1952-04-02

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Pursuant to section 32 of the National Harbours Board Act I table herewith the annual report of the national harbours board for the calendar year 1951.
This report is in page proof form only, because the final bound copies will not be available for some time. When they are available they will be distributed.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 93 (from the Senate), to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What amount Is being paid by the Canadian, government to Canadair Limited for each F-86?
2.	What amounts are being paid by the Canadian government for the engine, armament and other parts or equipment used in the construction of the F-86?
3.	What shares, if any, are owned by the Canadian government or any agency of the crown in (a) the Electric Boat Company Limited:	(b)
Canadair Limited?
4.	Does Canadair Limited have an agreement with the Canadian government for the use of the Cartierville airport?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	The contract for production of F-86 aircraft with Canadair Limited provides for the payment to Canadair of the actual costs of production, plus a fee of 5 per cent calculated on a target cost, plus a bonus in the event of actual costs being less than the target. Target prices are based on the estimated number of direct labour-man-hours, and cannot be expressed in dollar terms in advance of actual production. Prices are further subject to the terms of a master agreement, under which Canadair's over-all profits in excess of stipulated minima are shared with the crown in
proportion to their respective investments in the total fixed assets employed in the enterprise. The cost of the first batch of airplanes was approximately $240,000 (excluding sales taxes) per airframe. Deliveries being made at the present time and future deliveries are expected to have a substantially lower average cost.
2.	The average cost of engines, armament, and other components which are obtained directly from the United States government, and which are generally described as government furnished property, was in respect of the first batch of airplanes approximately $78,000 per aircraft, plus duty and taxes.
3.	None.
4.	Yes. Clause 9 of agreement dated October 1, 1949, tabled in the house on March 19, 1952.


LOAN TO CHINA IN 1946
Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Has the government of Canada been reimbursed for the sum of $60 million lent to China in 1946?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	If not, when will payment be made, and what is the amount of interest to date?


Mr. Sinclair:: Loans by the government of Canada to the government of China under agreements authorized by part II of the Export Credits Insurance Act totalled $52,215,997.48. The debt bears interest at the rate of three per cent per annum and is payable in thirty annual instalments commencing on December 31, 1948.
The principal instalment due December 31,
1948,	was paid in full. Of the instalment amounting to $1,740,000 due December 31,
1949,	$1,033,882.50, has been paid. The principal instalments due December 31, 1950, and December 31, 1951, and semi-annual interest payments due after December 31,
1950,	have not been paid.
Because of its financial position the government of China requested that payments be deferred for a time and the government of Canada agreed to defer to December 31, 1952, the outstanding unpaid balance of principal and interest due December 31, 1950. Principal and interest payments due since then have been similarly deferred to December 31, 1952, at the request of the government of China. These deferred payments bear interest at three per cent per annum. The present outstanding indebtedness of the government of

Questions
China under the loan agreements, including principal and interest payments totalling $6,041,201.42 which have been deferred as mentioned above, amounts to $51,281,201.42.


JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE
Mr. Dupuis:: 1.	What has been the revenue from tolls paid on the Jacques Cartier bridge, Montreal, for (a) vehicles: (b) passengers?
2.	Has there been a deficit in the operation of the bridge in 1951?
3.	If so, in what amount?


Mr. Benidickson:: In so far as the national harbours board is concerned:
1.
Year	(a) Vehicles	(b) Passengers	1951	$1,165,907	.05	$233,334	.121950	1,002,177	.98	217,922	.911949	822,103	.70	211,357.	.061948	777,229	.30	187,541	.541947	665,860	.05	162,164	.271946	568,917	.52	151,162	.541945	457,399.	88	136,532.	491944	453,417	.61	135,243,	.631943	380,644	.14	128,098	.651942	395,397.	.40	127,494	.201941	456,945	.79	130,318	.811940	375,022.	.82	98,325	.191939	365,435.	68	96,526.	581938	348,106.	.89	96,536	.181937	327,189.	.53	95,037	.591936	274,798,	.77	78,965	.091935	266,322.	.88	78,701	.571934	258,041,	,18	77,250	.181933	280,174.	,75	84,060.	661932	314,175.	,10	101,809.	891931	Details not available;	total toll revenue 405,497.	20
1930 Details not available;
total toll revenue 353,000.35
Note-Bridge opened for traffic May 14, 1930.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


CATTLE-SHIPMENTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many live cattle, consigned from any part of Saskatchewan, were shipped to the United States during the first two weeks of February?
2.	What are the names of the consignor and consignee, and the numbers of cattle in each shipment, together with respective destination of each shipment?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1 and 2. Weiller & Williams, consignor, Chas. Ladin, consignee, 33, Iowa, U.S.A.; J. L. Dorfman, consignor, Garner Sales, consignee, 28, Iowa, U.S.A.


LARD AND SHORTENING FOR SERVICE CAMPS
Mrs. Fairclough:: 
Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
VETERANS DISABILITY PENSIONS Mr. Goode:
How many veterans, by provinces, have had their disability pensions increased since the first day of December, 1951?


Mr. Mulch:: Disability pensions increased following pension medical re-examination.
Province	Number-
W.W.I and II
Newfoundland	 6
Nova Scotia	 60
Prince Edward Island	 17
New Brunswick	 60
Quebec	 116
Ontario	   499
Manitoba	 104
Saskatchewan	   48
Alberta	 46
British Columbia	 187
Total	 1,143


Mr. Goode:: How many veterans, by provinces, are in receipt of disability pensions?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Disability pensions in force, in Canada, as
at 31.12.51.
Province	Number-
W.W.I and II
Newfoundland	 829
Nova Scotia	 8,670
Prince Edward Island	 1,459
New Brunswick	 6,031
Quebec	 16,641
Ontario	 57,075
Manitoba	 13,610
Saskatchewan	 7,673
Alberta	 11,710
British Columbia	 22,684
Total	146,382


SOLDIER SETTLERS
Mr. Beyerslein:: 1.	How many veterans of world war I were established on farms in (a) British Columbia; (b) Alberta; (c) Saskatchewan, under the soldier settlement board?
2. How many veterans, who purchased land through the soldier settlement board, still do not have a clear title?
3.	How many veterans of world war II were established on farms in (a) British Columbia; (b) Alberta; (c) Saskatchewan, under the Veterans Land Act?
4. How many veterans, who purchased land through the Veterans Land , Act in (a) British Columbia; (b) Alberta; (c) Saskatchewan, are still on their farms?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Return as at December 18, 1951:
1.	(a) 3,734; (b) 7,158; (c) 6,164.
2.	(a) 64; (b) 266; (c) 324.
3.	(a) 1,431; (b) 6,879; (c) 7,658.
4.	(a) 1,320; (b) 6,483; (c) 7,389.
Notes. Answer to part 2 shows number of yeterans in the three provinces who are still on their farms and have not received title.
Answer to part 3 shows number of approvals for financial assistance.
Answer to part 4 does not include those veterans who have completed purchase from the director, the Veterans Land Act, there being no statistical record of the number of such veterans who may still be on the farms.
Answers to parts 3 and 4 include only fulltime farmers.


HISTORY OP WORLD WARS I AND II
Mr. Churchill:: 1.	When will the official history of world war II be published?
2.	How many volumes are planned?
3.	Are any plans being considered for the publication of a one-volume history dealing with the entire period of world war I?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1 and 2. Official histories have been published as follows:
Navy: The Far Distant Ships. An official account of naval operations in the second world war.
Army: The Canadian Army 1939-1945. An official account of the army's activities in all theatres of operations.
The Canadian Army at War. A series of three popular historical booklets.
Air Force: The R.C.A.F. Overseas (3 volumes). An account of R.C.A.F. operations overseas during the second world war.
Vol. I, The First Four Years.
Vol. II, The Fifth Year.
Vol. Ill, The Sixth Year.
Questions
In addition the following official histories are under preparation:
Navy: History of the Royal Canadian Navy.
Vol. I, The Naval Service of Canada- Origin and Early Years.
Vol. II, The Naval Service of Canada- Activities on Shore During the Second World War.
These volumes are in the final stages of printing and are expected to be available before the end of the calendar year 1952. The Far Distant Ships being an account of operations, these volumes will complete the history of the R.C.N.
Army: Official History of the Army. An account of the army in Canada, Britain, the Pacific, Italy and northwest Europe.
Vol. I, The Army in Canada, Britain and the Pacific. Publication expected by end of fiscal year 1952-53.
Vol. II, The Canadians in Italy. Publication expected by end of fiscal year 1952-53.
Vol. Ill, The Campaign in northwest Europe. No definite date for publication.
Medical: Official History of the Canadian Medical Services.
Vol. I, Organization and Campaigns. No definite date for publication.
Vol. II, Clinical Subjects. Publication expected by end of fiscal year 1952-53.
General: A general account of the over-all war effort covering the organization and employment of all three armed services in relationship to the war as a whole. No definite date is fixed for publication.
3. Consideration has been given to the publication of a history of the Canadian forces during the great war 1914-18, but no decision as. to this has yet been made, and in any event this would not be undertaken until the histories of the second world war were nearing completion.


SUBMACHINE GUNS
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Has the government or any of its agencies sold submachine guns or machine guns?
2.	If so, what are the names of purchasers?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Submachine guns and machine guns have been sold: (a) to the city of Montreal, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (b) to the representatives of the following foreign governments: government of the Kingdom of The Netherlands; republic of Dominica; Thailand (Siam); republic of Nicaragua; Pakistan; Israel; Chinese nationalist government.

Questions



PENSION MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

Tom Goode: How many pension medical examinations have been performed in Canada, by provinces, since December, 1951?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Pension medical examinations-Disability pensioners.
Number

Province	and II
Newfoundland	 29
Nova Scotia	 528
Prince Edward Island	 128
New Brunswick	 455
Quebec	     869
Ontario	 3,239
Manitoba	 883
Saskatchewan	 441
Alberta	  516
British Columbia	 1,371
Total	 8,459
INITIAL GRAIN PRICES, 1952 Mr. Ross (Souris):
Will initial prices of wheat, oats and barley grown in 1952 be announced before the seeding season?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The initial prices of wheat, oats and barley will be announced at the usual time.



VEGETABLE OILS AND MARGARINE

Mr. Cardiff:: 1.	What quantities of (a) cottonseed oil; (b) coconut oil; (c) soya bean oil; (d) all other vegetable oils, have been imported into Canada since the restrictions on the importation of vegetable oils were removed by the Canadian government?
2. What was the total value and the average value per pound of (a) cottonseed oil; (b) coconut oil; (c) soya bean oil; (d) all other vegetable oils imported into Canada, since the restrictions on the importation of vegetable oils were removed by the Canadian government?
3. What was the production of margarine in Canada in each of the years 1949, 1950 and 1951?
4.	What quantities of (a) cottonseed oil; (b) coconut oil; (c) soya bean oil; (d) other oils were used in the manufacture of margarine in Canada in each of the years 1949, 1950 and 1951?
5.	What was the retail price of margarine at Halifax, Saint John, Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, Vancouver, at the following dates, January 1, 1950, June 1, 1950, January 1, 1951, June 1. 1951, January 1. 1952?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 1 and 2.	Imports of vegetable oils into Canada
Soya bean oil	March 1-Dec. 31, 1949..	Quantity Pounds 	
9,745,700	Value $ 1,331,774	Average value per pound Cents 13-7Calendar year 1950 ...	
8,601,400	1,505,889	17-5Calendar year 1951 ...	
19,229,300	4,221,428	220Cottonseed oil	March 1-Dec. 31, 1949..	
61,888,700	7,519,327	12-1Calendar year 1950 ...	
92,156,800	13,623,785	14-8Calendar year 1951 ...	.... 30,801,500	6,584,194	21-4Coconut oil	March 1-Dec. 31, 1949..	
6,190,800	973,252	15-7Calendar year 1950 ...	
22,293,200	3,636,280	16-3Calendar year 1951 ...	
15,039,700	2,765,967	18-4Peanut oil	March 1-Dec. 31, 1949..	
2,135,600	418,521	19-6Calendar year 1950 ...	
8,050,800	1,333,768	16-6Calendar year 1951 ...	
27,417,600	6,292,464	23-0All vegetable oils	March 1-Dec. 31, 1949. .	
124,289,500	17,576,955	14-1Calendar year 1950 ...	
190.697,200	30,663,719	161Calendar year 1951 ...	
158,391,500	35,057,238	22-1
3.
Production of Margarine in Canada
Calendar year
1949	...
1950	...
1951	...
Thousands of pounds .	73,958
.	94,032
.	105,151

Questions
4.
Oils used in the manufacture of margarine in Canada
Vegetable oils
Coconut	
Cottonseed	
Palm and palm kernel
Soya bean	
Sunflower seed	
Other	
Totals, vegetable oils Marine and fish oils ...
Animal oils
Lard	
Edible tallow	
Other	
Totals, animal oils
Grand totals	
Calendar years
1949	1950	1951Thousands	Thousands	Thousandsof pounds	of pounds	of pounds5,453	7,857	13,05336,698 610	42,106	20,14812,736	18,187	35,198134	3,178	4,9822,054	965	7,12857,685	72,293	80,5092,285	4,751	5,248
3
102	2	
104	5	
60,074	77,049	85,757
5.	Average retail price of margarine per pound
1950	1951	1952Jan. 2	June 1	Jan. 2	June 1	Jan. 2cents	cents	cents	cents	centsHalifax 	
32-7	35-6	38-5	46-1	39-6Saint John 	
32-9	35-6	38-2	45-4	39-8Toronto 	
32-6	35-5	38-3	45-6	40-1Ottawa 	
32-7	350	37-8	45-5	39-8Winnipeg 	
32-9	36-3	39-9	47-5	41-1Regina 	
32-6	36-7	39-6	47-2	41-2
32-3	35-9	40-1	46-4	41-7Vancouver 	
34-4	36-7	38-9	46-2	40-7



AIR MAIL SERVICE

Mr. Fulton:: What has been the additional yearly cost to the Post Office Department of carrying mails in Canada since the inauguration of the "all-up" air mail letter service, directly or indirectly attributable to the institution of that service?


Mr. Cole (Si. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: The air transport charge on "all-up" mail is not segregated from the cost of carrying surcharged air mail, since the Post Office Department operates under an inclusive contract.
When the "all-up" service was introduced in July, 1948, the Post Office Department agreed to pay the Trans-Canada Air Lines the amount estimated for surcharged air mail in the domestic services for the fiscal year 1948-49, plus $2 million. For this extra payment the T.C.A. made available to the Post Office Department space to accommodate additional mail up to two and a half times the volume of surcharged mail estimated for the same fiscal year-1948-49.

Questions
In 1951 the amount paid to the T.C.A. was increased on a sliding scale up to $6 million per annum and for this increase additional space was made available.
So far, the combined volume of surcharged air mail and "all-up" mail has not used up the space available.



POOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION.

Mr. Calherwood:: 1.	What has been the cost to the Canadian government in connection with the food and agriculture organization, each year since its inception?
2.	How many nations are members of this organization?
3.	Did any nations withdraw from the organization during the year 1951?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	The following are the contributions made by the Canadian government to the United Nations interim commission on food and agriculture and to the food and agriculture organization since its inception:
Fiscal
Year
1943-	44 United Nations interim
commission on food
and agriculture ....$ 11,100.00
1944-	45 United Nations interim
commission on food
and agriculture ....	11,100.00
1945-	46 Food and Agriculture
Organization	 117,682.50
1946-	47 Food and Agriculture
Organization	 190,006.00
1947-	48 Food and Agriculture
Organization		95,475.00
1948-	49 Food and Agriculture
Organization	 190,000.00 U-S.
1949-	50 Food and Agriculture
Organization	 199,500.00
1950-	51 Food and Agriculture
Organization	 355,515.94*
1951-	52 Food and Agriculture
Organization	 109,075.54
* Includes one-half of the 1951-52 contribution raised in the final supplementary estimates 1950-51 in order to make an early payment to the food and agriculture organization to assist them in their move of headquarters to Rome.
2.	68.
3.	Nationalist China; Hungary.



BRANDON, MAN., RADIO LICENCE FEES

Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Is the Department of Transport conducting a radio licence fee collection round-up in the city of Brandon at the present time?
2.	If so, how many persons in Brandon have been brought into court and fined for failure to have a current radio licence?
3.	Before the round-up, was ample warning given by the department of its intentions regarding radio licences?


William Moore Benidickson: 1'. The department recently conducted a routine' check-up in Brandon.
2.	87.
3.	Every year on April 1 a card is sent to all licensees advising .them, that old licences have expired and new ones should be obtained without delay.. .At the same time radio stations broadcast similar advice and in July the stations broadcast notices warning unlicensed listeners that they are subject to prosecution.



CIVIL DEFENCE


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	Are any steps being taken toward the installation of a civil defence warning system in Canada?
2.	If so, what will such a system involve and what will be its purpose?
3.	What will be the responsibilities of the federal government and of the provincial and municipal authorities in the operation of such a system?
4.	Have any sections of the warning system been installed as yet?
5.	Have any arrangements been made for transborder connections between Canada and the United States for co-ordination of civil defence warning information?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The civil defence warning system will consist of communication facilities and operating techniques which, when integrated with supplementary municipal facilities and warning devices-sirens, etc.,-will ensure:
(a)	Transmitting warnings of attack from the air defence control. centres to key points (generally in target areas); to the civil defence authorities, wardens' organizations, fire departments, police, hospitals, key industries, siren central control locations; to other municipalities and to the civil population in general.
(b)	Transmitting the warnings within a time interval which will permit effective defensive action.
(c)	Effective guarantees against false warnings which might be the result of intentional sabotage, action of pranksters or carelessness.
(d)	Certainty that the warnings will be recognized as test alerts or true warnings of impending attack.

3.	The basic warning system has been accepted as a responsibility by the federal government and provides for passing the warning from the air defence control centres to certain cities in which key points have been designated. The warning will be given to certain main key points from the air defence control centres and passed from these main key points to other key points.
The dissemination of the basic warnings to those stations within or adjacent to cities having designated key points and which are required to be alerted, such as civil defence authorities, hospitals, air raid wardens' organizations, fire departments, etc., and to those points which require warnings in order to set off sirens, etc., will be the responsibility of the provincial and municipal authorities.
4.	Yes. Work on the establishment of the basic warning system, as described in paragraph one of the answer to the previous question, has been under way for a number of months. This work is now nearing completion and will be ready for test purposes almost immediately.
Sirens have also been supplied to the various target areas, except for one or two cities where deliveries will be made within the next few weeks. Installation of the sirens has already been completed in a number of target areas.
5.	Yes. Under the provisions of the United
States-Canada civil defence agreement of February 22,	1951, agreement has been
reached on the number and location of transborder connections to be established for the co-ordination, of warning information between the two countries. Work on the establishment of these connections is proceeding concurrently with the installation of the basic warning system.



FORT BARLEY

Mr. Ross (Souris):: 1.	Has Fort barley been licensed for production in Canada?
2.	If so, on whose recommendation?
3.	Is it considered equal in qualities to Montcalm barley?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: 1.	Fort barley was licensed under the Seeds Act for sale in Canada on March 8, 1952.
2.	The dominion cerealist, experimental
farms service, Ottawa.	-
3.	In eastern Canada it has outyielded Montcalm in experimental trials during the past five years. It is of stronger straw than Montcalm and has not the same tendency to lodge. While not a malting barley, no other
Questions
variety is as well adapted to the needs of the farmers in the eastern provinces who grow barley for feed.
IMPORTS OF FLAXSEED, SOYA BEANS AND COPRA Mr. Cruickshank:
1.	What quantity of (a) flaxseed; (b) soya beans; (c) copra, was imported into Canada for each of the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951?
2.	What quantity of each was imported duty-free?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 1.	(a) Flaxseed	(b) Soya Beans	(c) CopraYear	Bushels	Pounds	Pounds1946	
1,518	68,139,291	63,540,3931947	
832	87,433,636	77,089,7451948	
14,771	86,717,865	74,254,0331949	. ... 60	128,533,344	56,835,5231950	
417,514	240,261,959	48,325,4301951	.. . 942,646	279,522,444	59,192,7142.	No flaxseed was imported duty-free. All soya beans were imported duty-free except 2,060 pounds in 1946 and 360 pounds in 1947. All copra was imported duty-free.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


Mr. Wright:: 1.	How many working parties or individuals employed by P.F.R.A. were moved from either Alberta or Manitoba into Saskatchewan, during the first five months of 1948?
2.	How many men were engaged in these parties?
3.	How long did each of these groups or individuals continue to work in Saskatchewan?
4.	In what areas and on what projects were they employed while in Saskatchewan?



GRAIN OVERAGES

Mr. Fair:: 1.	During the crop year 1950-51 did the elevator companies operating in the prairie provinces have any overages of grain as a result of their operations? ,
2.	If so, what companies showed such overages and how many bushels by each company?
3.	How was the overage disposed of?
4.	What is the approximate value of grain sold by each company as a result of the overage?
5.	Did the companies receive full payment for the grain from the Canadian wheat board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.



CIVIL SERVICE SALARY INCREASES


Mr. Tremblay:: 1. Does the recent increase in pay granted to civil servants apply to (a) revenue postmasters; (b) semi-staff postmasters and assistants?

Orders for Returns
2.	What is the average rate of increase?
3.	Are the new salaries effective as of December 1, 1951?


Mr. Cote (Si. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Return tabled.



RUGS AND CARPETS-PURCHASES FOR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What has been the total expenditure for rugs and carpets in every department of government, since the first day of January, 1951?
2.	Of these expenditures, what was the value of the purchases for the Department of National Defence?



HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL CARE

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many persons in Canada by provinces, are enrolled in plans that provide for the cost of hospitalization, in whole or in part, in each of the following categories (a) provincially-operated plans; (b) voluntary plans of the Blue Cross type; (c) company or employer plans; (d) insurance company plans; (e) others?
2.	What is the average coverage, by provinces and/or by categories, afforded those enrolled as set out in question No. 1?
3.	What is the total cost per year, by provinces, and/or by categories, in premiums paid by those enrolled as set out in question No. 1?
4.	What is the total amount paid per year, by provinces and/or by categories, for hospitalization incurred by those enrolled as set out in question No. 1?
5.	How many persons in Canada, by provinces, are enrolled in plans that provide for the cost of medical care, in whole or in part, in each of the following categories; (a) provincially-operated plans; (b) voluntary medical plans of the prepaid type; (c) company or employer plans; (d) insurance company plans; (e) others?
6.	What is the average coverage, by provinces, and/or by categories, afforded those enrolled as set out in question No. 5?
7.	What is the total cost per year, by provinces, and/or by categories, in premiums paid by those enrolled as set out in question No. 5?
8.	What is the total amount paid per year, by provinces, and/or by categories, for medical care for those enrolled as set out in question No. 5?
9.	Is there any duplication of persons in the answers to questions Nos. 1 and 5? If so, what is the net total number of persons in Canada, by provinces and by categories, enrolled in such plans?
10.	For the latest year for which figures are available, what total amount have the persons enrolled as set out in question No. 1 had to pay for hospitalization over and above the amount paid for them by the plans in which they are enrolled?
11.	For the latest year for which figures are available, what total amount have the persons enrolled as set out in question No. 5 had to pay for medical care over and above the amount paid for them by the plans in which they are enrolled?
12.	For the latest year for which figures are available, what is the total annual cost to Canadians for hospitalization, including all sums paid (a) by patients; (b) by hospitalization plans; (c) out of public funds?
13.	For the latest year for which figures are available, what is the total annual cost to Canadians for medical care, including all sums paid (a) by patients; (b) by medical plans; (c) out of public funds?

14.	For the latest year for which figures are available, what is the total annual cost to Canadians for (a) dental care and dentures; (b) optical care and eyeglasses; (c) nursing care; (d) drugs and medicines; (e) any other health costs not included in questions Nos. 12 and 13, or in parts (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this question, including all sums (i) paid by patients, (ii) by group plans, and (iii) out of public funds?



HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is the current estimate as to the annual cost of a nation-wide program of health insurance along the lines of the federal government's proposals of 1945?
2. Is the Department of National Health and Welfare ready with material and information on the basis of which a nation-wide program of health insurance could be established?
3. Is the Department of National Health and Welfare in possession of information on health insurance programs in effect in other countries? If so, for what countries is such information on hand?
4.	Has there been consultation with the provinces concerning a program of health insurance?
5.	Have any of the provinces indicated their readiness to proceed with a health insurance program on a federal-provincial basis? If so, which provinces?
6.	Has the federal government indicated to any such provinces the basis on which a health insurance plan could be established so that its provisions would apply in those provinces agreeing thereto?
7.	If so, what is such basis?
8.	Has the draft bill, cited as the National Health Act, which was laid before the House of Commons on July 29, 1944, been revised to conform to the federal government's health insurance proposals of 1945? If so, is the revised form of such bill available to parliament?



DEFENCE PRODUCTION-PURCHASES OF BUTTER AND MARGARINE

Mr. Cruickshank:: 1.	Were tenders called during the years 1950 and 1951, by the Department of Defence Production for (a) butter; (b) margarine?
2.	If so, what quantity of each?
3.	Were contracts let during this period for butter and margarine?
4.	If so, at what price, to whom, and what quantity?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Coldwell:: For a copy of the latest survey of mail routes, hours of work, duties, loads carried, of mail carriers within the city of Ottawa.
He said: May I, with the permission of the house, withdraw the motion for redrafting?
Motion withdrawn.



RED DEER RIVER PROJECT

Mr. Quelch:: For a copy of the final reports by P.F.R.A. officials to the federal government on the Red Deer river project.


Walter Edward Harris: I wonder if the hon. member would permit this to stand in the absence of the minister?
Motion stands.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order for government notices of motion:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Simply for the purpose of referring to the procedure in this house tomorrow, may I suggest the desirability of proceeding with the motion to set up the defence expenditures committee before the debate on defence takes place. I would point out that so far as there has been any indication there is complete unanimity in regard to the setting up of this committee. It is extremely desirable that the appointment of this committee be approved, that steps be taken to set it up, and that the knowledge of this fact be in the minds of the members who will be entering into the debate on defence immediately afterwards. We are approaching Easter, and if members know that this committee is being set up it may have some bearing on the discussion which will take place in the debate on defence.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, after discussing the matter with my colleagues, I hope I may be able to acquiesce in the suggestion of the hon. member. Of course, I assume it would be understood that if a debate develops on the motion to set up the committee, that debate might be adjourned so as to not derange the program. If it were just a matter of form of having the resolution approved, it could be disposed of.


George Alexander Drew: My thought was that if this motion to set up the committee came up immediately before the debate on defence, the motion to set up the committee would not be employed as a vehicle for bringing in a second debate on defence.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope it will develop in that way.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, of which I have not given him notice. What action, if any, is being taken with regard to the complaint, of the bricklayers and masons international union, of unfair
External Affairs
trade practices at the additions to Centralia and Clinton air schools, of which the minister was informed by the union?


Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I shall be glad to take notice of that question and bring in an answer as soon as I can.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Wright.
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the proposal before the house I plan to depart considerably from the method which other speakers have adopted, and probe into areas which are not ordinarily considered. I shall address myself to the question of laying the cornerstone for an enduring peace. I may say that up to this moment I have heard no suggestion from any one of the members who have taken part in the debate as to how we can set right the wrongs which are rendering peace in this world utterly impossible.
May I give some attention to what those wrongs are? I do not expect to say much about how to set them right on this occasion, although, if all goes well, at some future time I may endeavour so to do.
In the first place, it is extremely important that every person should know that, for some reason or other, unless we have war or the preparations for war going on in the world, the world begins to descend into depression, and unemployment develops to the extent to which the statesmen of the world are utterly confounded in attempting to deal with it. Not a word has been said about how to overcome that difficulty. Our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) might just as well have been a ten-year-old boy for all the good he has been in dealing with that problem.
Let us bear in mind this major fundamental fact facing the world today. There was an excellent book written in the thirties by Maurice Colborne entitled, "Unemployment or War." It lays down the fundamental reasons why unemployment will develop unless war or war preparations are under way in the world. Another fine book of value to anyone who desires to read it is called "Distribute or Destroy". The all-important problem confronting the world at the present moment unquestionably is how to maintain employment without war, how to distribute goods, rather than to destroy them.
I suggest to the minister that just as soon as he can get back into touch with his

External Affairs
friends in the NATO organization and the United Nations Organization, he take them aside one by one and say, "The time has come for us to get to work on the job of how to distribute the world's goods. Let us appoint a committee consisting of the very best minds we can find anywhere and set them to work to study with the utmost diligence how to get an equitable worldwide distribution of goods and services."
Before the minister starts that I suggest that he insist that an influential number of Social Crediters shall be included in that committee. There will be people who will laugh, but the laughter bespeaks a vacant mind. I shall challenge anyone to show me any more than one group in public life in the world today who are talking effectively about distribution.


Mr. Riley:: Who are they?


John Horne Blackmore: The Social Crediters. X am glad the hon. member asked, because now there is an opportunity of his being enlightened. It shows how long a person can sit in this house without learning anything about what goes on in it.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I continue to listen.


John Horne Blackmore: Listen a little bit longer.
In his message to congress on March 26, 1945, Roosevelt used these words:
We know that we cannot succeed in building a peaceful world unless we build an economically healthy world.
Anyone who looks over the world today- and even this United Nations Organization after the mighty United States has been at work on it for six solid years-must recognize that there certainly is not health in any aspect of that organization or anywhere else in the world, except such health as comes in certain favoured countries like Canada and the United States as a result of the enormous amounts of money which they are spending for war preparations, which money goes into circulation among the people and enables them to buy the consumer goods they are producing.
President Roosevelt's objective was entirely commendable, but the technique which he evidently had in mind for employment in accomplishing his objective was entirely noncommendable.
On March 11, as recorded at page 339 of Hansard, I laid down two major fallacies which underlie our Anglo-Saxon thinking. The first one of these is this: We assume that when goods are produced, automatically the money is produced with which to buy those goods and that the money goes into the hands of those people who desire and need to

consume the goods. The second fallacy is this: We assume that, as far as international distribution of goods is concerned, all that we need is international trade. Both of these assumptions, as I pointed out then, are utterly fallacious and have been proved so now for almost one hundred years.
May I now lay down a third fundamental fallacy which is underlying our Anglo-Saxon thinking today and which is probably even more dangerous-in fact, I will say definitely it is more dangerous-than the other two. I refer to the astonishingly preposterous assumption that the so-called non-discriminar tion principle underlying our international trade organization will render international trade a more beneficial and effective instrument of distribution than would be a system of trade in which any nation would be free to do whatever it considered necessary to strengthen and to safeguard its own economy.
I desire to lay down eighteen fundamental postulates. The Anglo-Saxon world has gone astray with respect to non-discrimination and what is called the unconditional mostfavoured-nation clause because it has made mistakes in its fundamental thinking. My purpose in laying down these postulates is to help to guide us in our thinking so that we might arrive at a sound conclusion. These postulates are as follows, and I would ask hon. members to see whether or not they would question the validity of any one of these postulates as I go over them:
1.	Any community unable to produce its own requirements must engage in trade.
2.	Hardly a nation on earth at present is able to produce the whole of its needs. Thus, practically every nation has to trade.
3.	Any trading community is in constant danger of buying and consuming more than it produces and sells; that is, more either in quantity or in price. Hence, there is constant danger for every nation, except probably the United States today, of falling into adverse trade balances which mean international debt which, under present circumstances, will be almost unrepayable.
4.	Any community is constantly in danger of being unable to obtain certain of its vital needs-for example, coal, oil and steel in Canada; cotton, feeds and rubber in Britain.
5.	Any community is in continuous danger of being unable to sell all its products, as for example wheat for Canada; textiles for Britain; wheat and many other products for the United States.
6.	The more nearly a nation comes to falling into the so-called "have-not" class of nations, the greater its constant unavoidable danger of being deprived of its needs; for

example, Britain, Japan and Italy. The more nearly a nation comes to falling into the "have" nation class, the less its constant unavoidable danger of being deprived of its needs, as for example the United States and Russia, but the greater danger it is likely to fall into of being unable to sell all of its surplus goods abroad.
7.	At the same time, any "have" nation, especially if it manufactures much, is likely to have real difficulty in disposing of its surpluses and thus keeping its people employed; that is, of avoiding a depression.
8.	In order to be able to dispose of its goods, every community needs to have the greatest possible freedom to sell to any other community on earth.
9.	Every community basically has an inalienable right so to sell, provided that in so selling it does not injure the economy of any nation within whose borders it sells.
10.	In order to be able to acquire all it wants, every community needs to have the greatest possible freedom to buy from any other community on earth.
11.	Every community has fundamentally therefore an inherent inalienable right so to buy. provided that in so buying from any given community it is not depriving that community of goods essential to that community's economy.
Up to that point, Mr. Speaker, I think there would be no challenge at all. The people who favour non-discrimination would go right along. Soon now they will begin to disagree.
12.	A nation that produces only primary commodities like wheat, sugar beets, milk, trees, iron ore, and neglects entirely to process those products into flour, sugar, milk powder or cheese, lumber and steel-that is, any purely primarily producing community -will unavoidably have difficulty with its prices and, other things being equal, will tend to fall into debt to a community that manufactures the flour, the furniture, the steel, the machines, etc. Hence it will be worrying constantly and fearing, and will be inclined to struggle.
13.	Every nation that possibly can do so, therefore, ought to strive, and be encouraged and aided to strive, to develop manufacturing of every one of its requirements in so far as that sort of development is at all even reasonably economic. This probably is the first one of these postulates that challenges the position of the so-called international multilateral traders, non-discriminators and all that; but I think that postulate can be defended anywhere before any body of people, especially in these days when there is such terrible need among the peoples of the world.
External Affairs
14.	A nation that produces too few of its needs of primary commodities will very likely run into difficulty in trading its manufactured goods like machines, textiles, furniture, etc., for its primary-product needs of iron ore, timber, grains, cotton-as for example, Japan and Britain-especially as it runs into stiff competition with nations better fitted to produce its particular kind of goods. Such competition is bound to grow stronger, keener and more widespread as highly specialized machines, technological skills like plastics, and the use of solar power grow more easily available and therefore commonly prevalent. That ought to be quite clear.
15.	Any manufacturing nation ought to strive, and be encouraged and aided to strive, to develop its farming, its fishing and other primary products industries to the optimum of its capacity, its leaders, and the leaders of its neighbour nations, realizing more and more vividly and appreciatively the urgent and increasing importance of co-operatively and sympathetically bringing all the world's resources into the greatest possible beneficial production at the earliest possible time to meet the rapidly developing need of mankind for all kinds of useful goods.
16.	Sensing this evident fact, every enlightened and responsible leader on earth must concede the obvious truth that every nation must have, and universally ought to be recognized as having, the basic right and inescapable duty to protect by every needful means, its economy, both its primary and its manufacturing and service industries, from every kind of destructive competition originating outside that nation's borders, it being palpably clear that any external competition which impairs the effectiveness of any industry within any nation must, by such impairment, be rendering unproductive a certain amount of the world's potential productive capacity in a time when we are talking about the rapid increase of population and many people are actually afraid that our productive capacity will be unable to keep up with the growth of population. The truth of that postulate must be exceptionally evident.
17.	Such being true, then every device which nations have employed to shield their economies-devices such as tariffs, quotas, exchange control, embargoes, subsidies- ought to be, and must be looked upon as being legitimate protective measures, freely to be resorted to by any government of any nation whose productive activities are being endangered by actions originating in some other state, friendly or otherwise. Now, of course, this postulate goes right to the very core in opposition to the attitude adopted by the United States in dealing with the Bretton

External Affairs
Woods agreement, the international trade organization and so on. They maintained, the statesmen of those days, Roosevelt and others, and maintained stoutly, that every one of those protective devices adopted by any nation constituted economic warfare against the United States and every other nation, which is such absolute nonsense as to render me utterly astounded that enlightened people could ever be imposed on by any such fallacy.
18.	The use of such protective devices as quotas, tariffs and so forth by any state does not, in any genuinely realistic sense, constitute economic warfare. Economic warfare actually does exist, however, when any nation permits agencies within its jurisdiction to produce or to fabricate commodities and to sell them-either with or without governmental assistance-to sell those commodities to consumers in another nation in competition with, and to the displacement of, the comparable commodities produced or capable of being produced in that other nation, provided that such sale be contrary to the desires of the government of that other nation.
Now, we have an illustration of that kind of activity in what the Japanese were doing in the thirties. Just one striking case comes to my mind. The Japanese, because of certain ways of managing their economy, were producing bicycles, for the like of which we were paying $50 in Canada, and they were offering those bicycles for sale at $5.75 each. Obviously no sane government could permit such bicycles to come into its economy and compete with the bicycles that that nation was producing. Well, then, that meant there had to be protective devices-discrimination- and there were. Canada would not look at one of those bicycles, neither would the United States nor any intelligently governed industrialized country at all.
That put the Japanese in a very serious difficulty, a difficulty which I shall probably say more about when we talk about the Japanese treaty. It must be recognized by all of us who desire to enable the Japanese to live in this wonderful world in which we dwell; but they must not be allowed to destroy our industries by fabricating and putting into our economy things that will destroy our industries when they are allowed to compete.
Having enumerated these eighteen postulates, I would invite the most careful study and criticism which can be offered to any of them, and if the answer that hon. members give is that the list of these postulates is sound, then the whole system of non-discrimination in trade is automatically proved to be subversive and must be discarded.
The result of a study of these postulates is the conclusion that there are three major
[Mr. Blackmore.J
problems to be solved by those responsible for devising the world's trade agreement structures for our time and the time immediately ahead of us, probably one hundred years-no one knows. The first of these is: How can it be so managed that any "have" nation, more or less like the United States, being almost self-sufficient, producing and able to produce vastly beyond its present consumption, can trade or sell its goods in the world without competing destructively with the industries of many of its neighbouring nations, and without putting practically all of its neighbours into unrepayable adverse trade-balance debt?
Just as sure as we are here in this house, and as sure as the United States government is in the houses of government there, that problem must be solved. It is no use for us to sit just twiddling our thumbs, saying we do not have to solve the problem. We have got to solve it, and we cannot do it by any device which has been suggested by Liberals or Conservatives, Republicans or Democrats, or Socialists heretofore.
The second major problem: How can it be so managed that any more or less "have-not" nation, needing goods from outside, can buy such goods from one or more of the more fortunate "have" nations resembling the United States, when such "have" nations will not, and economically cannot, accept from such "have-not" nation, goods which that "have-not" nation might, and must, offer to the United States, for example, to pay for United States goods such "have-not" nation might direfully require? As an example of that, Japan grievously needs iron. How is she going to get the iron which she must have? We cannot accept cheap bicycles that she might produce, or any other commodities that might destructively compete with our production. How is she going to get that iron? That problem must be solved, because the Japanese, somewhere near 80 million of them, have to get iron from somewhere. The same is true of many, many other nations, in respect of various commodities.
The third major problem:	How can it be
so managed that certain nations like Japan and Greece, which, alone, in spite of all possible efforts, would be likely to experience great hardship in providing themselves with the needs of life, but which might prosper satisfactorily if allowed to work together with other less favoured nations-how such nations as Japan and Greece might be enabled so to work together through forming a group of nations co-operatively trading with each other through preferential tariff arrangements,

thereby materially assisting each other without hurting other nations. That problem, again, has got to be solved.
The United States for years had as a fundamental objective, and still has, the objective of destroying imperial preferences in the British commonwealth and rendering it impossible for this vast association of nations co-operatively to set their productive capacity into operation for their own benefit and for the benefit of other people.
The United States has never realized that in seeking to destroy those preferential arrangements she is seeking to destroy the very life of the British commonwealth, including Great Britain and Canada. And now the question is: Was she wrong in opposing imperial preferences? I say she was completely wrong; and if anyone can see how the third major problem I have indicated, the problem of the smaller "have-not" nations, can be solved except by production and cooperation in regions or groups, I will certainly be ready to listen to him. Certainly there has been no hint as regards that matter thus far in this debate.
Any proposed or contemplated international trade arrangement that fails to include measures adequate for solving these three major problems obviously must be unrealistic, and thus be foredoomed to failure, if not to incalculable widespread disaster, such as we are rapidly approaching now in NATO.
We can put a brave face on, as the minister does; but he knows, in the back of his mind, that things are not going well with NATO. Anyone who reads press reports or articles in any of the papers knows that.
Now, what is the basic nature of the trade agreement structure now being sought to be imposed upon the world? I should like to illustrate that principle, the basic principle underlying the trade structure which the United States is admittedly trying to fix on the world, and making great progress in its attempt-the principle of non-discrimination in trade, or, called by another name, the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause. These two, in practice, mean identically the same thing in trade.
Now, let us give some further thought to the conditions surrounding us before we get into that matter. The costs of producing and delivering various commodities vary enormously from nation to nation. For example, coal for Ontario coming from Pennsylvania, in the United States, and coal for Ontario coming from Canada; dairy products in Canada and dairy products in New Zealand. These costs depend upon many factors such
External Affairs
as, for example: (1) climate. In this connection we think of New Zealand versus Canada in the matter of butter. Then, with regard to (2) special resources, there is the matter of oil in Texas. There is (3) a variety of resources, so that the needs of life can mainly be produced within a given country, as in the case of the United States.
Then there is the matter of (4) the proximity of resources-for example, coal, iron and limestone near each other in Germany, rendering the successful development of steel possible.
There is the matter of (5) industrialization, as for example in the United States. Then there is the matter of (6) the skill and character of the people, as we find it in Japan and Germany. There is the further matter of (7) a large population providing an extensive domestic market, as we find it in the United States, so that cheap mass production is rendered possible.
Then, (8) wage and living standards must be considered, as for example in Japan. There is the matter of (9) adequacy of transportation facilities as in Great Britain and Japan, where they have speedy transportation readily available at relatively low cost. There is the matter of (10) proximity to markets.
Those are just a few factors. But those factors are not all present in any given economy, and to the degree to which they are present, for the advantage of an economy, that economy is able to produce goods cheaply and deliver them successfully in competition.
These varying unavoidable costs of producing and of delivering goods in the different nations tend to make the nations differ so greatly one from another in their economic strength and vulnerability, that nations, as regards their economies, might fittingly be compared to boys in a playground ranging in age from six-year-old boys to nineteen-year-old boys preparing for university matriculation.
Imagine that we have between sixty and seventy such boys playing in an ordinary school-ground game-for instance a game such as marbles or peg top. Then, with such a game, let us imagine that we draft the rules so that they will be appropriate for the sixteen to nineteen-year-old age group, playing in a ring eight to ten feet across. Under those circumstances what conceivable chance would the six to nine-year-old age group of boys have to win, or even to break even, when playing in such a ring at the game of marbles? How could they win under such circumstances against the nineteen-year-old boys?

External Affairs
Then, let us draft the rules so that they will be suitable to the six to nine-year-old age group, using a ring two to two and one half feet across. Would the little fellows fare any better in such a ring, when matched against the sixteen to nineteen-year-old age group, again playing under identical rules?
By way of compromise, now, let us draft the rules with our eyes on the ten to thirteen-year-old boys, with a ring five to seven feet across. How many marbles could the little eight-year-old win when playing against experienced, strapping eighteen-year-old boys, with the same rules governing both?
Now, imagine that one or two of the nineteen-year-olds were brawny athletes trained in boxing and wrestling, seasoned in rough-and-tumble catch-as-catch-can tactics, and always rather eager to employ those tactics. One of these is a particularly big, overgrown roisterer, who has been winning the smaller boys' marbles all the way through.
This big boy has marbles at home in tobacco cans and salt sacks, all filled with marbles- flints, onyx and agates. The drawers and shelves in his room at home are cluttered up with them-he has so many he does not know what to do with them. This boy does not need any more marbles; but he still wants to keep on playing and winning.
This big fellow delights in encouraging certain other bigger fellows into co-operating with him to compel the smaller boys to let them play in the smaller rings, where the smaller boys are playing against each other. And if the smaller boys object, and attempt to keep the big fellows from playing in their rings, and according to their small-boy rules, then he becomes quite ugly about it and says, "You are discriminating against me! I have a right to play in your game if I want to. I have the right to play by your small-boy rules if I want to; and I want to." And so this big fellow gets his way.
He maintains quite stoutly and openly, and apparently with strong delusions of assurance that he is right. He maintains that all the boys must play by the same rules regardless of their size and age, and that they must play against any and all boys who offer to play them, regardless of age or size or skill. And he says that if they do not so play, then they are discriminating against him and his pals, and the other boys who are stronger than themselves.
This all sounds rather unrealistic, does it not? It sounds rather fantastic, rather ridiculous, does it not? Well, it is fantastic and it is ridiculous. It is hardly to be believed. Nevertheless that very set-up exists right now.

We ourselves are the victims of just such a set-up-not only the victims of it, but we are participating in such a set-up.
In the world's spacious playground, some sixty to seventy nations, ranging from the very small to the very large, from the very weak and vulnerable to the very strong and relatively unvulnerable, exist. Let us think of Jamaica and Puerto Rico, for example, in contrast with Russia and the United States of America-just imagine Puerto Rico attempting to compete successfully under a condition of non-discrimination, against the United States! Why, the mere thought of it makes us want to scream out in anger! They are all playing, and must play at the dangerous game of trade. The big, brawny roisterer, trained in, and delighting in the rough-and tumble tactics, but always complaining about discrimination, is none other than the United States of America.
May I give a concrete illustration of non-discrimination-the non-discrimination principle in action in the trade practices of the nations? May I illustrate this unhappy situation and its mischievous effects?
May we suppose that we are dealing with Czechoslovakia and Roumania before, or, to be hoped, after their experience behind the iron curtain. Czechoslovakia has a great capacity to produce machinery, but she lacks oil. Roumania has oil but lacks machinery. Each of them is relatively a small and a "have-not" nation, hence they are very vulnerable. Each of them simply must protect its economy in order to exist at all.
Conceivably Czechoslovakia approaches Roumania with the following proposal: "Roumania, if you will lower your duty against Czechoslovakian machinery, Czechoslovakia will correspondingly lower her duty against Roumanian oil. Thus we shall trade machinery for oil straight across. Each of us will acquire an almost indispensable necessity; each of us will attain a market greatly needed. Both will benefit; neither will risk going into debt".
It is a sensible proposition. Any fair-minded, intelligent person will agree readily that it is fundamentally the right of each of these two nations to make and carry through such a trade arrangement-two little boys in the world's big playground want to play marbles in a little ring in accordance with little boy rules. What conceivable right has any other nation to interfere?
But the mighty, well nigh self-sufficient United States of America hears about this plan of these two little boy nations. Immediately she invokes what is called the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause-

another expression meaning non-discrimination in trade. In virtue of non-discrimination, the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause, the United States says to Czechoslovakia: "Listen, you! If you lower your tariffs against Roumanian oil you have got to lower them against United States oil too." "Very well", says Czechoslovakia; "if we lower our tariffs against United States oil, will you, the United States people, lower your tariff against Czechoslovakian machinery so that we can pay you for the oil, thus avoiding our falling into debt to you for our oil?" "Oh, no", says the United States; "the United States aims never to permit foreign goods to come into the United States economy to compete with her products. The United States has many machine manufacturing companies. She produces her own machines and has machines to sell. Her own machine companies have a right to the United States markets and we mean to protect them in that right."
Thus is Czechoslovakia deprived both of the chance to get her oil supply, and of her machine market.
Similarly the United States deals with Roumania. She will insist upon selling Roumania United States machinery, but she will refuse to accept Roumanian oil in the United States to pay for that United States machinery. And all of that she does after having proclaimed the Atlantic charter and pretending that she desires all men to be free from want and fear! What horrible hypocrisy! Or criminal negligence-or perhaps criminal stupidity!
As long as nations like the United States persist in forcing upon the other nations trade principles as perniciously fallacious as the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause, which means the principle of non-discrimination in trade, then the Czechoslovakians and the Roumanians can have no possible freedom from either want or fear-or both together.
If I had time I should like to quote from a textbook which is beyond question. It is "The Commonwealth" by Henry Drummond-Wolff, in which it is shown that the United States has done exactly the kind of thing I have been describing and is even now taking the attitude in the world I have been representing.
If we in Canada are going to work for tolerable conditions in this world we must insist that the practice of the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause, shall be abolished from among men. We must tell the United States time and time again until somehow or other with the help of the Lord she comes to realize and understand, and repent of her evil ways.
External Affairs


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that there is little that can be said in this debate that has not been said already. However, there are several matters that I wish to deal with, and I promise that I shall take the minimum of time so that this marathonic debate may be brought to a close as soon as possible.
I regret that the minister is not in his place today. There were a number of questions I would have liked to ask, but they must remain unasked because he is not here to deal with them. There were also some observations I wished to make but which I shall not make in his absence.
I listened yesterday to the minister as he gave a general summary of the information asked for by hon. members in all parts of the house. I was impressed by what I heard him say and the manner in which he said it, but on reading the record I find that the information furnished is not in keeping with the oratory that accompanied it.
The practice of setting aside a certain time for discussion of external affairs is worthy of continuance. The debate generally has been most interesting and revealing, and has provided a great deal of information. It has proved to be a searchlight, as it were, thrown on the subject from all parts of Canada. The views of Canadians generally have been given on matters that affect this country. While there has not been the general interest in the house one would expect in connection with a matter affecting every one of us, I do not know of any debate that has been conducted on a higher plane than this one.
The opposition gave its lead in that regard in the outstanding address delivered by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). Last evening the house heard an address from the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell) which I feel had a place in this debate in that it put before the house in proper perspective some of the spiritual things for which we stand and which we generally take for granted. Unless we realize what those things are and that they must be preserved, we may inevitably be let into apathy. I think the debate itself was useful because of the fact that few Canadians knew much about NATO until it had taken place.
I believe in a bipartisan policy in connection with international affairs, but bipartisanship is not a one-way street. It requires on the part of the government a willingness to furnish information circumscribed only by the question of security, and it requires on the part of the opposition a willingness to co-operate in- those things unseen or

External Affairs
unknown, which, because of the fact that the government has a general disposition to give full information, will be accepted as necessary even though full information has not been given.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Blackmore) took the stand that NATO has not been a success. I know that in this regard Lord Ismay said that NATO is to some rather a lot of harness and not much horse. There are many who feel that that is a fact. After all, however great the concept, however complete the organization on paper, and however good the leadership, unless there is a mobilization of resources, human and material, behind that organization it can do little to hold back the potential onrush of communism.
In saying that I believe in a bipartisan policy I must at the same time refer to certain remarks made last evening by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), the leader of the C.C.F. party, who, as reported in the press, stated among other things that he could name some of the leading Conservatives in the house in addition to Liberals in both the Commons and the Senate who agreed with the C.C.F. stand on the NATO rearmament policy but were afraid to express their opinions because of party discipline. I have not detected that attitude anywhere; but if the hon. gentleman is using that argument to bolster up his explanation as to the reason the opposition in general intends to follow the stand taken by my leader, then I take issue with him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would point out that I am not sure that it is proper for an hon. member to refer to other hon. members as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is said to have done. I do not know whether the statement was made. Some hon. members might consider it derogatory to members of this house. I merely draw this to the attention of the house, since I may be called upon to give a ruling on some future occasion.


John George Diefenbaker: I always defer to your rulings, Mr. Speaker, but I thought an hon. member in the house had the right to refer to a statement made by an hon. member outside the house in regard to hon. members ingeneral.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been misunderstood. I was not calling to order the hon. member for Lake Centre; far from it. I was referring to a statement made by another hon. member. The hon. member for Lake Centre has done nothing irregular, and I am sorry he misunderstood me.


John George Diefenbaker: I refer to the amendment which reads:
this house regrets that the government has failed to take effective steps to achieve the implementation of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty.
I believe in economic aid. I think hon. members in all parts of the house believe in economic aid. On a number of occasions the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has given his support to that concept. In the issue of Foreign Affairs of October 1951, he set forth not only his belief in that principle but as a matter of fact gave in general a preview of the speech he delivered here yesterday. When the opposition takes the stand that it intends to vote against the amendment, it does so in no way approving the failure of the government to give economic assistance where necessary. The opposition believes that at all costs we in this country should unite in support of NATO, whether or not we disagree as to details, in order to show the world that without regard to party we are united in our determination to assure resistance to aggression everywhere in the world by all the organizations that may be gathered together under the aegis of the United Nations.
I feel that our actions in parliament are sometimes misinterpreted, and I believe a vote on this amendment might very well leave a wrong impression in the minds of people who are looking for divisions and cleavages. While I do believe in the need for economic assistance, which I have advocated over and over again, having regard to what NATO has done I do feel that the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), having voiced his objection, would be making a great contribution if he did not call for a division in parliament on this question. I hope no message will go out that can be misinterpreted in Europe or elsewhere as indicating a division in parliament- for there is none-on the need of full support for NATO or any other organization under the United Nations that will at least endeavour to assure the maintenance of peace everywhere in the world.
Recent events have emphasized a danger to peace that cannot be exaggerated. At San Francisco in 1945 the statesmen of the world believed they had achieved what had been a vision of mankind for a thousand years. They felt that peace would be achieved under the United Nations charter, embodying as it does great ideals and the necessary machinery, if properly used without the veto, to assure the setting up of the rule of law in the world. Events since that time, however, have indicated that our hopes were not justified, however great the contribution of the United

Nations has been. From time to time communism expresses its willingness to live and let live; then it proceeds in devious ways to carry out its purposes. From time to time communism offers the hope of peace; then in other places it carries on its work of undermining established governments. In Korea we have seen a delay running into months in the discussion of a few items which might lead to an armistice and peace. While those negotiations have been going on, in other parts of the world peace has been undermined by those who owe allegiance to the communist philosophy. That is all in accordance with Lenin's view expressed some thirty years ago when he devised this as the course for communism to follow, when he said they must wage at all timesmost determined and ruthless war, a persistent struggle, bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative, against the forces and traditions of the old society.
In other words they wage two kinds of war. They wage war on the military front; they wage war on the civil front by coercion and terror; and on the political front they continue to endeavour to arouse cleavages between nations and within nations. As someone has said, the working capital of communism is insecurity; its chief stock-in-trade is hatred.
Then, on the economic front, that is where the need for economic assistance comes in. Communism endeavours to undermine belief in the democratic system, and at the same time to arouse, in the minds of men who have known tyranny in every generation, the hope that, while tyranny may continue, at least there is going to be a hope for the elevation of economic standards. In addition to that, communism feeds on one thing, and I have spoken about it on a number of occasions in this house. It feeds on the attitude of mind that allows discrimination anywhere on the basis of colour, race or creed.
When we realize that today five out of six people within this commonwealth belong to coloured races, then we also have some idea of the fact that unless the British commonwealth stands together against communism, however strong other nations may be, we may not hope to meet communism. It becomes all the more necessary that we in our country shall refuse to allow discrimination to enter into any decisions that we may arrive at. When one reads that in some parts of the world a man who has made the supreme sacrifice in Korea is denied burial in the cemetery of some democratic country, I won-ler whether those who follow that course
55704-67^
External Affairs
realize that what they are doing accentuates the possibility of communism taking over the coloured races.
Then, I hear people saying that communism does improve conditions. One hears in speeches from time to time that it has its advantages. One of the greatest test tubes today in which the experimentation of communism has been applied under the best circumstances, and with the avowed purpose of its having propaganda value, is in east Germany. At a recent meeting of the United Nations, the mayor of Berlin, Herr Reuter, joined in support of Herr von Brentano, a leader in the federal republic of Germany in presenting a summary of conditions in east Germany. This is a matter of great importance in view of the news within the last few days that Russia has changed her attitude towards a unified Germany. The report presented by this gentleman stated that tyranny stalks through the land. The security service has been built up with 150 officers and 50,000 spies, who can make arrests without warrant. The judiciary has been wiped out, and only the politically fit are on the bench of that country. There are 40,800 persons under arrest as political prisoners; 185,000 have been interned in concentration camps in the last three years, of which 96,000 have died. There have been 25,000 women and girls sent to work in the uranium mines. Those are the results of the experiment under circumstances in which communism has endeavoured to put its best foot forward with a view to proselytizing those in west Germany.
Within the last few days the question has come up regarding a German peace treaty. This treaty will be signed, in so far as six nations are concerned, as a support for democratic principles. Out of it will grow a single European army. These two events will take place during the month of April, and they represent the greatest achievement in a thousand years in the settlement of difficulties in Europe that have prevailed as between Teuton and Celt since the days of Charlemagne. Today those nations solve their difficulties in the face of common danger. Russia, who opposed elections with west Germany, now changes her tune and welcomes the unity of east and west Germany. Russia must realize today that the co-operation of the nations within the democratic Atlantic community is achieving something in unity which we must, at all costs, not permit ourselves to divide. In an interview yesterday Stalin said that war is not any closer than it was two or three years ago.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Watch out.

External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member says "watch out." In 1946 he made that announcement; in 1948 and in 1950, and every time after one of those interviews was given to the press or, on one occasion to Mr. Stassen, one of the potential candidates for presidency of the United States, an act of aggression has occurred somewhere else in the world. I believe that NATO is achieving something. Tomorrow in Moscow an economic conference will meet to which representatives from all parts of the world were invited. I know of none from Canada, and I hope there were none. I know of none from the United States, but some of the democratic countries are sending representatives. The undertaking is that, if the nations meet there, something might be done towards restoring a larger degree of trade between the U.S.S.R. and its satellites and the democratic nations. One develops a feeling of suspicion as events unfold, and wonders what the purpose of this conference may be.
On Saturday the New York Times said this:
. . . the free world's embargo on the export of strategic goods to the Soviet bloc is having a steadily increasing effect. Stalin and his colleagues can hardly be blamed if they wish to see these barriers to their armament production removed.
Then it adds:
But they misjudge the temper of the free world if they think propaganda in Moscow will end these bars. So long as the threat of soviet aggression remains we shall not willingly contribute the economic sinews that the potential aggressor needs.
We did that for some time. Britain was placed in a position where she was trading with U.S.S.R. and her satellites in return for certain things Britain required, such as food. She was trading machinery, precision tools and the like. That was dangerous, but Britain was in a position where she could not trade with the rest of us, and that will lead me to a suggestion I am going to make later, that we within the British commonwealth should today be doing something to place Britain in a position where she would not have to trade with any of these satellites of the U.S.S.R. I believe that is one of the things we-
Mr. V/righi: Would not the implementations of article 2 do just what you are suggesting, make for better trade relations?


John George Diefenbaker: I never evade a question. I shall deal with article 2 a little later, and I shall return to my hon. friend's question when I do. While I have every reliance on international organizations, I am suggesting that within the British commonwealth we have a group of nations with whom we could work in closer co-operation than we are today, and thereby be able to meet in various
TMr. Gauthier (Portneuf).l
parts of the world the onrush of communism
without in any way weakening our international relationships.
I never had a concept of what this commonwealth meant until I had the privilege of attending a parliamentary conference of the commonwealth, a year and a half ago, in Australia and New Zealand. What impressed me was this. There were there representatives of every colour and race from all parts of the globe, joined together in freedom-90 per cent of whom enjoy self-government today, showing that the grant of freedom is the strength of freedom-joined together in a commonwealth built on sentiment, on service, on self-interest, and in the world today, on self-preservation as well; many of them independent and yet in their independence stronger in their interdependence.
I know there are some who do not like one to refer to the commonwealth and who feel that, after all, our position in Canada denies to us those close relationships within the commonwealth that are accepted by other countries within the commonwealth not contiguous to a great neighbour such as the United States. To those who have that view I should like to commend the reading of the book "On Being Canadian". At page 100 I find this:
The British connection is essential to Canadian independence. In Canada we have certain institutions and traditions and characteristics which give us, whatever language we speak, our meaning as a separate country. Without the British connection these things would speedily evaporate and we should have less and less significance as an individual state. How long would a Canadian republic maintain its individuality here in North America? The forms of our sovereignty might be retained, but we should be caught inexorably by the southward undertow and completely assimilated to American life.
That quotation is one that is most impressive, inasmuch as it was written in 1948 by a man with tremendous experience. I therefore suggest that is something to be borne in mind in any discussion of external affairs.
One matter to which the minister did not allude yesterday but which he dealt with rather fully in an earlier debate was our general relationship with the commonwealth, and in particular the situation of the United Kingdom today. The hon. member for Melfort asked me whether I did not believe that the implementation of article 2 would be beneficial. Certainly I believe it would be beneficial. In addition to military strength, in a world in which a war of ideas is being waged, I believe that economic considerations must be taken into account. I well remember that in January, 1951, when I returned from that trip to which I alluded

a moment ago, I came out in favour of support of the Colombo plan to the limit of our resources. I favour a fair proportion; by that I mean a fair proportion of our expenditures on behalf of defence. Certainly I believe that economic aid will assist. I call as evidence Paul G. Hoffman, the great American industrialist turned world philanthropist and international administrator. He recently made a speech in Los Angeles where he pointed out that had the United States, in 1945, granted at that time some economic assistance to China, today it would not stand in the danger it does of the onrush of communism that has enveloped country after country. Mr. Hoffman, who is a man of vast experience, said this:
Communism would never have overrun China if the United States had gone into China with a rural reconstruction program, and had spent one billion dollars in 1945. Action then would have saved thousands of lives and billions of treasure.
Today in Asia communism masquerades under the standard of nationalization and it is marching into the commonwealth-into Ceylon, to a lesser extent into Pakistan and even into India itself. A matter of a year and a half ago great Indian leaders denied the possibility of that happening. They averred that there was no probability of communism ever being able to infiltrate into India. Yet in the recent election returns we find that in the congress, out of 497 seats, the communists secured some 30 seats; and among the state representatives the proportion was even greater. With a bridgehead across India, communism today is mobilizing again an Asiatic people. I believe that $25,300,000, the amount expended so far on the Colombo plan, is not, having regard to the total expenditure we make on defence, a sufficient one for the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. Lesage:: Even that amount could not be spent last year.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, I could go into the reasons why that expenditure was not made. We sent over some assistance in the form of wheat in order to meet a famine. What they are asking for there is the elevation of standards, not with regard to individuals but with regard to the improvement of agricultural techniques, the inauguration of power developments and so on.


Jean Lesage: That is exactly what we are doing.


Mr. Graydon:: My, you are a big fellow.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate what you are doing. The point I am making is this. If there was a will to give assistance it could
External Affairs
be given. That assistance is certainly necessary today in India if the situation is to be met in its incubating stage. My hon. friend says that $25 million could not be spent. Paul G. Hoffman, the experienced administrator, says that today in India the expenditure of several hundred million dollars-more than a billion dollars, in fact-would be cheap insurance in containing communism; and he goes further and says that no other expenditure in Asia can return such great dividends in potential liberty as can assistance at this time.
I mentioned the vote. In the legislative assembly, out of some 3,000 representatives, 200 are communist today. I believe that economic aid, that assistance such as this, will not only be beneficial in keeping communism from our shores, but will also afford a means whereby our surplus farm products and the like may be disposed of instead of piling up to the detriment of our country.
I now come, and only for a moment, to a reference to the people of the United Kingdom. Today the economic tides are running against Britain. Courage is still upheld. Their courage cannot be denied. They are in a position where some assistance must be forthcoming. It is not a question of amount. I believe even greater than the amount is the feeling that peoples in other parts of the commonwealth will stand behind them as they stood with us and for us during the dark years of the last war. They need something today to lift them; they need something to assist them. They need what we have within this commonwealth, namely, resources, vast resources, undeveloped.
Our trade with various parts of the commonwealth has been receding. It has been increasing in amount, true, but proportionately to trade in general with other countries the reverse has been the fact. I suggest that there are very good reasons today why Canada should give the lead toward the calling of a British commonwealth resources, development and trade conference. Bring together the representatives of the commonwealth. That does not imply seclusion or separation from other nations; but it places quite strategic parts of the world in a position to mobilize our resources so that they will be available to the countries of NATO and also of Asia that will be standing with us when and if that becomes necessary.
I am not going into great ifetail today, but I do believe this: In the cold war of today, victory, and I mean victory in the cold war, in a long protracted period of potential aggression in all parts of the world, will depend

External Affairs
not only on the mobilization of the spirit but also of our vast resources that are as yet undeveloped. In convening such a conference we have the opportunity of making an inventory of our resources which are today running short in various parts of the world. We would also be able to come to conclusions among ourselves whereby we would be assured of normal channels of trade between countries, and the trade now lost or seriously threatened could be revived.
Somebody will say there was a meeting in London in January at which the Minister of Finance for Canada (Mr. Abbott) had what we call in law, sir, a watching brief. He was otherwise described in the British parliament, but the expression did not appeal to me. He had a watching brief. Having regard to the contribution that she is making within the commonwealth and to NATO today, Canada has a right to more than a watching brief, and it is necessary that she have more than a watching brief. At such a conference I should like to see canvassed the possibility of purchasing within the sterling bloc raw materials now secured elsewhere, thereby, in part at least, regaining some of the markets for our primary products which today are lost. After all NATO will-only be as strong, and resistance to communism will only be as strong, as the nations that make up the community of nations. At the present time I should like to see us to a larger degree grant orders to the United Kingdom for defence materials we require in Canada. Today we purchase tremendous amounts in the United States. I can understand that because of the proximity of our two countries, but surely there are defence materials that could be ordered in Britain. In return for them, and in order to raise their standards of living, we would make available such foods as today are in short supply, and which they require. These are but a few outlines of some of the things I suggest could be done in mobilizing one of the nations within NATO and the nations within the British commonwealth, in cooperation with the United States, thereby strengthening us; for, Mr. Speaker, resources undeveloped will constitute but a small barrier to the aggression of communism if communist nations ever march.
As I see it, what we require today is a vista of our responsibilities. In addition to that we requirS a vision of some developments that can take place, major developments, that will assure to every part of the British commonwealth that expansion and development that will maintain their bastions of freedom should communism advance; and
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
at the same time by assuring assistance to the countries within the British commonwealth

and I mention those in Asia particularly-we shall be doing our part to raise the ramparts against the tides of communism flowing into those countries that can only be held off either by force of arms or by the mobilization of those spiritual resources to which the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) made reference last evening.


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


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), regretting that the government has failed to take effective steps to implement article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. I believe it has already been amply pointed out that we in this group have moved this amendment for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the government and of the country the need for economic assistance now for European countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). He said that he would not be able to support our amendment, nor would his party, because it might appear to other countries that there was a division in Canada. He said that we should all unite in support of NATO, irrespective of party. Well, I want to say that the C.C.F. group, by this amendment, is demonstrating not only that we support some parts of NATO but that we support all parts of NATO, including article 2. Our proposition is not that NATO should be weakened, but rather that it should be strengthened. For that reason I for one feel that the amendment of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) is one that deserves support.
I listened yesterday with a great deal of interest to the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I think he demonstrated to us that not only has the government failed to provide economic assistance, but that it has set itself in opposition to requests by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that such assistance should be forthcoming.
The minister placed on the record some figures which he described as forms of economic aid. The grand total of those figures was some $2,403 million. The largest item in that huge total was comprised of loans to different countries, the largest of which was to Great Britain. Those loans totalled $1,753 million. Of those various

forms of economic assistance mentioned by the minister, 73 per cent are in the form of loans.
We in this group are not asking the government to make loans by this means to other countries; we are asking that we make outright gifts as a contribution to the building of peace throughout the world. I do not think it is fair to suggest that the loans we have made in the past are, in effect, economic aid.


Jean Lesage: What is it?


Hazen Robert Argue: So far as I know, it is a business transaction, and only a business transaction. The government has an asset on its books and, I believe, expects to collect every dollar of it. It is not economic assistance; it is not economic aid in the sense in which we have been dealing with it. The total figures placed on the record by the minister of provisions made before NATO, amounted to 85 per cent of his grand total of $2,403 million. The amendment of the hon. member for Melfort asks for economic assistance, that such economic assistance be granted to NATO countries, and makes no mention of what Canada did or did not do prior to the signing of the treaty in 1949.
According to the minister, since the signing of the treaty Canada has provided $25,300,000 for the Colombo plan, $324,800,000 for mutual aid, and a gift to Greece of $830,000 for the purchase of wheat. None of those figures represents economic aid under article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty; that is the point I am making now.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member had better read the treaty.


Hazen Robert Argue: The figures placed before the house yesterday by the minister prove far better than I could that Canada has done nothing by way of economic aid under article 2 of the treaty.


Jean Lesage: Would the hon. member read article 2 to the house?


Hazen Robert Argue: I have not the treaty here. It was read to the house by the hon. member for Melfort, and I am sure the parliamentary assistant is familiar with it.


Jean Lesage: That is why I want you to read it.


Hazen Robert Argue: He does not need to have it read to him. The Secretary of State for External Affairs told the house yesterday that Canada had been requested by the three wise men to provide economic assistance
External Affairs
under article 2. These are his words, as they appear at page 1015 of Hansard:
Here again there was a suggestion from the three wise men that, while part of it might be spent on military equipment-
And he was referring to mutual aid for the defence pool.
-part also should be spent on raw materials, foodstuffs and so on.
And so the organization requested this government to provide economic assistance, but the government turned down the request. Again at page 1016 the minister said:
We suggested to the TCC, therefore, that to give away these staple exports would cut at the basis of the viability of the Canadian economy.
At one other point the minister said that Canada's balance of payments position would not warrant large gifts from our basic exports. From my understanding of the value of the Canadian dollar on the exchange market, our balance of payments position is better now than it has been at any time since 1934. In fact our balance of payments situation is so good, and the demand for the Canadian dollar by foreign countries is so great, that the price of wheat to the western wheat producers, under the international wheat agreement, has been consequently reduced by some twenty cents a bushel.
So I submit our balance of payments position is good. We have large surpluses of food, and I think Canada is in a fortunate position, and one which would enable her to make adequate advances of economic aid.


Jean Lesage: May I ask the hon. member a question. Would he point out to the house in what line of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty he finds the words "economic aid"?


Hazen Robert Argue: As I said before to the parliamentary assistant, I have not the article before me. However, I do remember the debate in the house in 1949, and the specific purpose of that article as being one to provide economic co-operation-


Jean Lesage: That is it.


Hazen Robert Argue: -economic assistance, so that the countries of western Europe would not by the defence program have their economies wrecked.


Jean Lesage: Economic collaboration.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is also true that the minister demonstrated to the house that this government was not and is not now prepared to give economic assistance by way of providing basic export commodities to European countries. I regret that that is the position taken by the government.
I believe that we are in a most fortunate economic position, and that we have surplus

External Affairs
export commodities. I am sure the parliamentary assistant knows we have many surplus export commodities that are now a drag on the domestic market in Canada. Those are commodities which might well be used not only by countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization but also by countries in Asia and in southeast Asia.
We are in a position to provide those commodities, and if our government were to 'undertake such a program it would be a move toward peace. I read carefully a speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to the annual convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at Montreal on January 22. At page 10 of the transcript I find this:
I doubt if we can. ever hope for the secure peace in the world which we all want so much as long as great numbers of people are barely able to eke out an existence bordering on, or in many cases below, the subsistence level.
Then he went on to say:
It has been ably stated that "never before has the close relationship between food and peace, food and justice, and food and human happiness been so widely accepted."
The Prime Minister has said that there is a very close relationship between food and peace, and I agree. Canada has ample supplies of food in surplus and therefore I say to the government that if Canada is to make its contribution to peace in keeping with our productive capacity we should make large grants of food to European and other countries and by so doing be taking positive action for peace.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) also agrees with that statement by the Prime Minister. Speaking to the food and agriculture organization at Rome, Italy, on November 23 he said, and I quote the concluding paragraph of his speech:
I am certain that unless the present plan can open up the world to a more ready and easy exchange of goods than has prevailed since the war the feeding of the human race will require a technique similar to that suggested by Sir John Orr. The proper feeding of humanity will do more to assure peace than any other accomplishment.
I agree with the Minister of Agriculture. The proper feeding of humanity will do more to assure peace than any other accomplishment. Canada can provide more food for humanity and by so doing can do something that will help accomplish peace throughout the world. The government has done almost nothing in the way of making food available to other countries of the world except, as my hon. friend from Melfort has so well stated, when other countries are able to produce the cash on the barrelhead.

The parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a very fine speech on March 25, which I enjoyed, when he outlined Canada's contribution in the way of technical assistance under the Colombo plan and other things that Canada had done. Canada's contribution under the Colombo plan is $25,300,000. I believe I am right when I say that the contribution for technical co-operation under the same plan is $400,000. Canada's contribution to date has been quite small, only a negligible part of that $400,000.


Jean Lesage: We spent $300,000 last year.


Hazen Robert Argue: What item are you speaking about now?


Jean Lesage: That was in the financial year ending March 31, 1952. In that year we spent nearly $300,000 out of a budget of $400,000.


Hazen Robert Argue: We not only made it available, we spent it.


Jean Lesage: A total of $400,000 was available.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am glad the government was able to do that. The contribution of Canada under the Colombo plan was $25,300,000.


Jean Lesage: $25 million.


Hazen Robert Argue: $25 million, and $300,000 for technical assistance. As the parliamentary assistant said, we have spent only some $10 million of that $25 million.


Jean Lesage: The whole amount was allocated.


Hazen Robert Argue: I understand that quite well, but we provided exports for only some $10 million of the $25 million program. The program of technical assistance covered such things as have been mentioned already, such as farm machinery, irrigation and power development projects and so on.


Jean Lesage: That is capital development.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am making my speech. I have had a great number of interruptions from the hon. member. I do not mind them but-


Jean Lesage: Every time the hon. member gives a figure he has looked at me for approval. I am just saying that there was $25 million for capital development and $400,000 for technical assistance.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not have to look to the hon. member for proof; I have proof in my hand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted without his consent.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said that I did not mind interruptions, but when they come in the middle of every sentence it is just a little too frequent. The parliamentary assistant pointed out that there was provision for technical assistance, but that the only way in which technical assistance had yet been provided in any substantial quantity was for India to take $10 million worth of wheat and then establish a counter-fund which was to be used in the way of technical assistance and the providing of technical improvements in that country.


Jean Lesage: I rise on a question of privilege at this time because the hon. member is not quoting me correctly. I said that there was $25 million voted last year under the Colombo plan for capital development in India and Pakistan, and that $400,000 was voted for technical assistance under the Colombo plan, which is quite different. The $25 million has either been spent or allocated for capital development, but out of the $400,000 for technical assistance, a little less than $300,000 has been expended.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have the hon. member's words right here and I shall read them. I quote from page 760 of Hansard of March 25 as follows:
At the request of the government of India the Canadian government agreed to allot $10 million for the provision of wheat to India under the Colombo plan. This wheat was urgently needed, as hon. members know, to help prevent starvation in certain districts in India. Except for a negligible amount, all the wheat has now been shipped from Canadian west coast ports.
In order that the grant of wheat might be directly related to the economic development objectives of the Colombo plan, the Indian government agreed to establish a special counterpart fund equal in rupees to the $10 million paid for the wheat by the Canadian government.


Jean Lesage: That is not technical assistance, that is economic development.


Hazen Robert Argue: Economic development objectives.


Jean Lesage: It is not technical assistance.


Hazen Robert Argue: I read the hon. member's speech and it is impossible to tell just what it is, but he does refer to economic development objectives. I am saying that in order to achieve some economic development the government provided wheat to the extent of $10 million. I contend that if we want to provide significant economic development and greater technical assistance we should do much more. We have lots of wheat, we have cattle that we scarcely know what to do with, we have a lot of hogs that are glutting the market, forcing prices down, and we have all kinds of cheese. I suggest that these food products should be made available to foreign countries.
External Affairs
If the government wants to make sure that the value of these export products is used for technical assistance and economic development, then all it has to do is to see that the countries receiving this assistance set up counter-funds in order to carry on proper development in those countries. So I say there is no excuse for the government not doing more by way of economic assistance of all kinds. We have plenty of food. The government has worked out a technique with India whereby the value of the food provided may be used as a counter-fund for economic objectives. The Prime Minister has told the people of Canada there is a close relationship between food and peace. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has said the provision of food to needy countries of the world will do more than anything else to achieve peace. All I am saying is that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture should translate their words into action.
We have been fortunate in this country in the last two years in that we have had very large harvests of grain. The wheat board and elevator companies are now carrying over 200 million bushels of wheat. That is the visible supply of wheat in Canada, and that is ten or twenty million bushels higher than a year ago. We all know that possibly another 150 million bushels more grain will be harvested this spring, so we have the prospect of a huge surplus of wheat. The carry-over at the end of next July, together with the grain held on the farms, may be in the neighbourhood of 200 million bushels.
I suggest that the government should make available to countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and countries of Asia and southeast Asia, 100 million bushels of Canadian wheat. We made roughly 5 million bushels available to India at a cost of $10 million. Let us make 100 million bushels available now to India and to other countries. Canadian farmers would be glad indeed if the government would make provision for the export to foreign countries of 100 million pounds of pork, which is now in surplus supply and forcing down the market. Last year Canada exported to the United States in the form of live animals and meat some 500,000 head of cattle. We hope to get back into that market soon, but it will not be for some months. The chances are that the embargo will remain for at least the greater part of 1952. So I say we have 200,000 head of cattle that could be shipped to the peoples of Europe, Asia and southeast Asia. That is only 40 per cent of the supplies that went to the United States market last year. Because Great Britain is carrying such a heavy defence program; because she is the banker

External Affairs
for the sterling countries; because her balance of payments is in jeopardy, recently she was forced to suspend the purchase of cheese in Canada. The president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Dr. H. H. Hannam, has said that some 30 million pounds of cheese are on the shelves in Canada, with the new production season just coming on. The cheese producers in Canada would be glad indeed if this government would provide the United Kingdom with at least 25 million pounds of cheese; and I can see no better way of doing it than under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
We have large surpluses of food. I say we could easily ship $200 million worth of wheat, $40 million worth of pork, $50 million worth of cattle and $10 million worth of cheese, a total of $300,000,000 worth of food and we would still have sizeable surpluses to cope with. The Prime Minister has said food is important for peace. The Minister of Agriculture has agreed. I believe the people of Canada are prepared to have their government provide economic assistance at this time, particularly in the form of food supplies to the needy countries of the world. I suggest that if the government inaugurated such a program they would receive the wholehearted support of the Canadian people and in that way all Canadians would make a real and valuable contribution toward peace in the world.


Mr. A. Earl Caiherwood (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, it would be highly improper for an ordinary member like myself to make any extended remarks at this late stage of the debate. A number of very interesting and instructive points of view have been brought before the house during the course of this discussion, and I feel that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has found the debate very helpful.
I want to refer to only one matter, and I shall be very brief. That is aid to India and Pakistan, which was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). On March 25 of this year the parliamentary assistant to the minister of external affairs gave a very comprehensive survey of the economic problems of the Far East, and generally speaking I think most of us can agree with what he had to say as to Canada's part in that theatre of operations. I am particularly interested and somewhat concerned over Canada's participation in the Colombo plan, under which aid is to be given India and Pakistan. As the hon. member for Lake Centre pointed out this afternoon, I think we can all agree on the value of the assistance that is to be extended to these countries

to help them build cement plants, establish and equip experimental stations, undertake geographic and other surveys and so on. These matters are of great importance; but I feel that of even greater importance is the provision of food for India. This matter was brought very forcibly to the attention of the house by the minister of external affairs and others, and not long ago we read in the press of the terrible famine and distress conditions that now exist in the great state of Madras in southern India, where more than ten million people are bordering on starvation. I do feel that it is up to the members of the United Nations to alleviate their distress in every possible way. Owing to crop deterioration and drought, they find themselves in this unfortunate position. The other projects that have been mentioned are important and desirable, and will be beneficial; but the fact remains that the urgent need is food.
On March 25 the parliamentary assistant stated that the entire $25 million voted by parliament for the current year had been earmarked, though only $10 million worth of food had been shipped out. In effect this means that during the coming year the balance of this year's program will have to be carried out, along with the program to be instituted for 1952-53. I trust and urge that the government will make use of the balance of this $25 million for foodstuffs, particularly wheat, flour, meats and dairy products and also that the full amount for 1952-53 will be utilized for the purpose I have just mentioned.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I rise to speak very briefly because I realize that this debate is drawing towards its final moments. Briefly, I support this amendment, and support the arguments that have been placed before the house for greater economic aid to the needy countries, especially the Asiatic countries. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot agree with the suggestions that because a member of this group moved an amendment that may cause a division of the house, he is thereby doing something against the unity of our purpose. Why, Mr. Speaker, to suggest such a thing is to speak against the very genius of democracy. Because we support legislation in principle, that does not mean that opposition groups should remain silent if they see the administration of that legislation is not as they had expected or as they had intended. It is with that purpose that the member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) moved this amendment.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made reference to the fact that this group had, I think at the last

session of parliament, supported an amendment that would indicate satisfaction with the government's actions concerning NATO aid. I might say that this group, while it has stressed from session to session the need for greater economic assistance, has been fair. This group has waited since 1949 before moving this amendment in order to bring this question into focus, and create some division as to our opinions on this matter.
In the few moments I intend to speak, I should like to deal with a few of the figures given to the house by the minister yesterday. I listened to his address with great interest. We obtained some concrete information. I was interested in hearing the military objectives of NATO, and we were interested in hearing of the commitments made by Canada. I believe that information was given yesterday in clearer form than ever before, and we appreciate it. When the minister was answering the hon. member for Melfort's argument with respect to economic aid, I thought he drew a somewhat misleading picture as to what Canada has done to date. On page 1014 of Hansard for April 1, the minister had this to say:
I believe, on the contrary, that Canada has done its full and proper share in rebuilding, consolidating and assisting the post-war free world.
The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) asks, "What has Canada done to establish economic stability in Europe to date?"-and then he answers his own question, that she "has made no real sacrifice to obtain greater security by paying some of the premium of insurance."
That is the basis of our argument. We claim that to date Canada has made no real sacrifice with respect to economic aid. We believe that, in view of the spirit of the Canadian people and their understanding of the need for this aid, and in view of the surpluses mentioned by the member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue), the people of Canada will unanimously contribute economic aid sufficient ,to make Canada's contribution satisfactory as a whole.
The minister mentioned the fact that Canada, as part of the implementation of economic assistance, had granted a loan to Britain of $1,250 million in 1946. That is correct, but to suggest that was given in the form of charity or as economic assistance is, I believe, entirely wrong. I should like to quote from page 772 of Hansard for April 11, 1946, where Mr. Ilsley had this to say when speaking in the debate in connection with the loan to the United Kingdom:
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say just this. The United Kingdom has always been Canada's largest and most reliable market. Upon the continuation of this market the employment and welfare of millions of Canadians depend.
External Affairs
Then at another point he went on to say:
It is not in any sense an act of charity, it is an investment in the future of Canadian trade.
It was an investment in economic assistance to the Canadian people in order to make certain that our surpluses of wheat, lumber, fish and other commodities are sold in the years ahead. I remember quite well the newspapers of this country hailing this loan with satisfaction, and mentioning in one form or another the fact that, as a result of this loan, industry would continue to operate and there would be markets for lumber, for fish, for fruit and for Canadian wheat. There is no question about the general approach to that loan, because I find Mr. Bracken, then leader of the Progressive Conservatives, saying at page 929 of Hansard for April 16, 1946:
We support this bill, Mr. Chairman, chiefly for two reasons. The first is that in our judgment it is essential to the preservation of the Canadian economy as we see it today.
There is no question of mutual aid. There is no question of economic assistance. It is a straight, hard-boiled deal, and we supported the government in that deal. But I do not like the minister to suggest that it was a form of mutual aid or a form of charity. In one debate dealing with the situation we had one minister saying it is not charity but is for the benefit of the Canadian people; in fact, it is a good business deal. Five years later, we have another minister placing the same loan before the house as if it were a form of charity or economic aid.
We made loans to other countries, as the minister mentioned yesterday, totalling some $503 million, under the Export Credits Insurance Act. Those loans were made on exactly the same basis. Anyone who wishes to peruse Hansard in connection with the discussion of those loans in this house will find that the minister presenting the bills and the members in this house supported them because they were good business for Canada. There was not any suggestion we were making these loans in a spirit of charity or anything of that nature. The minister mentioned military relief of $95 million. What is that? It went to the NATO countries, and we agreed with it. There was $95 million worth of obsolete military equipment that would now have been on the scrap heaps of Canada if the necessity of the times had not demanded its use by the NATO countries.
Then again the minister mentioned United Nations relief programs totalling $203 million. We in this group consider that a genuine contribution to relief. The Colombo plan was mentioned by the member for Assiniboia, and that amounted to $25 million, of which we understand only $10 million has been spent to date. I was pleased to hear that

External Affairs
allocations had been made for the balance. Then there was the gift of wheat to Greece amounting to $830,000. We recognize that as part of the total, but it is peanuts when you come to consider the huge Canadian wheat surplus and the needs of the world today. In giving surplus wheat to these people we would make an infinitesimal sacrifice.
Then, we come to the mutual aid and this total of $324 million that is set against military equipment, equipment that was bought and paid for as a result of the work and toil of Canadians during the war years-largely obsolete equipment, as far as we understand it, not a sacrifice of today, not a contribution from the Canadian people directly today but a contribution made by the Canadian people in the years 1939 to 1945. I think it is safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that the average gross national product in Canada since the war has been about $15 billion. When we analyse the situation objectively, we find that actually we have made little sacrifice in connection with article 2 of the Atlantic pact and economic aid or economic assistance. The greater part of this assistance has been either a businesslike loan or military equipment. As best I can analyse the figures, since 1945 the amount has averaged $35 million per year. Actually $35 million per year is the average of what can be called economic aid or economic assistance, as outright gifts to needy countries and to needy people. Would any member in this house say that that average is satisfactory under present circumstances, in view of our understanding of the fact that poverty, is, one of the great allies of communism-an average of $35 million a year out of an average gross total product of $15 billion? Surely, Mr. Speaker, you cannot consider that sufficient insurance or a satisfactory contribution. I am sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would not rise in this house and say that he considers that Canada had made a satisfactory contribution to date so far as economic assistance is concerned.


Mr. Laing:: Can the hon. member suggest a satisfactory figure?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we can give to the needy people of the world all that can be given-and it would be a large sum-without reducing the Canadian standard of living.


James Sinclair: What about taxes?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I know that the NATO people ask somewhere between $100 million and $200 million. Surely no hon. member on the government side of the house would suggest that the Canadian people, who profess to be Christians, would object to the giving of

between $100 and $200 million of economic aid to the needy peoples of the world. I am sure they would not.
Because we believe that economic aid is a long-run defence against totalitarianism and because we in this group believe that to date Canada has not made a satisfactory contribution, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) moved this amendment; and I intend to support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Mr. G. F. Higgins (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, it was pointed out yesterday, when I rose to speak, that I was not in order. I intend to resume along the same lines today, and would ask to have a ruling so that I may not again be ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Speaker does not make a ruling until a question of order arises. There is no question of order now before me.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I took exception yesterday- and I repeat that exception today-to certain comments by one Colonel Robert Rutherford McCormick in his newspaper the Chicago Daily Tribune in its issue of March 20, wherein he termed Newfoundlanders as half-wits, because of his allegation that they were so
Colonel R. R. McCormick inbred. He also made reference to moronic customs house officers and torpid baggage handlers.
I deal now with this person McCormick because the papers he owns have a wide circulation, and he has access to a radio program which he uses regularly. I believe the total number of people who avail themselves of the services provided by his newspaper amount to very close to nine millions daily. It is because of that very wide circulation of the slanders which have appeared in that newspaper that I take this opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the house.
The gentleman in question was returning from a 20,000-mile world tour, and arrived at Gander airport in Newfoundland at three o'clock in the morning. Because there were no customs house officers in attendance to clear him at the time-and I should add that he was not expected at Gander, but rather at Harmon field where, I understand, arrangements had been made to give him a courtesy clearance-and because he had to wait at Gander four and a half hours at three o'clock in the morning, he made this attack on the citizens of our newest province.
It, will be recalled that less than a month ago some sixty Canadians were detained at Buffalo airport for almost four hours, with a cordon of police surrounding them, and with the aircraft sealed. Those Canadian subjects on American soil were not even permitted to leave the aircraft. This was an emergency landing that had to be made because of weather conditions. Yet we did not hear any great outcry because of the discomfort suffered by the passengers on that aircraft.
Yet, merely because this Mr. McCormick has to put up with an inconvenience resulting from his own failure to take proper precautions at the airport at which he was to arrive, we have to put up with this diatribe against the citizens of our newest province. May I point out that we ought not to be asked to put up with this simply because Mr. McCormick has great holdings in Canada at Thorold and Baie Comeau. I agree with the statement made some time ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)-and perhaps I have not the exact words-that Canadians must not be hewers of wood and drawers of water for any foreign power. Those sentiments I echo exactly as he expressed them.


Mr. Gibson:: Not from that ape, anyway.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: You are giving him some very good free advertising.
1070	HOUSE OF
Colonel R. R. McCormick Mr. Higgins: If he wants this kind of advertising, he can have it. The recollection Mr. McCormick has of his coming to Canada is, in his own words-"I cannot help feeling that, all unknown to me, divine Providence guided my footsteps to that rocky shore."
His holdings now in Canada consist, I believe, of some 7,000 square miles, an area equal to the states of Connecticut and Delaware. His two mills have a newsprint capacity of 950 tons a day.


Mr. Ferguson:: We would be better off if it was six feet by two.


George Matheson Murray: I consider that this is free advertising for McCormick. I do not think this is interesting.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. member; he probably has not been insulted, but we have. The newsprint McCormick gets from this country gives him a distinct advantage over other publishers who have to buy their newsprint on the open market. This means that he gets his newsprint to publish his newspapers, and then proceeds to slander Canada, Great Britain and the United Nations. He describes the United Nations as a delusion and an obscene joke. It may be that the hon. member for Cariboo would think that is good publicity.
Then he said during the war that Canada would not repay the United States for lend-lease equipment. He forgot to add, of course, that Canada had never accepted lend-lease equipment. There is an excellent series of articles published in the week-end picture magazine published by the Standard, and written by Gerald Clark. In the Standard of Saturday, February 5, 1947, appears this:
The colonel is almost a legendary figure and the the anecdotes about him are plentiful. Once when he held an office party at his estate, he appeared on horseback, garbed in a pink riding coat. His employees were lined up. With typical military bearing, he rode up and down their ranks like a general reviewing the guard. In tribute to his military grandeur he has been nicknamed, Colonel McCos-mic." At other times he has been called a fascist, and "The Duke of Chicago." An equally apt title might be "King McCormick" or "America's Feudal Baron."
Another quotation from the same article reads:
His hatred for anything British knows no bounds.
It made him fight lend-lease and insist that the United States in giving up strawberry jam was assuring jam for English breakfasts. It compelled him to invent, during the war, a British plot to invade the United States via Canada. It also forced him to assign a reporter to write in 1943 that "Canada is a land of milk and honey overflowing with . . . most of the luxuries denied to Americans under the rationing system."


Mr. Speaker:: I can now give the ruling the hon. member asked me to give when he started his remarks. When the order is called for committee of supply it is permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal government. Having listened to the hon. member I do not think that he is discussing a public matter within the powers of the federal government.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I certainly would be the last one not to bow to your ruling, but I do think that this is within the powers of the federal government. After all, there are controls on newsprint, on the use of planes and airports. I feel there has been a reflection upon our customs officials and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) would be interested. I understand he is making an investigation at the present time into this McCormick matter. I shall not be much longer but I would just like to say a few words more.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not suppose the hon. member would contend that his remarks with respect to Mr. McCormick, the articles he is reading, and the statements he has made are within the powers of the federal government.


Gordon Francis Higgins: He has referred to our customs officials who are employees of the federal government. Is that not a reflection on the federal government and on the Department of Transport?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is reading an article which described the clothes that Colonel McCormick wore. I do not think the federal government could control that. Perhaps the hon. member has stated his grievance.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I have just one other statement. Immediately adjoining this article is a very interesting advertisement depicting a man on a soap box holding out his hands. I think it is the best description of Colonel McCormick that could be given because it is headed "flannel mouth".


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in my remarks I made some rather severe comments on the United States in connection with the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause and non-discrimination in trade. I desire to put on the record a number of bits of documentary evidence upon which I based my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not been able to hear clearly what the hon. member has said, but if he proposes to continue the speech he made on the amendment he would not be in order as that subject has been concluded.


John Horne Blackmore: I can quickly change it to another subject. I merely referred to my former remarks as a means of transition from

what I said then to what I say now. My contention is that this bears directly on what is before the house. There will be no chance in this world of obtaining anything like a peaceful state of affairs or a state of prosperity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That subject has been concluded for the time being and the hon. member cannot pursue it at this time.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out that the government and the government's agents in connection with NATO have bungled scandalously the situation ever since 1946 and I propose to give further remarks along that line.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to say that would not be in order at this time.


John Horne Blackmore: Surely anything bearing upon external affairs is in order?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: That matter was discussed when supply was called and an amendment moved. Another subject has been introduced and under our practice we cannot revert to the first subject.


John Horne Blackmore: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is out of order; he cannot adjourn the debate.


John Horne Blackmore: Must we conclude that it is impossible to carry on any discussion now that the amendment has been disposed of?


Mr. Speaker:: It is impossible to carry on any discussion on the subject which was under debate on the motion to go into supply. In order to continue the debate it would be necessary to discuss another subject. I allowed the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) to continue because he was discussing a subject which had not yet been introduced. For that reason I think I should now put the question on the motion to go into supply.


John Horne Blackmore: It is six o'clock.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I understand that on going into supply an hon. member has the right to air a grievance.


An hon. Member:: Not when it has been already aired.


Ernest George Hansell: That is quite correct; and the grievance that has already been aired was embodied in an amendment suggesting the government had failed in its obligations under article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. On the point of order my contention is that
External Affairs
the hon. member is perfectly in order if he wishes to speak on any other subject than article 2 of the treaty.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ernest George Hansell: That is my contention, and I would like a ruling on it. I suggest that as long as he does not speak on the amendment he can speak on any other subject involving NATO.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Before you give a ruling, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman was here when on three occasions we had an agreement in this house that we would move to go into committee of supply in order to have a full debate on external affairs. We have had that debate.


John Horne Blackmore: No, we have not; not in full.


Alphonse Fournier: If you wish to take another fifteen days to debate this and compete with the debate on the address, that is something else. My understanding with the other parties was that we would have a debate on external affairs. For eight days we have been debating external affairs, not only NATO but the whole subject. If after an agreement that we would conclude this debate it were permitted to continue, there would be no other agreement we could make amongst the members of the house. So I feel the hon. gentleman should not insist on continuing the debate on external affairs at this stage. I am going to move that these estimates be referred to the committee. He could be a witness there, or a member of that committee and discuss them ad nauseam.


John Horne Blackmore: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has raised a point of order. I would refer the house to the latter part of citation 345 in Beauchesne's third edition:
Members may discuss various matters on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair without any amendment being proposed; but once debate is stopped on one matter and another matter intervenes members cannot again discuss the former.
There was a motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply. At that time there was a debate on external affairs. An amendment was moved. The amendment has been disposed of. The debate on external affairs was interrupted by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) who raised another subject. Under our practice we cannot now, on this motion, revert to a discussion of external affairs; so I must rule the hon. member out of order. Now can I put the motion to go into committee of supply?

Supply


Some hon. Members:: Question.	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
85. Departmental administration, $2,613,057.
Item stands.
[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, $344,433.
Item stands.
[Stage Direction]
463. Departmental administration, $1,370,566.
Item stands.
Progress reported.

Alphonse Fournier: By leave of the house I move:
That votes Nos. 85 to 115, inclusive, of the main estimates, 1952-53, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow I understand the Prime Minister will move the motion appearing in Votes and Proceedings of today, that the provision of standing order 28 relative to Mr. Speaker leaving the chair without question put be suspended for the sittings of the house on Thursday, April 3 and Friday, April 4, 1952. That will be the first government notice of motion. The leader of the opposition asked if we could proceed with the motion to set up the committee on defence expenditure, and 1 think it would be agreeable that we proceed with that motion before moving to go into supply and having a debate on defence estimates.


Mr. Knowles:: If that is done, and if perchance the motion to set up the committee is decided without debate, is it understood that within the framework of the other debate it will be possible for members to discuss defence expenditures as well as defence itself?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Certainly. I think it was understood at the last session that the adoption of this motion would not interfere with the right of the house to consider any matter, which would otherwise be within its competence, at the appropriate time.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 6.10 p.m.

Thursday, April 3, 1952