, the others being Cambodia and Laos.
If for no other reason, our very close and friendly ties with France would ensure our

special interest in the progress toward freedom in that area which the French government are seriously sponsoring, and for which I think they deserve our gratitude. We must be concerned, however, over the long continued disturbances in Viet Nam. I hope that these will soon be ended. I feel that the recent ratification by France of the agreements which it had entered into with the three Indo-Chinese states is a commendable step forward in the attempt to restore peaceful and stable conditions in Indo-China. I believe there is good reason to expect that these agreements, which set up three autonomous states within the French union, will provide a means by which the national aspirations of the people of Indo-China will be met.
More particularly we wish the government of Bao Dai every success in its efforts to bring unity and freedom to Viet Nam in the face of a serious communist menace, which has become a greater menace because of the political support it is being given by the U.S.S.R. and communist China. We recognize that only under the autonomous government of Bao Dai has Viet Nam at this time the opportunity to acquire freedom and unity and stability.
Then we came to the question of China, which also caused much discussion. In my review on November 16 last in this house I made some observations concerning the nature of the communist revolution in China, and also about some of the great underlying mutual interests which would always serve as a bond between the Canadian and Chinese people, regardless of such changes in government as might take place in China. I spoke also about the factors that had to be taken into account in weighing the question of recognition.
Since then four commonwealth governments^-the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan and Ceylon-and a number of the western European governments, have accorded de jure recognition to the Peiping regime. At Colombo there was a frank and useful exchange of views between those commonwealth governments which had not recognized the Peiping government-Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada-and those which had. There was also discussion of future relations with China. From our point of view it was very helpful to have the points of view of the Asian members of the commonwealth on these questions.
The fast that some governments have recognized the new regime in Peiping and others have not has created an awkward situation in the United Nations and other international bodies; one which may become even more awkward in the not too distant future.
The Address-Mr. Pearson
The Soviet delegations, in an exhibition of childish arrogance, have now withdrawn from United Nations bodies until such time as the representatives of the Peiping government are admitted in place of the present nationalist representatives. This is a form of pressure which, of course, we can only condemn, and care must be exercised to see that the precedents which are created in dealing with this change of government in China do not give rise to further and greater difficulties in the future when analogous problems may have to be faced elsewhere in the United Nations.
This whole question of recognition of the Peiping government is now before the government, which is giving it active consideration in the light, among other things, of the report that I have made to the government, on our recent discussions in the Far East. At the moment I can say no more than that on this question.
We also had a pretty thorough discussion of the question of a Japanese peace treaty. Hon. members will recall that during my review of external affairs on November 16 last I said that, in spite of the difficulties to be overcome in convening a Japanese peace conference, I thought there might be even greater dangers in its indefinite postponement, and I hoped that another effort might be made to push forward with that conference. Since that time I have had an opportunity to discuss this problem at the Colombo conference, and also during my short but very interesting visit to Japan, where I talked about it and many other subjects with that most distinguished American, General Douglas Mac-Arthur. As a result of those talks I am now more impressed than ever with the need for seizing every opportunity that might lead to a satisfactory early settlement with Japan. The occupation of Japan has continued now for more than four years. During that period the physical demilitarization of Japan has been thoroughly accomplished. Indeed, the act of stripping away from Japan her overseas possessions was itself a drastic curbing of Japan's war-making capacity. The punitive and preventive side of the occupation has, I think, been virtually completed. The Japanese have made many changes in their domestic legislation, in compliance with allied directives of the eleven-power Far Eastern commission which meets in Washington. They have subscribed to all orders of the occupation regime, and have taken the steps which were demanded of them.
I do not mean to conclude from this that the Japanese by now, in the course of four years, have completely changed their habits of thought, their approach to politics, and

The Address-Mr. Pearson their way of life, although there appear to be some in Tokyo who think this has happened. Whatever may be the truth about this, it is clear that the Japanese have fulfilled pretty well the requirements that have been imposed upon them by the occupation, and it seems to me that from here on we must give them some incentive to maintain and strengthen the democratic way of life, and to wish to maintain close and friendly relations with the western world. I suggest our security lies in this as much as in keeping them disarmed. This point of view was brought very forcefully to us by the Asian members of the commonwealth in their observations on a peace settlement with Japan. The other point of view-or more accurately, if you like, the other emphasis of the same point of view-was given by the Australian and New Zealand representatives at Colombo, who were anxious, as indeed we all are, that Japan should not be restored to a point where she could again become an aggressive power, and that the peace treaty should include clauses designed to prevent this.
Perhaps this prolonged occupation period will have served a purpose in enabling us to acquire a better perspective on the type of peace treaty we should make with Japan, which will, we hope, be a lasting one; one that should be realistic but not one that would be bitterly opposed as unjust by the Japanese people. We know the damage to peace and security that such a punitive peace treaty can cause. I am persuaded myself that, from here on, the disadvantages involved in military occupation, of which I have spoken before, will outweigh the advantages, and that a point of diminishing returns has been reached, if not passed. Therefore I hope that all governments interested in a peace settlement with Japan will not overlook any opportunity to further this end, even if-and this would certainly be an undesirable alternative, a second best-we had to have a peace conference with some powers absent because they refused to accept reasonable conditions for participation on which all other powers were agreed.
I was interested to note that the recently signed treaty between the Soviet union and the Peiping government contains an article providing that these two governments will expedite the signature of a Japanese peace treaty jointly with the other powers allied during the second world war. I should like to be able to take this article at face value, as indeed I should like to be able to take the other articles of that treaty at face value. As you know, the greatest difficulty in the way of the conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan in the past has been the difference of


opinion with the Soviet union over the procedure to be followed in the drafting of the treaty and the holding of the conference. Recently there has been added a further complication, as to which government from China, nationalist or communist, should represent China at the Japanese peace conference. China suffered most grievously at the hands of the Japanese aggressor, and, as Japan's most important neighbour, she cannot be ignored in any lasting peace settlement with Japan. The Canadian government is certainly anxious to see both the Soviet union and China play their full part in a Japanese peace conference which could never be a completely satisfactory one without them. But in this conference, as in other international conferences, we cannot accept dictation by one or two powers through arbitrary use of their veto. If such dictation is insisted on by these powers, I suggest we may have to go along without them.
We in Canada recognize that the United States government has a primary responsibility in respect to the settlement with Japan, and I gave expression to that recognition when I talked about this matter at our conference at Ceylon. For this and for other reasons I was particularly glad to have an opportunity to exchange views on this subject with General MacArthur in Tokyo. As a result, I hope now, more than ever, that all the recent statements that have been made favouring an early settlement with Japan will soon result in action, and that at least one major problem may soon be erased from our slate of problems in the Pacific. I may add that I found no objection in Tokyo from any quarter to this view of the desirability of a Japanese peace conference at the earliest possible day.
These were the main political subjects that we discussed at our conference; but we also talked about economic and financial questions. Some of these came up in the course of the discussion we had on the European situation, on developments towards European economic unity; the part that should be played more particularly by the United Kingdom in that development, and how the United Kingdom could reconcile her European and her commonwealth positions. Mr. Bevin, the foreign minister of the United Kingdom, who played such a wise and important part at our conference, made a statement on this matter. A statement was also made by the Canadian delegation on the same subject. It was, I think, the only formal statement we made at the conference. I should like to put on the record some excerpts therefrom, because I think it deals with an important

The Address-Mr. Pearson
matter of international economic policy. I should like to quote as follows from the statement I made at Ceylon:
For our part-
That is the Canadian delegation's part, and it is also the policy of the Canadian government.
-we welcome the prospect of closer economic cooperation among the countries of western Europe. Such a development might be expected to contribute to the military strength of the democratic countries concerned and also, by eliminating uneconomic production and encouraging competitive efficiency, to hasten the day when they would no longer require extraordinary financial assistance from abroad. It would also restore to countries occupied and ravaged during the war that sense of hope which they need now more than they need United States dollars. Western Europe could once again look forward to playing in the world the great role for which its history and the resourceful intelligence of its people qualify it.
During the past few months a great number of proposals for closer economic co-operation in Europe have been put forward. Some of them are perhaps as frivolous as the names they bear. Others, however, are more solidly based and deserve careful examination.
In examining them I would suggest that two tests should be applied. First of all it should be determined whether the plan has substantial content or is merely a gesture. Does it take account of present-day economic realities in western Europe and the rest of the world? Is it likely to further the ends which it purports to serve? Secondly, each plan should be tested against the criterion of whether or not it will lead to a progressively wider co-operation in trade and other economic matters between all the countries in the free world.
Some of the proposals made recently seem to my government to be as likely to encourage the development of new high-cost industries and increased high-cost agricultural production in Europe as to lead to the objectives of greater efficiency and lower costs and prices at which they purport to be aiming. What must be avoided is the creation of a closed, high-cost, inflationary economic bloc, whether a sterling bloc, a commonwealth bloc, a European bloc, or a North American bloc, which would make progress toward a wider multilateral system of trade and payments more difficult. We recognize, at least under present conditions, the advantages to world trade of the sterling area. We have always contended, however, that the sterling area as we know it today should be regarded as a transitional stage on the way to a trading system where currencies will be convertible and where exchange controls and quantitative restrictions will be drastically reduced. In the same way I would argue that any new economic bloc which might be set up in Europe should be so designed as to facilitate rather than retard progress towards this goal.
It is often said in Canada that, in the short run at least, such a bloc might do some damage to Canadian trade. I would hope that it would not be serious. Nevertheless, it might be better for us in Canada to suffer some temporary disadvantages rather than to see the prospect of closer economic co-operation which we believe to be necessary in western Europe made impossible because the United Kingdom is unable to participate.
During the conference there were also economic and financial talks carried on byofficials of the delegations represented there. They were carried on at the same time as
the ministerial talks, and the reports of those discussions have been made directly to the ministers of finance. We were fortunate to have highly qualified experts at these talks, and they took an active part in them. They concerned in the main the present position and future prospects of the sterling area. The Canadian position with respect to participation in talks of this kind was, if I may say so, a little equivocal. It certainly was not the same as that of the other participating representatives, who without exception came from sterling areas. In fact our role at those talks, if I may put it that way, was that of a persistent but very friendly dollar gadfly. We made clear to the others that naturally we could not be associated with any efforts of the sterling countries to reduce imports from Canada as a dollar country, but we hoped that the balance which we admitted they must achieve could be brought about, at as high a level as possible, by increasing dollar earnings through increased exports to dollar markets, and by encouraging the inflow of capital investment from dollar sources.
Other subjects discussed at these talks were the short-term prospects for the sterling area on dollar account; forecasts of dollar earnings in the year ahead; the sterling balances, especially those of Pakistan and India, and the effect of those on the United Kingdom financial picture; the over-all as well as the dollar deficit of individual sterling area countries. These discussions were useful, and I hope will help in solving these important financial problems which face the commonwealth countries today.
So much, then, for the Colombo conference itself. After that conference my colleague the Minister of Fisheries and I, with our officials, had an opportunity to visit a number of countries in the Far East. Wherever we visited, we attempted to discuss trade as well as political questions of mutual interest. I think hon. members will agree that in Canada there is a growing interest in the potential demand for Canadian products in the Asian market; and of course we share the great interest of the western democracies in the development of trade with Asia as a means of contributing to the growth and stability and healthy economic development of that part of the world which is so important to us. In addition, an increase in our trade with the countries of Asia would serve in our case a dual purpose. To the extent that imports into Canada from the countries of Asia could be alternative to imports otherwise made from the United States, that would assist us to balance our trade with the United States and would
13S

The Address-Mr. Pearson provide those countries of Asia with exchange for the financing of additional Canadian imports.
On this aspect of our journey I hope my colleague the Minister of Fisheries will report later in this debate in more detail. On our journey every effort was taken to explore the possibility of increasing and expanding Canadian trade with the countries visited. Without exception, wherever we went we found not only a great friendship but a lively interest in achieving that objective of greater trade. In Tokyo, for instance, we had one discussion with General MacArthur devoted exclusively to trade matters, and he expressed his great desire to do what he could to increase Canadian-Japanese trade. He added -and this is an addition which will be of particular interest to my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann)- that there was no desire in Japan to indulge in commercial chicanery of the kind that disturbed us in Canada so much in the years before the war. He went on to say, and I hope he is correct, that we now had a guarantee against dumping by Japan in the removal of government subsidies on the one hand and the building up of the trade union movement, with protected wages, on the other. Therefore he considered that Canada need not fear in the future the menace of Japanese trade of the pre-war variety, but could rather look forward to trade built on a sound basis of mutual benefit. I told him that was the kind of trade, and indeed the only kind, in which we were interested.
I apologize for trespassing on the indulgence of the house. I must have long since exceeded the time allotted to me under the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to say just
a word about one or two of the countries we visited on the way back; and the political situation we found there. After the conference, we first visited Pakistan. We were all very much impressed by the drive and energy of the essentially frontier, desert town of Karachi, where the capital of a new nation is being constructed in a hurry and in the face of terrific obstacles. The achievements of two years in that country of Pakistan have been notable, to say the least. The difficulties facing Pakistan are very great, but they are being met in a spirit of eager and deep patriotism. In fact, to those people Pakistan seemed almost as much of a religion as a state. I know that all hon. members will be glad to know that the Prime Minister of Pakistan, who is one of the great statesmen

of that part of the world, on his trip to this continent will before long be visiting Canada as a guest of the Canadian government.
We left Pakistan after an all-too-short visit, and our next stop was India. He is indeed a brash person who attempts to say anything about India on the basis of a visit of two or three days; but it was impossible not to be impressed by the potentialities as well as the problems of that great country. We stayed at New Delhi, but we had the opportunity also of seeing something of Indian village life, where life goes on as it did centuries ago, though even there the people have been stirred. We spent in New Delhi the last three days of the old era of India under the crown and we left New Delhi the day the republic was proclaimed.
My colleague and I had the privilege of attending in New Delhi the last state dinner given, in the state dining room of the viceroy's palace, to the last governor general of India under the crown; to Mr. Rajagopala-chari, the colleague and disciple of Gandhi for so many years. It was difficult to visualize in him the last in a long line of succession from Warren Hastings, with whom indeed he had little in common. I think all of us felt that the atmosphere that night was heavy with history. Yet it was good to know that the break with the monarchy which was occurring the next day was not a break between peoples; in fact, the relations between the Indian people and the other nations of the commonwealth are probably on a friendlier and stronger basis now than they have been for generations. Mr. Nehru, that great man and great Prime Minister, was presiding that night at this dinner. He had himself been the king's guest at Buckingham palace and-in various of His Majesty's jails; and when he rose and proposed the king's health, we felt that it was no empty gesture. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that we in this house and in this country wish the people of India well; we wish for them good fortune and great success as they face, as a republic, the great opportunities and the difficult problems which lie ahead for them.
There was, however, one shadow which fell across our proceedings in Ceylon and our visit to Pakistan and India; that was our knowledge of the existence of a number of serious and stubborn disputes between the governments of those two countries. These questions were not, of course, included in the agenda of the conference; and none of us considered it his business to attempt to intervene in them. There were, however, occasions to discuss these questions privately and informally at the conference, and later in Karachi and New Delhi. I myself was reassured by

the frankness with which both Indian and Pakistani leaders talked about them, and by their insistence that sooner or later they must find peaceful and just solutions for them. But I could not help being distressed by the intensity and bitterness of feeling on both sides in regard to these questions, and by the wide and serious differences which must be bridged before there is reconciliation.
I was distressed also, as I think any visitor would be, by the serious consequences which flow from the continuation of these disputes, which are spreading enmity between the people at a time when they should be concentrating on the many things they have in common. The disputes are also, I am afraid, destroying the natural economic links which exist between these two countries; they are causing the sacrifice of valuable markets in North America, and they are jeopardizing the solvency of the sterling area as a whole.
Our concern for these problems as Canadians is direct and urgent, because these countries are both friends and associates of ours in the commonwealth, and because we know that the dangers to peace and welfare in the Indian subcontinent are also dangers to the peace and welfare of the whole world. The governments of India and Pakistan themselves must, of course, find a means of settling their disputes over Kashmir and other questions. If, however, there is any way in which we can assist them in finding a solution-and I think we in Canada have given an earnest of our good intentions in this regard-we in the government shall certainly be glad to do what we can. We have already, through our participation in discussions in the security council of the United Nations, where our representative, General McNaughton, played such an active and constructive part in attempting to solve this problem, made one effort to assist; and we regret that it did not prove to be more successful. We must hope, however, that the fine qualities of statesmanship which the leaders of both India and Pakistan have already displayed will make it possible for these two great countries to work out, by accommodation and adjustment, solutions to the disputes which now so unhappily divide them, and that they will therefore be able to continue to make an important and progressive contribution to the political life of Asia and the world.
When we left India we were on our homeward journey from Burma, which is an unhappy country today; to Malaya; to Hong Kong, where on a few square miles around a rock are clustered more people than inhabit the dominion of New Zealand; from Hong Kong to Tokyo; and from Tokyo home.
The Address-Mr. Fleming
In conclusion, I should like, in a word, to attempt to give you a general impression which I am afraid will be almost as confused as this statement has been. I feel certain, however, of one thing-and I am more certain of it now than I was before I left Ottawa on January 2-namely, that a great tide is moving in the affairs of more than one-half of the population of the world who live in Asia; a great tide which can lead to progress, peace and good things, but which also, if it sweeps in the wrong direction, can lead to chaos, reaction and destruction. But whatever the result, Mr. Speaker, our own country, Canada, which once may have seemed to be so remote from these matters, and which now stands on the threshold of such great developments, will be deeply and directly affected by the outcome of what is now going on in Asia.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, the house has listened to a very important and interesting statement from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Since we in this part of the house have sought at all times to keep our external affairs on a non-partisan basis, perhaps the house will fully understand me when I say that if in this country we must, unfortunately, it seems, for the next several years, have a Liberal administration, nevertheless we are very glad that in that Liberal administration the portfolio of external affairs is in the very capable hands of Mike Pearson.
Sir, first, his review has emphasized again what is one of the miracles of all time, namely, the adaptability to changing conditions of this British commonwealth of nations, which, within the past year and a half, has extended its reaches to embrace three new partners in Asia. It seems to me that what he had to say to us this afternoon emphasizes again how valuable a contribution that commonwealth, buttressed, as it is, with the presence and active participation of these three great new partners, has made, and what a beneficent mission it has to fulfil for the benefit of all mankind. Think, sir, what a truly marvellous thing it is that our partners in India, whose leaders only so short a time ago were suffering confinement in prison because they were at variance with the policies of Britain, now find it in their hearts to dismiss all thoughts of bitterness and to regard British representatives, as well as those from the other partners of the commonwealth, as brothers, and to work with them toward common ends for the good of all mankind.
About four months have passed since this house last debated the vitally, important subject of Canada's external relations. The
138	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming gravity of the world crisis has not abated in those four months. It is true there has been a stabilization of the situation in Europe, due in no small part to the success of the North Atlantic pact; and we may well, sir, derive useful lessons in establishing policies with respect to other quarters of the globe from the success which has already attended that agreement among the western nations. It is true that the communists are not inactive in Europe. It is true, sir, that in those unhappy countries behind the iron curtain the persecutions are still going on, and the trials which are a travesty of justice. Nevertheless, in a broad sense stabilization has been achieved. But southeast Asia has now become the cockpit of the world and in what has been happening in China, to the extent that events there indicate that the government of that great nation and of that great peace-loving people has come under the direct influence of the Kremlin, it does represent a major catastrophe for all mankind. We wish the people of China well. We know that there were grave faults in the previous government but we do want to see the independence of China maintained. Whatever government she may choose for herself, it is vital to the peace of the world that it be under no submission to the Kremlin.
And, sir, in those countries south of China which were visited by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, we see events unfolding similar to the plan of those that we saw unfolding in Europe in recent years. Civil war, well, yes, civil war sponsored by the communists. Yes, communists never operate simply on an internal basis. Communists are always operating internationally because they take their orders from the Kremlin, and as the communists of these countries are deriving succour and support and material assistance from the communist forces to the north and the communist forces of Russia we see there, sir, a situation that is fraught with the utmost danger for the peace of all the world. Every day we find increasing evidences and naked exposure of the determination of the Kremlin to dominate the whole world. India today occupies a pivotal position in this situation that is developing in southeast Asia. It brings heart and courage to us all, I am sure, sir, to hear the kind of report that the minister brought to the house this afternoon as to the great strides that are being made by these three new partners in the commonwealth, namely, India, Pakistan and Ceylon.
The minister concluded his remarks with a summary of one or two sentences. Sir, I am going to draw this lesson from his statement and from events in that part of the world as
r.Mr. Fleming.]

one has watched them in these recent months. It is the lesson that was learned in Europe not long before, that while we may deplore the necessity of building armaments, while we may deplore the necessity of colossal expenditures upon armaments, the fact remains, and is incontestable by anybody, that we in this country dare not be unprepared for any eventuality. We cannot trust communist designs either abroad or in Canada.
Now, sir, a word about certain matters that touch us directly in this house. At the outset of this new session I should like-and it is in no perfunctory way that I do it-to extend my congratulations to the hon. members for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) and Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas), who moved and seconded the motion that is under debate.
I should like to extend my hearty congratulations to the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris); and if the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will accept them, my congratulations to him on having made such a good choice. It is a happy thought, sir, that in this portfolio two kindred subjects, immigration and citizenship, are directly united.
If I have any criticism of immigration policies in the past, it is less on account of questions of numbers or terms of admission than it is of the fact that so often, when we have admitted to our shores those who came here by choice and in accordance with the laws of this land, after they have arrived they have been ignored. They have not received at the hands of Canadians that welcome and that consideration which ought to be extended to them, when we realize that these are to be our fellow-Canadians. When they come to these shores to make their homes here now and in the future they come here as Canadians-to-be; and, sir, it is in that spirit, it seems to me, that we should at all times receive them.
In this country we want to build unity on the sure foundation of tolerance and mutual respect of people of whatever race they come. Once they come to Canada, regardless of their ethnic origin, they should be received as Canadians-to-be, and they should be welcomed as such. It is well to remember, sir, because we have increasing evidences of it on every hand every day, that we do not sacrifice anything of a truly distinctive Canadian culture by welcoming those who bring to us great cultural endowments and backgrounds from other lands. In my own city of late we have seen the flowering of grand opera on a scale which I think has not been seen in this country before, and made possible by the contributions to our culture which have been brought by those from other lands

or their children who have derived a rich culture from other lands. Therefore, sir, I hope that with those newcomers to our land, whatever be their racial or ethnic origin, we shall be enabled, with the strength that they bring to this land, to build here a greater and freer Canada.
Now a word about the conduct of business in the house at this session. It is well that in this traditional debate on the speech from the throne we give thought to the machinery of the house, and the ways and means by which the house may seek to improve the methods by which it discharges public business. I have always felt that at all times, without sacrificing the dignity of the house, we should seek to expedite proceedings and to achieve greater efficiency in the dispatch of public business. It will be no surprise, therefore, when I come back to a theme on which the house has listened to me before,, namely, the necessity for a greater extension of the use of committees.
It is high time the procedure of the house was modernized. We are labouring today- and I use the word advisedly-under the handicap of antiquated procedure. It is high time we undertook resolutely to streamline house procedure, and I believe it can be done without sacrificing in any way the essential rights of hon. members.
Let me say in the first place that I am not going to repeat the arguments I used in the last session by pointing out how many of the standing committees have not been meeting for years, and could be dispensed with in favour of new committees which would deal with questions arising every day, and which the house can deal with adequately only through committees.
One of the most important and primary duties of the House of Commons is to scrutinize expenditures-not just after they are made, but to scrutinize the requests coming from the government for the provision of funds for future expenditures. Therefore I say the time has long passed when the house should set up a committee or committees on estimates. As all hon. members know, under our present clumsy and awkward procedure it is quite impossible to scrutinize estimates or derive needed information in a proper fashion. It can be obtained only at second hand from ministers, and without any opportunity of getting down to details of expenditure. Under these circumstances it is impossible to discharge our duties of supervising and controlling public expenditures.
Already we have a useful precedent in the standing committee on external affairs-and I hope that committee will be set up again at 55946-101
The Address-Mr. Fleming an early date, and that the minister will follow the excellent procedure he followed last year of coming before the committee for more detailed discussion of Canada's external relations than is possible in debates in the house. That committee has had referred to it in each of the last three years the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. It is only fair to say that the estimates of that department have had a better and a more understanding scrutiny than have those of any other department, owing to the fact that in committee it is possible to review estimates in detail, and to elicit firsthand information.
Hon. members will recall the debate on this subject on O.ctober 26 last year in which, during a useful discussion as to the methods of reviewing expenditures, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said, as reported at page 1159 of Hansard:
I must say I do not think the House of Commons satisfactorily discharges its responsibility of examining in detail the estimates of proposed expenditures for a year.
And again at page 1173, at the conclusion of the discussion, he said:
I want to conclude by saying that I think we have had a most helpful discussion. I do not think members of the committee expect me to express any specific views as to the different suggestions that have been made, but-
And this is the part I would stress.
-I shall be very glad to consider, between now and the next session, what the government might do to expedite the efficient study of the estimates. I think with the co-operation of all parties we should be able to effect some improvement in our system.
Some improvement in the system is urgently needed. I therefore look forward with interest to hearing from the government its concrete proposals for the improvement of that system.
Some are saying that the committee on public accounts is a committee which could undertake this task. If I may say so, that is a complete misconception. The public accounts committee is established for the purpose of reviewing expenditures that have been made. What is needed in this instance is a committee which will review estimates of expenditures before the house makes the money available to the government.
I shall not dwell upon these other matters, because the suggestions have been put forward and debated by others. A committee on national defence is urgently required today, as is also a standing committee on veterans affairs. We require, too, a standing committee on social security-none of your special or mushroom committees, but a standing committee. As has been recommended on several occasions in recent sessions by the special committee on radio broadcasting and

The Address-Mr. Fleming the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation there should be a standing committee in that field.
We are meeting under conditions very much changed from those faced by the house a year ago-trade losses, unemployment and a record of illegality on the part of the government. Those who are raising cheap cheers and who are doing the desk-thumping in the house, and a good deal of crowing over the results of the election of last June, would do well to ponder the conditions under which that verdict of the people was obtained. They should consider the changed conditions which have followed that verdict, and also the exposure of some of the thingg the people should have had brought to their attention at that time, but which they were kept from knowing through the deliberate action of the government.
The unemployment situation, already of emergent proportions, is alarming, not simply because of the numbers of unemployed-the
375,000	who have been seeking employment through the national employment service-[DOT] but because of the very rapid increase in those numbers in the past two months. The figure of unemployed, or of those applying for employment through the national employment service-and we have already heard from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that these are not complete figures of the unemployed-was 261,000 at December 22. On January 12, three weeks later, it had risen by 62,000, and in the succeeding five weeks by another 52,000. The figure on January 12 was 100,000 larger than on the same date in 1949.
The Minister of Finance cannot brush this situation aside any longer by saying that it is purely seasonal unemployment. This problem is much more deep-seated. We will have to have expedients to meet it now-of course we will. But a more deep-seated and far-reaching remedy is required, because the situation has arisen directly out of our loss of markets.
It is a tragic fact that agriculture, the basic industry of this country, is today bearing the brunt of the loss of markets abroad. The whole structure of this country's sale of its agricultural surplus abroad in recent years, particularly to the United Kingdom, is in danger of collapsing. Today we have only three contracts left for the sale of food to Great Britain. Figures from the dominion bureau of statistics show that the value of our field crops alone in Canada in 1949 fell by 16 per cent as compared with 1948, from a total of $1,696 million in 1948 to $1,427 million in 1949.
[Mr. Fleming.!

The farmers of this country, the essential food producers, were promised by this government that there would be great and continuing benefits from the control system. Under that control system they sacrificed more than $500 million as a result of the government's wheat policy alone. Our farmers were not permitted to sell their wheat on the free markets of the world. Today those same farmers are being deprived of the promised fruits of that policy.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) may be able to persuade himself that no great importance should be attached to the withdrawal of ECA funds for purchases by the United Kingdom of our agricultural products, but I suggest to him that the farmers of this country are not shrugging off that matter quite so lightly, especially wherf they saw on January 19 that ECA funds are no longer to be available.to the United Kingdom for the purchase of Canadian bacon. They have seen that fund in the process of being cut off so far as other Canadian products are concerned, and they remember that that fund made possible the purchase by the United Kingdom of many of the food products of this country in recent years. Our farmers are beginning to experience a feeling of the gravest disquiet. The Canadian loan to the United Kingdom which has been providing $10 million per month is on the point of being exhausted. These are matters of the gravest concern, not merely to the farmers but, because agriculture is still the basic industry of this country, to all Canadians.
I am not going to dwell on themes about which I spoke at the last session. While we are glad to see an extension of our exports to the United States and our trade with that country placed on a more balanced basis than it has been heretofore, nevertheless such trade with the United States will be no substitute for the loss of our markets in the United Kingdom. To a great extent the economy of this country is dependent upon our being able to move our primary products eastward to the seaboard to find a market in the United Kingdom. While needed markets are being lost to the Canadian producer, at the same time the British government, pursuing a policy of state trading which has not been helpful to Canada, has been entering into contracts for the purchase from countries in Europe, such as Russia, Poland, Hungary and Denmark, of the very products that are fast becoming surplus in this country and for which the Canadian food producer would like to find a market in the United Kingdom. While this has been going on, what have we had from the government? We

have had attempts to use plausible and airily optimistic statements as a cloak for apathy and inaction.
It will not be forgotten that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said in this house last April that our trading relations with the United Kingdom were normal. The only interpretation that can be made of that statement, if it is a true statement, is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce accepts as normal the loss of our market in the United Kingdom for our exportable food surpluses. Apparently the Minister of Trade and Commerce has somehow mesmerized the Prime Minister if the Prime Minister can make the kind of statement that he made in this house two days ago in the face of the way in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce misled the house-under the rules of the house I cannot say it was done intentionally. Nevertheless the people and the electors and this house were misled with regard to Canada's trading relations with the United Kingdom.
What goes on in the executive council when this question of the loss of vitally necessary markets for Canadian products is discussed, if it ever is? I am reminded of the chorus in the Gilbert and Sullivan opera, the Mikado. One can just imagine the Minister of Trade and Commerce getting up and in his baritone singing, "I am right," and the cabinet replying in chorus, "And you are right, and all is right as right can be". Is that the only reaction we can get from hon. gentlemen opposite in the face of a developing crisis in our trading relations with the United Kingdom?
We see unemployment raising its ugly head in this country on a widespread scale. Just lately we have had nights here in Ottawa when the thermometer dropped to 21 or 22 below zero and we were glad to climb into our comfortable beds and pull up the covers. But there were men in the city of Toronto who had no beds, who had no covers to pull up. They have been forced to sleep in temporary shelters and in missions. There is the same story of frustration and the blighting of lives that inevitably follows unemployment. This house will be false to its duty if it accepts on the part of this government that same apathy, that same self-satisfaction in the face of this situation which it has manifested heretofore.
It is not enough for the Prime Minister to say that the municipalities of this country ought to be in good condition by now and should embark on public works. Are the municipalities of this country in position to meet emergent unemployment conditions? It is a thousand pities that hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches, particularly the Prime
The Address-Mr. Fleming Minister in the light of what he had to say in this house two days ago, have not had some experience in municipal affairs. If the Prime Minister had had some experience with municipal government he would not be saying the things he has been saying about the ease with which this problem can be fobbed off on the municipalities.
Those urban municipalities that are being faced with the problem of unemployment are municipalities to which the unemployed have largely come from other parts of Canada. It is grossly unfair to expect those municipalities to meet this situation. They are having a most difficult time in meeting increasing demands upon them. We have heard appeals in this house for increased support from the federal treasury for education because the burden of education has been falling so heavily upon the provinces and the municipalities. Yet in the face of that situation, in the face of sound arguments for federal assistance while preserving the autonomy of the provinces with respect to education, the Prime Minister says, "Let the municipalities undertake public works to provide employment for the unemployed".
Are we back in the same old plight of ten or fifteen years ago with the federal government just passing the buck? While we are not very numerous in this part of the house, I think I can say that we will maintain an unremitting fight against this government's attempt to fob off this problem on the municipalities and the provincial governments.


An hon. Member:: What of it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend over here can take what comfort he likes out of what I have been saying, but he will not get very much out of what I am going to say. If he is anxious to support the Minister of Justice in a deliberate and calculated breach of the law then let him vote against our amendment and condone illegality.
The Prime Minister had something to say about the dominion-provincial conference. We of the Progressive Conservative party were the ones who throughout the life of the twentieth parliament pleaded for a resumption of the general dominion-provincial conference and we can take a good deal of satisfaction out of the fact that at long last the government did reconvene a general dominion-provincial conference in January of this year.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) talks as he did two days ago about the difference in tone of the deliberations, let me tell him that the extent to which the tone raises more hope of agreement was largely due to the fact that he abandoned the tactics that

The Address-Mr. Fleming his government practised in 1945 and 1946 when it wrecked the conference by its stiffnecked, take-it-or-leave-it attitude. I commend the Prime Minister for his change in attitude and tactics at this time, and to the extent that his tactics have changed and he has abandoned that stiff-necked, take-it-or-leave-it attitude we may look forward hopefully to the kind of agreement, the necessity for which we of the Progressive Conservative party have been pleading.
When the Prime Minister undertakes to refer to the 1945 proposals of his government to that dominion-provincial conference he had better check up next time on exactly what those proposals were, because if ever a man was completely mistaken in what he was talking about it was the Prime Minister when speaking about these proposals in the house two days ago. It was in the course of the Prime Minister's remarks referring to that portion of the amendment of my leader which condemns the government for its failure to take any proper stejJs in the direction of bringing about in Canada a national system of contributory old age pensions which will permit the elimination of the means test. When questioned about this point the Prime Minister undertook to say to the house that it was impossible today to eliminate the means test. He said that you could not have the elimination of the means test without a contributory system. He may have been right in that, but he was completely wrong in saying that the proposals of his government in 1945 for a change in old pensions and the elimination of the means test were based upon a contributory scheme because you will look in vain, sir, through these proposals of the government of Canada submitted to that conference in 1945 and 1946, for so much as a syllable about any contributory scheme. On the contrary, you will find the federal government proposing the elimination of the means test, the very thing that the Prime Minister says is impossible today, the very thing the impossibility of which he marshalled figures in this house two days ago to prove.
At page 38 of his own government's proposals we find words like these:
... it is proposed that the federal government would establish a system of national old age pensions entirely financed and administered by the federal government, and paid at the uniform rate of $30 per month ... to men and women aged seventy and over in all parts of Canada.
Then he goes on to talk about the benefit of partial recovery through income tax, the very thing he argued against in this house on Monday last. When are we going to get


a little consistency on the part of the Prime Minister? Further down the page there are these words:
The principal feature of the proposed national old age pensions is the elimination of the means test after reaching age seventy.
Again we find the following:
The removal of the means test would make it possible for these pensions to be administered by the federal government alone on a uniform national basis, without the necessity for provincial participation, and would therefore considerably relieve provincial finances.
Yet the Prime Minister comes along and attempts to refute, without realizing it, every syllable of the proposals that his government made in 1945. He says that the means test cannot be eliminated. He also says today that you must have provincial participation, when in 1945 he, as a member of the government, was saying: If you adopt our policy with regard to old age pensions for those seventy years of age and over, without a means test, you will not require provincial participation. It is about time, Mr. Speaker, that we had more frankness and knowledge on the part of the government as to this problem. We do not want them trying to push this problem aside again with the kind of fallacious argument and mistake on the facts that we heard in this house from the Prime Minister two nights ago.
What have we got from the government at this session in the way of a proposal for dealing concretely and resolutely with this problem? We simply have a proposal that we appoint another committee to get some information. In this country and in this parliament today the lack is not one of information. There is plenty of information. What is required is a little courage, a willingness on the part of the government to act, and some honesty in keeping promises made to the people.
So far as time permits, I wish to mention two other subjects, communism and the rule of law. As to communism I can only conclude from a statement made by the Prime Minister in the house on February 20 that he considers no action necessary. Referring to action in the light of communist activities he says at the bottom of page 63 of Hansard:
But when action requires to be taken, we think that we shall have the courage ... to take it . . .
The Prime Minister did not indicate that the government is taking any action today. He had plenty of opportunity to indicate to the house and to the people of Canada any action that was being taken. In all fairness to the Prime Minister we can only conclude that no government action is considered necessary in the light of the activities of

communists in Canada. The events of recent years, and particularly of the past two years, including the fall of freedom in Czechoslovakia, must have made it perfectly clear that the activities of communists all over the world are directed from one source and centre, and one alone. It is the Kremlin. Communists do not operate independently in different countries. They operate under a system of international strategy directed by the Kremlin. If the government thinks it is perfectly right and proper that the same freedom of action should be extended to communists in Canada as they have exercised hitherto, then let them so declare.
The recent revelations of the spying activities in this country of Dr. Klaus Fuchs should wake up some of those on the treasury benches who hitherto have been sleeping so soundly on this subject. These and other matters, not to mention what was said to the house last fall by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) to the effect that his department was not prepared to entrust to the national film board the making of films involving matters essential to the defence of Canada, and the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) in referring to screening being carried on, screening-which the government apparently considered necessary-of those engaged in broadcasting overseas in foreign languages over the C.B.C. shortwave facilities, ought to be enough to put members of the house on their guard, and to call for resolute action on the part of the government.
What do I propose? In the first place I suggest that the government should be frank with us. It was none other than the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) who, in a speech to the Montreal Rotary Club on July 19 last, said this:
The domestic threat of communism must be met "by strengthening, if necessary, our Criminal Code against actions which threaten the security of the state."
These are the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, a man who has seen with his own eyes the sinister depra-dations of communism in other countries, who has shown by his statement on July 19 last that he is aware that these activities are being carried on in Canada. Just what is the strengthening of the Criminal Code that he recommends? What are the activities of these communists against which he recommends that action should be taken by way of strengthening the Criminal Code? I agree with him that the Criminal Code should be strengthened. I want him to come forward and tell us, as he should, about the activities on which that comment was based.
The Address-Mr. Fleming
Let me remind this house that almost four years have passed since the royal commission on communist espionage in this country made its report. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has made much of the action that was taken thereon. There have been trials of those who were named in the report of that commission, but the government have not exhausted the recommendations that were made. In the light of world events it is well that the house should be reminded today of what those recommendations were. They will be found at pages 689 and 690 of the report. There are seven recommendations in all, and I shall be brief with them. The first relates to withholding publication of certain exhibits at the inquiry, and I need not dwell on that. This is the second one:
2.	That the proper authorities in each service, department and organization take such steps as may be considered desirable and effective, in the light of this report and of the evidence and exhibits, to prevent further unauthorized transmission of information and to set up further safeguards.
What has the government done? Here four years later we are told that certain departments and branches of the government are not entrusted with certain government business because their employees have not been screened. I repeat, that is four years after the recommendation made by the royal commission.
3.	That all security measures should be coordinated and rendered as uniform as possible.
4.	That the evidence and exhibits accompanying this report be placed before the proper persons in the various services, departments and organizations affected, for study so that a complete evaluation of the information and the material handed over can be made in each case to ascertain in detail what has, and what has not, been compromised. That consideration be given to whether the findings so made should be communicated to the proper authorities in the United Kingdom and the United States.
Then consider the importance of the next recommendation:
5.	That the Official Secrets Act, 1939, be studied in the light of the information contained in this report and in the evidence and exhibits, and, if it is thought advisable, that it be amended to provide additional safeguards.
The government has not introduced in this house any bill to amend and strengthen the Official Secrets Act.
6.	That consideration be given to any additional security measures which would be practical to prevent the infiltration into positions of trust under the government of persons likely to commit acts such as those described in this report.
What has been done in the light of that recommendation? Here four years later the screening is still not completed.
7.	That the practice and procedure in connection with the issue of Canadian passports be revised. While not elsewhere referred to in this report, we have had evidence indicating that naturalization and birth certificates have also been improperly

The Address-Mr. Fleming
obtained. We therefore suggest that the conditions surrounding the issue of these documents might be the subject of consideration by the proper authority.
We would like to know what action the government propose to take. There have been some routine inquiries, in the usual way, into the matter of the issuance of passports and certificates of naturalization, but where is that detailed1 scrutiny and investigation which was called for by the commissioners?
So, sir, I ask that the government do four things. First, that they carry out the recommendations of their own royal commission. Second, that in keeping with the proposal of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) they take steps to strengthen the Criminal Code. Third, that they get on seriously with this work within the government service. I want to make it abundantly clear that I advocate this not only because of the necessity for finding, wherever they are, those whose first loyalty is to the Kremlin and eradicating them from the service of Canada, but also to remove any suspicion from faithful civil servants whose patriotism and loyalty never should have been called into question, and never would have been called into question if this government had done its duty as it should.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has exhausted his time.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member has unanimous consent he may proceed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank hon. members for their indulgence, and I assure the house I do not intend to trespass upon it.
I indicated a few moments ago that I wished to say something about the rule of law. The hope for the future of mankind, depending as it does upon the preservation of peace in the world, lies in the establishment in international affairs of the rule of law. Within Canada it is fundamental to our freedom as citizens. It is just as important as the freedoms we enjoy in this parliament or at the ballot box. Equally important are the freedoms assured to us by the rule of law, by which we mean simply that all men are equal before the law, and not only before the law but under the law. Whether it be the Prime Minister or any citizen in any walk of life, all men are equal and none may override the law with impunity.
Closely coupled with that is this further fundamental principle, that when parliament legislates it does so, according to the terms of its enactment, for all people. Its laws are binding upon all. It rests with one branch of the government, namely the Department of Justice, to maintain the law through the


avenues of enforcement that have been set up under our democratic processes. There has not been a graver or more deadly blow struck at that fundamental guarantee of the freedoms of all Canadians or that hope for the future of mankind in the relations between nations, than was dealt by this government by its illegal suppression last year of the report of the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act. The law, in express terms, required that this report, which was delivered to the government in December, 1948, should be made public within fifteen days. It has been shown that this would have been perfectly possible; but for reasons best known to itself, and not frankly admitted yet, the government chose to suppress that report for a period of ten months. I say with confidence that it would not have been made public yet had it not been for the resignation of Mr. McGregor. The same reasons that led this government deliberately to suppress that report for ten months would have led it to continue to suppress the report even to this day had not Mr. McGregor's resignation forced it into the open. Why was it suppressed?


An hon. Member:: There was an election
coming on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: I do not like to
interrupt, Mr. Speaker, but I am next on the list, and my hon. friend has already had 60 minutes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A moment ago, when the
house indicated that it was prepared to extend my time, I said I would not take advantage of the kindness of hon. members, and I do not wish to ask the further indulgence of the house. So if the hon. member wishes me to bring my remarks to a close, I shall do so.
I shall limit myself on this occasion to saying that the government has shown itself since to be utterly unrepentant; and it behooves this house, as the custodian, guarantor and champion of the freedoms of the people, to cleanse the treasury benches of lawbreakers and substitute for them those who will respect, obey and carry out the law. What has happened in this instance is simply the culmination of what has been going on here for a very long time. The ministers have long treated parliament with contempt, and it was only a short step until they felt perfectly free to override, disregard and disobey an enactment of parliament.


Alan Carl Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join those who have already congratulated the new minister of the crown and the new parliamentary assistants on their

The Address-Mr. A. C. Stewart
appointments. I wish also to congratulate the mover of the address. Not only do I congratulate him on what he said, but being one of those perhaps more experienced in the legislature I would suggest that he follow his air force training, make sure of his route, and make sure that his landing gear is down at all proper times.
Politics are somewhat different from overseas service. Referring to the seconder of the motion, I was pleased indeed to hear him speak in both English and French, something which I unfortunately cannot do. I have, however, had the opportunity of going through his province extensively. The hon. member who moved this address happened to mention the maritimes, and I noted his remarks about them. He said that all Canadians should make it a point, particularly the members of this chamber, to visit all parts of Canada and all provinces of Canada. I had the pleasure of visiting the maritimes about twenty years ago and my friend the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) was good enough to drive me over from Digby, Nova Scotia, to Lunenburg, at which time we spoke at the Bridgewater apple convention and also at the Lunenburg fishermen's convention. May I say that you have not seen the maritimes until you have had one of their real fish dinners such as the one which Judge Arsenault of Prince Edward Island was good enough to entertain me with. The maritimes are not foreign to the west.
As to the province of Quebec, you cannot say you have seen that province by visiting Murray Bay or Lucerne in Quebec. You must really go around the Gaspe peninsula to see the province of Quebec, and you have to see these people who have been in there for three or four hundred years. The late Mr. Perrault, who was then minister of roads, some twenty years ago was good enough to take me around that drive and take me into all the villages in that part of the country. They had one of the worst storms in history on the Atlantic at that time, and the people were up against it. They had only the cow, the boat, and the old seigniorial system of holding land. But those people are of a steady race. They have been in there three or four hundred years. They do not kick every time something goes wrong. They are a steady people. No one will ever make socialists or C.C.F.'ers out of that bunch. Incidentally, speaking as a westerner, and having been born in the west of parents who were both born in Ontario, I want to say this. I saw more oxen between Lunenburg and Digby than I ever saw in western Canada; and my father was there in 1882 along with the father of General McNaughton.
As to the debate, I want to compliment the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) despite what has been said by the feeble opposition in connection with his remarks to this house.
I do not think I can add very much to what he said. We hear that we have too strong a group on this side of the house, that the government is too powerful, and that we should have a stronger opposition. I wish we had a stronger opposition. I think it would be helpful. But we have on this side of the house what is known as the rump and we really represent the largest group sitting on the side opposite to the government. I can assure the opposition that if they cannot do the job, we will help them along a bit at times in order to see that we get good government.
As to the Conservative party, may I say that I should like to see us get down again to the two-party system. In that way I think we would get better government. In the Conservative party are some splendid men. You have such members as the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), and the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), who was in the same battalion as myself. You have good material, and I cannot understand why the party have not done more with the material they have. We have sent you, or you have taken from the west, some of your leaders. There was Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, and he disappeared. Then you took honest John Bracken, and he disappeared. You tried to get one of our younger fellows, but you did not give him the job. You have a leader now. I have listened to him speak in this house, and I think he is doing a good job. He speaks quite sincerely and he is covering his platform. Don't change leaders every day. We want you to "stay put" behind the leader that you have. We notice factions in your group already. I can see certain fellows who would like to be leader. Don't change leaders again. Keep one leader for a while, and then we shall get down to brass tacks.
We have now before this house an amendment moved by the Conservative party, and they have a right to move such an amendment. Then we have an amendment to the amendment moved by the C.C.F. If there are two groups that are co-ordinating in this house, it is the C.C.F. and the Conservatives.


An hon. Member:: No.


Alan Carl Stewart: To a certain extent. I do not think the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) will ever really co-operate with the C.C.F., but I am talking officially about the record. People will be astounded at this co-operation when they read it in Hansard. In connection with that co-operation, may I say that it is a peculiar thing that when
146	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. C. Stewart the C.C.F. moved their amendment, instead of following the usual practice and striking out all the words after "that", they agreed with most of the amendment of the Conservatives and added only a few touching words. The C.C.F., of course, never totally agree with anybody. In connection with that and with this unholy alliance that is taking place in this house, I should like to quote Mr. Coldwell, speaking at Brantford on May 26. The newspaper article is headed "Unholy Alliance Seen by Coldwell" and reads in part as follows:
Asserting Premier Duplessis and George Drew, Progressive Conservative leader, have entered into an "unholy alliance," Mr. Coldwell told a political campaign meeting "a vote for a Tory candidate is a vote for another form of invisible government at Ottawa controlled by the irresponsible hand of Maurice Duplessis.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Houde) is not in his seat-I have not seen him there yet-though he has not been coupled in this article. It continues:
He referred to an address by Mr. Drew in Flin Flon, Manitoba, in which the Progressive Conservative leader quoted Mr. Coldwell as having advised voters: "If you can't vote C.C.F., then vote Liberal."
"I have said no such thing," Mr. Coldwell said.
He does not need to say it any more out in our country.
The main complaint of the opposition in their amendment is with regard to markets.
I think that complaint was fairly well answered by the Prime Minister himself. If later on there is any doubt about that, I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will be quite capable of dealing with the matter. As hon. members know, the markets were lost in England to a certain extent not by the action of this government but by the action of the British government itself, and by an action which Sir Stafford Cripps on many occasions said he would not take; I refer to the devaluing of the pound. That is why the market was lost. There is no question about that. Why then try to pass the buck to the government?
The hon. member for Souris, speaking in this house yesterday-and as I said, I have every respect for the hon. member for Souris -mentioned a $2 billion loss. He has jumped four times over the amount of the Winnipeg grain exchange and the pamphlet that he read from. We did not lose $2 billion as against the United States farmer; and as a matter of fact, the comparison is odious in any event because, after all, the people of the United States consume the greater portion of their wheat production. In addition, they have subsidized and carried a load of farm products to the extent of over $3,500 million;


and I do not think anybody in this house would advocate our present government doing that.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member wants to be fair when he says I jumped the price. The $2 billion has to do with all agricultural production. I separated it from the wheat. I know he wants to be fair.


Alan Carl Stewart: The hon. member did not separate it in his speech. I checked his speech.


James Arthur Ross: Agricultural production.


Alan Carl Stewart: It is the speech that I am referring to. If the hon. member will check it he will find that I am being fair, and that he did not divide it.
In addition I want to say this. In connection with these wheat agreements, in connection not only with the international wheat agreement, but with the other wheat agreements that were made, they were entered into with the absolute endorsation of the wheat pools and of the organized farmers throughout this country. They were endorsed completely by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which speaks for a million and a half organized farmers, and outside the Winnipeg grain exchange and a few of its subsidiaries nobody in this country was complaining about the government entering into these contracts. I venture this assertion, that these contracts did help Britain at a time when she needed help; and if they had not been entered into, and if we had put upon the British people the full load and the full price for these products we might have had a slump in our markets more than two years ago, and we would not have got the benefit that we are getting today from a fairly steady market.


Mr. Harris (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is very generous. I apologize for interrupting one of the newer members, but I want to ask a question. The question I have in my mind is this. If, as he says, the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) is out in his figures, perhaps it would help him to some conclusion-


Alan Carl Stewart: You ask the
question.


Joseph Henry Harris: -if he adds all the other industries in Canada apart from the growing of wheat to the general equation. Prices were pegged in Canada, Mr. Speaker, but they were not pegged in the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Alan Carl Stewart: My hon. friend has been long enough in this house-and I have been in a legislature before; I am not a new member-to know that that is not a question. The hon. member did not ask me a question. He made a little speech. I have no objection to that.
In connection with the matter of our wheat market I want to say this, that the people of this country, whether the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) agrees with it or not, did in their judgment less than a year ago endorse the government of this country, the government which carried Canada through the days of the war and has done so since. The people watched their records; the people made their decision, and it was an overwhelming decision.
I am not going to profess that every minister of this government is a perfect minister; I do not think the government would contend that for one minute. But they did a good job when the going was tough; and I feel that as far as these markets are concerned, and as far as the negotiating of markets is concerned, they are fully seized of the fact that the western farmer feels, and properly so, that during the war he was called upon to take a reduced price; that he feels that the general taxpayer of Canada should assist him if times get tougher. I think they feel that. In addition I think the government will see, as they have already done by fixing certain minimum prices, that the farmer will be properly secured as far as the government can secure him, we being an exporting country.
This afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke for over an hour. Hon. members will note that he made certain references to matters of economics and conversations with regard to trading that they carried on all along the line. I venture to say that the staff left behind-I understand that staffs have been left behind in some of these countries for trading purposes-are busy trying to see that other markets are procured for Canada. I do not think you will find that the trip to the Orient was wasted at all.
I submit that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is not over in the old country just on a health trip. He has been visiting certain other countries in Europe. It was obvious at the conclusion of the last session that he was tired out. I venture to say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has not been entirely enjoying himself over in the old country. The matter of obtaining these markets is a matter of negotiation. I feel sure that the government is seized of the importance of securing a market for the surplus wheat particularly.
The Address-Mr. A. C. Stewart
Of course we now have the international wheat agreement for the next two years, and other markets, I venture to say, will be found. The situation in England has not been ideal. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), said that England today was buying from Russia, Czechoslovakia and other countries. Well, there is an election tomorrow in England. I am riot speaking for the Liberal party, but personally I hope that Winnie Churchill goes back in there, and then we may get a little better deal than we have got so far.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will take you up on that.


Alan Carl Stewart: The C.C.F. are
always so optimistic in politics; they are pessimistic in everything else. You were very optimistic up in the Battlefords, and you know what happened up there the other day.
Considerable emphasis has been laid on the matter of unemployment. Every hon. member in this house has been surfeited with printed pamphlets prepared, no doubt, by the C.C.F. braintrust, sent and labelled "Canadian Congress of Labour", which is either their left wing or their left foot, I do not know which. But in any event they are the political arm of the C.C.F., or the C.C.F. is their political arm. In any case, the Canadian Congress of Labour has been responsible for sending to every hon. member these printed pamphlets having to do with the abolition of the means test.
The matter of unemployment is referred to in the amendment of the C.C.F. party. I personally listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) speak on unemployment. He did not say that the municipalities would have to take the load. He implied that they should take their share of the load. I made a survey of unemployment in the three constituencies surrounding Yorkton and served by the employment office there. The situation there is that less than 4 per cent of the employables are unemployed. I was assured by the man in charge of the employment office that directly spring opens up not only will every one of them be employed but there will be a shortage of labour up there. That is not an invitation to Cape Breton South to send that 10 per cent of his up to my particular constituency.
I respect the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). On many occasions he seems to talk the same language as some of us talk. Sometimes I think he should move his seat in the house, but apparently his associations have spoiled him. When he spoke yesterday he dealt with unemployment. In connection with unemployment he made certain statements that I do not think he was

The Address-Mr. A. C. Stewart really serious about. These statements do not help. They do not build up morale. They never built it up in the army or out of it. This is his statement as reported at page 98 of Hansard:
It is rather frightening when you think that we have just come through a major conflict.
According to the hon. member's statement only 10 per cent are unemployed in Cape Breton South. I continue with his remarks:
The unemployed in Canada were the ones who fought it. A few years after their return, with a threatening international situation and the possibility of another war, whom do you think those fellows are going to shoot at the next time?
They have had one experience. They are human, and many of them are the boys who came back from this war.
As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) well knows, the unemployed of Canada did not fight the first war. Very, very few in our battalion, or any of the battalions, were unemployed. Nor did the unemployed of Canada fight the last war. Only a very small percentage of the soldiers, sailors or airmen who fought in the last war were unemployed-a very small percentage, indeed.
In addition, by his own admission, 90 per cent of the Cape Breton workers are employed -and I venture to say most of them are returned men. Furthermore, in my own branch of the Legion, and I think in every branch of the Legion, as every hon. member can say, when the question is asked, "Are you unemployed?" I have yet in the last year to, hear of any legionnaire in the city of Yorkton or vicinity who has answered by saying, "I have no employment."
So that situation is not at all as it is painted. It is exaggerated, and purely for political purposes. In addition, so far as Yorkton is concerned, according to the figures 95 per cent of the unemployment there is seasonal. Eighty-three per cent have applied for and obtained unemployment insurance. We are told the government is about to bring before the house certain provisions to increase the number who may come under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and that provision will help many of those who are at present unemployed. I' believe, -with respect, that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has adequately covered the situation, and that nothing more need be said in connection with it.
So far as the attitude of the people is concerned, while I do not know what other hon. members have found, in my constituency, which is largely rural and composed of farmers, there has been no complaint about prices. My constituency is composed largely of people from other lands, many of whom

are of Ukrainian ancestry. They have made developments, and are educating their sons and daughters in our universities. They are improving their farming methods-and it pleased me to see the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Decore) rise in his place at the last session and point out that the three prize winners at the world grain fair were from Vegreville and of Ukrainian ancestors.
These people are advancing. What was the attitude of those farmers when I returned to my constituency? I never had one delegation of farmers complaining about prices- not one. I never talked with a farmer who was worrying about the pork market-not one. He knew he could go into pork in two or three months, and get out of it again, if he wished to-and they are still raising pork. I never heard one complaint about cattle prices-and I have raised a great many cattle. Cattle prices are good; they are very satisfactory, and will continue so, so long as we can keep the embargo removed by the United1 States. Incidentally, Canadian cattle sold there last year amounted to only one and a half per cent of the cattle butchered in that country. That is a very small percentage. If the cattle market in my district is sound, farming in that district is also sound.
In that connection the only complaint I received-and I object to all this depression talk-was in connection with eggs. I took that up immediately with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I received a request from the president of the Saskatchewan poultry association, which is composed of representatives of all branches of the poultry industry in that province, and includes the producers, the co-operatives, the produce dealers, the hatchery men, the feed manufacturers and the poultry division of the university.
When the announcement was made later by the Minister of Agriculture that a floor price of 38 cents a dozen had been fixed I received a letter written by the president of this association while on the train on his way to the Niagara Falls convention. The last paragraph is significant, and states:
The announcement was received yesterday of the support price being invoked for eggs. To me, again personally, the price has been very well chosen. The reasons are that an efficient operator can cover practically all, if not all his expenses and overhead costs, but with so low a present margin that he will not expand his operations, while the less capable manager will curtail or cease operation, and so bring in a reduction in production, and some measure of stability for the future.
Thanking you for your assistance in securing this welcome solution.
And that is signed by D. L. Davis of Vanscoy, the president of the Saskatchewan poultry association. They do not get the prices

or have the market of the Ontario poultry raisers, because of the much larger population in the triangle in which your cities are located down here. These are the feelings of the president of the poultry association in Saskatchewan.
On the matter of unemployment I should like to speak briefly. Speaking particularly with respect to strikes, let me point out that in this government we have as Minister of Labour the Hon. Humphrey Mitohell. He is a labour man himself and knows about labour. It seems to me he has also a very efficient staff who are familiar with labour conditions, and- who are capable of judging things as they are. In Canada today, and for the last number of years, the labour situation has been much better than in the country to the south of us. But where we have a C.C.F. or socialist government we find complaints about unemployment-and I am referring to Saskatchewan.
I hold in my hand a picture taken from the Leader-Post, showing some of the government's own employees out on strike. It is headed by a bunch of these young people they think so much about-or profess to think so much about. This is a strike of the Saskatchewan insurance office employees. We see that 120 employees walked out, and stayed out for a while. The signs they carry say, "Profits are high; so is the cost of living." The government was apposed to what was being made on insurance, because they said it was a monopoly. Naturally the employees wanted a share of the profits. They say they are on strike because they are not getting enough pay. On another sign we see this, "We are willing to negotiate in good faith." And on another, "You are getting the profits; we are getting low wages." And all this with a C.C.F. socialist government in Saskatchewan.
One does not find that under the Social Credit government of Alberta, because that government is giving them a little better break than in Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: More oil.


Alan Carl Stewart: At least they allow the people in to investigate and to find oil, and do not threaten to rob them when they find it. In our province in the last five years the government has scared everybody out. Nobody would take a hundred thousand dollars to Saskatchewan, because he would be afraid he would lose it. The same is true of the bus line, and everything else. They are not putting it in, with the result that we have lost to other provinces about half of our normal increase in population. However, that situation will be cleaned up three years from now.
The Address-Mr. A. C. Stewart
When I hear them talking about what they do, and do not do, in connection with social services, and all the rest of it, I am reminded that the very men who are attacking the government here, men with whom at least temporarily the Conservatives have an alliance for the purposes of this debate-


Joseph Henry Harris: Oh, no.


Alan Carl Stewart: Well, the hon.
member for Danforth does not like my reference to an alliance, and I am glad he is sitting nearer to us than those who sit over there.
In connection with old age pensions we have had the most flagrant abuse in our province. During the last federal campaign there was sent out with every old age pensioner's cheque a slip signed by J. H. Sturdy, Minister of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation, under date of May 31, 1949-just before the election-and stating:
Dear Pensioner-
And this is just a crack at the federal government, just propaganda against the government that was paying 75 per cent of the pension. Dear Pensioner:
You will undoubtedly have heard recently that old age and blind pensions have been increased from a maximum of $35 a month to a maximum of $42.50 in the province of Saskatchewan. The increase in pensions will be payable retroactive to May 1. Unfortunately the agreement with the federal government providing for the increased pension did not reach us in time to include the adjusted pension for May with the May cheques.
Just listen to this:
We are disappointed that the federal government did not authorize an increase in the allowable income, so that every pensioner might benefit more equally in the increase.
That was pure propaganda that was sent out with every old age pension cheque by the socialist government in Saskatchewan. In this legislature last session one hon. member mentioned the fact that when an old age pensioner in Saskatchewan went to a hospital part of his cheque was deducted. They were promised free hospitalization in Saskatchewan but they did not get it. It was said that it would not increase taxation, that they would take it out of the big fellows and pass it on to the small fellows. That was the propaganda that was put out in Saskatchewan.
Another hon. member was questioned last year by an hon. member over there as to whether any prosecutions had been carried out for the non-payment of the hospital tax, and the inference was that there were none. The fact is that there have been plenty of

The Address-Mr. A. C. Stewart them. I should like to quote from the journals of the legislature of Saskatchewan, page 173 of March 3, 1949, as follows:
Q. How many prosecutions for non-payment of hospital tax have been initiated?
A. One hundred and ninety-two between January 1, 1947 and February 20, 1949.
Q. How many cases were brought to trial?
A. One hundred and twenty-two.
Q. How many convictions were there?
A. One hundred and thirteen.
Q. What were the total fines and costs?



A. $1,053.85.

[Stage Direction]
That is the party that was going to help the old people, but those are the facts as they appear on the record. We were told that hospitalization was going to be free. Then they charged $5 per head. They waited until the election was over and a week later raised it another $5 to $10 per head. Now they are taking another $5 per head out of the general revenue, making a total of $15 that they are collecting and they are still in the hole.
Yet they criticize the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and this government for being lax in matters of social welfare. It is a significant fact that in connection with hospital grants you can get the Ottawa contribution but you have to wait for the Saskatchewan contribution. They are short of money in Saskatchewan despite the fact that the federal government is giving them an annual grant of over $14 million in lieu of income and other taxes.
They are nearly a year behind in paying road contractors and for other things that should be paid for. Yet we hear these criticisms and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has joined in them. We hear about certain things not being done for the old age pensioners, and reference is made to the means test. If the hon. member will read that blue book-some of us have looked it over-he will find reference to a pension on a contributory basis. He should remember that another dominion-provincial conference took place nearly five years ago. He should remember also that at that time the people logically believed that the cold war would be over. The government of Canada was then spending roughly $250 million on defence, but last year they spent over $380 million and this year the expenditures will be considerably larger. Anyone who has been in government will tell you that you cannot spend money without getting it from somewhere, from the taxpayer.
Percy Ellis Wright: You are going to take it out of the old age pensioners.


Alan Carl Stewart: The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), who is not in his


seat, has asked a question and I shall answer it. I am not going to take anything out of the old age pensioners.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is what you said.


Alan Carl Stewart: I want to point out to the hon. member for Melfort that during the course of the last campaign my statements were quite clear. Some of my friends like the hon. member for Melfort do not even follow their Bible, which says:
For he that hath, to him shall be given; and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.
Even the bees kill off the drones, but the C.C.F. encourage them all the time. I do not believe in that. The people who settled western Canada came out in 1882 and they were not asking the government all the time to help them. What I said in connection with old age pensions was that I did not believe in the means test, that I did not believe in one person trying hard to save a little money while another person spent everything and got the same pension. In addition I said that the whole matter of welfare should be on a contributory basis and carried out under a settled scheme.
' I went further and said that certain corporations in Canada already had their own pension schemes. At 15 years of age I worked in a bank which had a pension arrangement. There is a need of this committee to study all these things. The government may well take into consideration the fact that certain corporations and companies already have their own pension arrangements and allowance may be made in connection with income or corporation taxes. There may be some differentiation between those corporations that have such schemes and those that have not. This committee may recommend that all private schemes should be brought into the general scheme. Welfare is something that I think can be considered by the committee.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is not what you said when you were before the electors last June.


Alan Carl Stewart: That is the exact statement I made over the radio, and if the hon. member for Melfort had dug out his ears he would have heard it. That is my exact statement and that is why I am putting it on Hansard. I invite the hon. member to come into Yorkton any time he likes and I will repeat that statement.
I am not going to dwell upon what the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) said about China because the situation has already been covered, as I was going to imply it would be, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). The leader of the C.C.F. has

always an international view on something, but that international view has always changed along with those of Sir Stafford Cripps. I have here the report of the view the hon. member expressed at Halifax, but I do not know whether he will subscribe to it today. This reads:
Mr. Coldwell is quoted by the Canadian Press as saying in Halifax that he wished "there were an ocean between Canada and the United States." The neighbouring republic, he said, was "the last citadel of capitalism," and contained the seed of another depression and possible war. "Practically all the leading economists," he added, "agreed that the United States would pull the world with it when its financial structure collapsed, and herein lies the danger of a future war."
In wishing for isolation from the United States, Mr. Coldwell takes a view precisely opposite to that of the British Labour government. Within a few days of Mr. Coldwell's Halifax speech, Mr. Bevin was pledging the fullest co-operation of his government with the United States in the reconstruction of the world economy. Mr. Coldwell wishes for an ocean between Canada and the United States. The British government, separated from the United States by an actual ocean, is trying to span it with a bridge of friendship.
That was a statement he made on international affairs, but, as I say, he changes his views from day to day and from year to year. He has changed them ever since 1914. He has said that we should not participate in a war, that we should do this or that we should do that. Thank goodness we have in this country a government that does not change its mind on every one of these problems from day to day.
In conclusion, I am sure that members of the House of Commons are all enjoying themselves, and I hope I have helped to wake them up because the debate has been rather quiet so far. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has already made a move towards streamlining our constitution. An amendment has been introduced affecting the rules of the house. Reference was made to it by the previous speaker, and I presume I am also in order in referring to it. The new procedure will speed up consideration of the estimates. Members will have a chance to study them and will be able to say that they did not pass millions of dollars in a day without knowing what they were voting for. I think it was a good move. I think the Prime Minister will streamline a lot of other things before he is finished.
Certain remarks were made by the previous speaker about the last dominion-provincial conference. I am sure that those of us who have studied the proceedings of the conference carefully will agree that the Prime Minister should be congratulated on the urbanity, cleverness and decency with which he presided over it. I will go further than the member who just spoke and say that in my
The Address-Mr. A. C. Stewart opinion the premier of Ontario adopted the right attitude, and made a much better contribution than the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) when he was premier of that province. Some of you are older than I, and possibly the duties of the opposition are much better known to you. We have a marvellous country. If you pick up a map of Canada you will see a little triangle running from lake Superior over to Sherbrooke, Quebec, and in that area live most of our people. I would suggest that members representing constituencies within that triangle travel over the rest of Canada and see what it is like just as some of us from without the triangle have travelled over the rest of the dominion. You will then have a better feeling in the house and a better knowledge of the country.
Canada needs development, and before we have further immigration the development of our north country should take place. You have cities such as Flin Flon in the northern portion of our country with a population of twelve thousand. With proper access to the northern section of our country we will be able to develop it, and cities will grow up which will help to consume some of our own products. Probably you have drawn the inference at least that I am not in favour of the amendment to the amendment and will vote against it.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart), who has just taken his seat, insisted on misinterpreting or misrepresenting my remarks as recorded in the first column on page 108 of Hansard with reference to the gigantic loss to Canadian agriculture. I do not suppose I have the privilege of repeating them, but any hon. member who cares to check up on the matter can do so by referring to the first column on page 108 of Hansard.
On motion of Mr. Knight the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Si. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Acting Minister of Labour has been discussing with the leaders of the several groups the possibility of taking up tomorrow, notwithstanding the special order made in respect of this debate, resolution No. 10 on today's order paper dealing with unemployment insurance in an effort to have that resolution considered and the legislation enacted so that the payments it would authorize could be made as from the first of March. I understand that the Department of Labour, anticipating that the amendments probably will be enacted, has all its preparations completed and will be ready to pay the supplementary

Business of the House
benefits as soon as the legislation is passed. If my understanding is eorreot, the leaders of the several groups have said that they realize it would relieve distress to have that done as soon as possible. If that is our understanding at large, we would like, as the first order of business tomorrow, to call this resolution and see how far we can get with the legislation necessary to make these payments possible.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister is quite correct in his statement concerning the consent and approval which were given to proceeding with this legislation tomorrow. Originally there was some suggestion that it might be proceeded with today, and we would have liked to facilitate that action, but the request came too late last night, and it was impossible to arrange our speakers, those who might perhaps want to participate in the debate. In view of the urgency which the Prime Minister has indicated, and which the Acting Minister of Labour indicated last night, we felt there should not be any delay in having the legislation dealt with because no doubt there will be considerable discussion in connection with it. We thought that a start should be made on it as quickly as possible. For that reason we felt we were justified in consenting to the legislation being considered tomorrow, as the Prime Minister has indicated, and that is quite agreeable to this group.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is understood we will ask to have this resolution considered and see how far we can go. I know that all hon. members, without distinction of party, would like to see the legislation implemented' as early as it can reasonably be done. I am not asking that we should determine now how far we will go. It will depend upon what hon. members will find out in the course of the debate. We will go just as far as we can.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Because of the motion that has already been passed I understand that it will require unanimous consent to implement the request of the Prime Minister. I understand the leader of the C.C.F. party had a conversation with the acting leader of the opposition and the Minister of National Health and Welfare last night, and that we will not oppose the introduction of the measure in any way.


Gordon Graydon: If the resolution receives first reading and passes through committee in the resolution stage what will we do afterwards?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The bill will be ready for distribution. Hon. members will then see whether they will be prepared to proceed with the bill or whether they will prefer to wait until the next day. As soon as this matter is disposed of we will continue the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 23, 1950