1952-12-16

Hon. W. E. Harris (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I beg leave to table copies of notes exchanged by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs and the United States ambassador on December 5. The notes constitute a lease to the United States of certain parcels of land within the Royal Canadian Air Force station at Goose Bay in the province of Newfoundland. The lease, which is to enable the United States air force to replace wartime construction and to construct some additional facilities, involves approximately 7,000 acres of land which is less than ten per cent of the area of the base. The field will continue to be under the over-all command of the R.C.A.F.
Goose Bay airport was built by Canada in 1942-before Newfoundland entered confederation-as a stepping-stone along the North Atlantic and Arctic airways. During the war thousands of aircraft put down there on ferry flights from the United States and Canada to Europe. Since the war Goose Bay has been used by the R.C.A.F. and the United States air force to support certain northern weather stations, and it has served also as a centre for search and rescue operations in the area.
In view of the increased international tension during the last three years, the R.C.A.F. and United States air force facilities at Goose Bay have been considerably expanded. The base is, in effect, a joint defence installation, and is being used by both air forces for the co-operative defence of North America. Its use by both countries is essential for the fulfilment of their responsibilities under the North Atlantic treaty.
The lease is for a period of 20 years, with the proviso that any United States request for an extension will be considered by Canada in the light of the common defence interests of Canada and the United States.
When the lease has expired, all buildings on the leased area will become the property of Canada, but removable improvements may be taken away by the United States air force.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 43, respecting Beaver Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Rooney.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for Ihe Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 48 (from the Senate), respecting food, drugs, cosmetics and therapeutic devices.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I would ask the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, if he will table the letter or a copy of the letter to which he referred yesterday from the chief of the general staff, in view of the fact that it has been made a part of the general material in connection with Mr. Currie's report. Would he table also any other correspondence relating to the letter from the chief of the general staff?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I had intended, Mr. Speaker, to table it, and thought it was being tabled yesterday, but the Clerk pointed out to me that under what had been said it did not become a part of the records of the house, but would be printed, as had been suggested, with the report of Mr. Currie. But if it is desired to have it laid on the table as a part of the official records of the house, I shall be glad to have that done. I thought it had been done, but it was pointed out by the Clerk that, under what had been said, it had not been a part of the records of the house. I take it that it is desired that it become a part of the records of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Sf. Laurent:: Then I will see that it is done. I will make sure whether or not there is any other correspondence. There is none to my knowledge, but I will make inquiry in that regard.

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Alexander Drew: So that there may be no misunderstanding about the matter, may I say that what I had in mind was that perhaps there was, from either the minister or someone in the department, a letter which indicated how the copy of the report came into the hands of the chief of the general staff, and whatever correspondence there was that prompted the reply from the chief of the general staff. That is particularly what I have in mind.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: My information is that there is no correspondence and that the copy of the report came into the hands of the chief of the general staff in the manner mentioned by the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) yesterday; that is to say that on his instructions, when two copies were sent overseas, one for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and one for me, a copy was handed to the chief of the general staff.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the consent of hon. members, I would ask you to revert to motions so that I might lay on the table a copy of a letter from the chief of the general staff requested this morning by the Leader of the Opposition. I read it yesterday, and I now beg leave to table copies of that letter.
The Leader of- the Opposition asked:
Would he table also any other correspondence relating to the letter from the chief of the general staff?
Then later he said:
So that there may be no misunderstanding about the matter, may I say that what I had in mind was that perhaps there was, from either the minister or someone in the department, a letter which indicated how the copy of the report came into the hands of the chief of the general staff, and whatever correspondence there was that prompted the reply from the chief of the general staff.
I have made diligent inquiries and there is no such correspondence.



REPARATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), I should like to answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) on Friday, December 12. The question was as follows:
Will he inform the house as to what progress is being made in regard to the payment of Japanese

and German reparations in pursuance of the report made to the government by Chief Justice Ilsley of the province of Nova Scotia?
The answer is as follows:
The payment of compensation to Canadians in respect of war claims:
Up to and including December 12, 1952, 1,210 cheques totalling $1,635,265 have been issued and send out to former prisoners of war of the Japanese. One cheque totalling $1,085 has been issued and sent to a former civilian internee of the Japanese.
Under the war claims interim compensation rules four cheques totalling $7,000 have been sent to civilian claimants in respect of death or personal injuries, three claims arising out of the sinking of the S.S. Athenia and one claim against the Japanese.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked me whether I could inform the house as to the incident which occurred at Chalk River on Friday last. I can now report as follows:
About 3.15 on Friday afternoon, December 12, a burst occurred in uranium rods during a normal operation. The release of radioactive gases and dust from the rods was carried as usual by the ventilating system up the tall stack from which it would normally be widely dispersed. Owing to the atmospheric conditions at the time and the severity of the discharge, the area of the plant became contaminated causing the alarms to go off and the "stay-in" signals were at once given. The activity at the remote buildings died off in a matter of some minutes but the health surveyors found activity remaining in the laboratories nearer the pile building and to avoid the spread of contamination which would affect the research instruments and laboratories by people walking around, it was decided to evacuate all personnel who were not essential to operation. The evacuation siren was sounded and all employees, except the scientists and engineers attending the reactor, and all senior officers, left the plant in a very orderly fashion, without panic and according to the procedures set down for such emergencies. No one was hurt or injured by contamination, though the clothes of a few men in the pile building were removed as a precautionary measure until the short-lived activity on them died down. I am informed, however, that it will take several days to clear all the laboratories of contamination which,


although well below the level standard for human tolerance, does seriously interfere with scientific instruments and experiments.
Bursts of rods have occurred before at Chalk River but this one was more severe and atmospheric conditions were such as to reduce the dispersion. Bursts have occurred at other atomic energy plants, and must be expected when scientists are dealing with such a powerful source of energy of a new type and have still much to learn about the behaviour of materials under high irradiation. The metallurgical changes which may be produced by such powerful neutron bombardment is one problem on which scientists are still working.
The reactor is now being cooled off to permit the engineers and scientists to undertake a complete examination, discover the real trouble and make any necessary repairs. In the meantime, however, all scientific, maintenance and operating personnel are now back to work and fully occupied.
It should be remembered that NRX is an experimental plant designed during the war when there was little if any operating experience and, as in all novel development work, it is from the troubles met in experimental establishments that enough experience is gained to design large-scale industrial plants.


Mr. Green:: Will the reactor be out of operation for some time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Until it can be cooled off it is impossible to decontaminate the reactor. Time has to elapse to allow the contamination to disappear, naturally. Until it can be decontaminated and the plant examined, it will be out of action. How long that will take, I could not tell you.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works to question No. 7 standing in my name on today's order paper. I would say that, with the exception of one day, this question has been on the order paper since July 2, and I would hope for an early answer.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, December 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. L. Deslieres for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the
The Address-Mr. Leduc amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Blackmore.
(Translation):
Mr. Edgar Leduc (Jacques Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I moved the adjournment of the debate yesterday so that I might finish this morning what I had to say on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I referred yesterday to the speech of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) who dealt in this house, on December 2 last, with the question of taxation rates and who also stated that the federal government did not take anything away from the provinces. I am of the same opinion.
The federal parliament has the exclusive power to raise funds by any method or system of taxation, either through direct or indirect taxes, whereas the provinces can levy direct taxes for provincial purposes only. These powers are conferred by sections 91 and 92 of the B.N.A. Act of 1867.
Has anyone replied to the speech made by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet on that subject? Not at all. It is merely insinuated that the poor province of Quebec is being ill-treated.
The Ottawa government must discharge its obligations to the whole of Canada. In order to do so they must collect sufficient revenue through the methods of taxation at their disposal.
If, as was stated yesterday by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon), the chamber of commerce approves the obstinate refusal by the premier of the province of Quebec to accept federal subsidies, it nevertheless recognizes the beneficial administration of the federal government. So true is this, in fact, that we can read the following in an article entitled "The Chamber of Commerce:	Facts and Trends," and dated March
19, 1952:
It is a fact that Canada's prestige in the community of nations is increasingly greater. Even the Americans recognize in this country one of the world's most progressive nations.
Immigration to Canada adds 150,000 new consumers each year to our population; a formidable figure. For industrialists and businessmen, these figures have far-reaching economic consequences.
In 1939, the gross value of Canadian production amounted to approximately 5 billion and a half; today, the gross value of this production amounts to 17 billion dollars.
Canada has been lucky enough to achieve a better balanced economy, which has made her more impervious to fluctuations on the markets of the world. In 10 years, iron and steel production has increased threefold; production of electric power has done even better and the volume of aluminum production has multiplied five times. In a single year, 1950, Canada manufactured more refrigerators than in 1938 and 1939 together.

The Address-Mr. Harkness
Eastern Canada draws a large part of its oil supply from the Alberta oil fields. Canadian oil fields compare favourably with the continent's most important fields. We have reserves for many centuries to come.
In a few years from now, i.e. in 1955, the works undertaken in Ungava will already have made possible the development of the amazing mineral deposits in that district. An output of 20 million tons a year is anticipated, once the St. Lawrence waterways project is completed.
Every year Canada receives foreign capital that helps her develop her natural resources. At the same time Canada is becoming more and more a creditor nation as far as the other countries of the world are concerned.
All these figures and statistics have but one aim: to give the assurance to the Canadian people that their country has boundless possibilities. We are a privileged people and we need but show initiative to provide for ourselves an enviable future.
If Canada has succeeded in gaining the attention of people of other countries, all the more reason for her own people to have confidence in her. We must not lose our optimism.
In view of that article and the few others I quoted last night, praising the Canadian government's administration, I believe we should all unite in a common effort as is suggested in the article entitled "Facts and Trends" published by the chamber of commerce.
(Text):


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make some remarks in connection with the Currie report which was tabled in the house yesterday. I have had the report in my possession only for a very short time, and therefore I have not had an opportunity to read it and digest it thoroughly; but even on a first reading of it one is immediately struck by certain statements, some of which were pointed out to the house yesterday by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), and which are extremely disturbing.
It would help our understanding of the whole situation to go back and take up something in connection with the history back of this report. The first mention of it was in the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) on April 21 of this year, to be found at page 1424 of Hansard of that date. I quote from the speech:
Mr. Speaker, following the discovery and investigation of grave irregularities in the engineer detachment at Petawawa camp, charges have been laid.
And so on. Then further down in the same remarks we find the following:
The irregularities first came to the attention of the department several months ago and arose out of the disposal of scrap under contracts made by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for the sale of thirty tons in 1950 and fifteen tons in 1951.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: On what date was it first ascertained that there was any trouble?


Mr. Claxton:: In October, 1951.
According to this statement of the minister, the department knew, and he knew, that there was trouble there in October 1951, many months before the Petawawa irregularities were disclosed to the general public by the R.C.M.P. investigation. The question then immediately arises: if the department knew of these irregularities, why was nothing done about it? To begin with the minister says "following the discovery and investigation of grave irregularities in the engineering detachment"; in other words, the impression is given that the discovery of these irregularities was made only as a result of the R.C.M.P. investigation. By his own statement it will be seen that these irregularities were known for many months before that, back in October. As a matter of fact, if we refer to the report at page 4, and also appendix B, we see the same thing borne out. On page 4 Mr. Currie says:
It must be said that internal warnings had not been lacking in the Department of National Defence. The chief auditor of the department had performed his functions conscientiously. Time and again he had reported unsatisfactory conditions.
And so forth. That is clear from appendix B. If you refer to appendix B you find, as a matter of fact, that the chief auditor reported on different dates twenty different types of irregularities. If you count them you will find that the number of these irregularities-I made a rapid count-are 159 altogether. These were not all at Petawawa; these were at different camps; but irregularities to the number of 159 had been reported in the years 1950, 1951 and 1952. In other words, the auditors were reporting irregularities at least as far back as 1950.
If we move from that to the reports of the defence expenditures committee of last year we find that reports quite evidently containing irregularities were made as far back as 1949. In the committee we had been talking about these auditors sent out by the auditor general of the department. Then at the close of the day I said, as reported at page 161 of the committee report:
Q. I have one more question. On page 16, it reads:
"At the close of an audit all matters requiring attention are discussed with the commanding officer and other officers concerned. A written report is forwarded to the assistant deputy minister covering each inspection, and he forwards it to the chief of staff concerned with his comments".
Now, I do not suppose you can answer these questions now, but you can bring them in next week.
The questions were:
When was the last inspection of this type made in Petawawa, and, secondly, when was the second last

inspection at Petawawa of this kind made, and thirdly, what was disclosed in regard to theft or material missing in each of these reports.
Well, the answers to these questions were brought in at the next meeting of the committee on May 8, and at page 172 the discussion is found. The point is that the only thing that was brought in was the dates, and after a long discussion any information as to what was concerned in those reports was denied, with various members on the government side of the house making specious arguments that it was not in the public interest to disclose, what was in those auditors' reports. It was quite evident that the only reason that the auditors' reports were not disclosed to the committee was that they contained reports of irregularities which the government at that time was anxious not to have made public. The dates on which these audits were made are rather significant. At page 173 a list of them is given. We find that audits of various units at Petawawa were made on June 18, 1951, June 5, 1951, May 12, 1950, another one on May 12, 1950, for another unit, May 6, 1950, May 23, 1949, May 6, 1950, May 1, 1949, and so on. Then, there were two more of them in 1949.
It is quite clear from this that these reports of irregularities had been coming in over a period of years to the Department of National Defence. Under the procedure they came to the assistant deputy minister or the deputy minister, and I am sure were referred to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). In spite of all these reports, apparently nothing was done to correct the situation, as appears in Mr. Currie's report, until after the matter became public as the result of the investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Now, if we refer back to the speech delivered by the Minister of National Defence on April 21 last we find he said this:
The investigation-
That is, the one at Petawawa.
-has disclosed no foundation for the reports alleging irregularities and deficiencies in the construction of buildings in the twenty-two major construction projects under way at Petawawa.
If one refers to the report, however, he finds at pages 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of that report various irregularities, so far as construction is concerned. For instance, we find at page 8 that in certain cases-
-persons buying army material were asked not to make cheques in payment (in whole or in part) to the receiver general but to individual army personnel. The amounts thus paid did not reach the public treasury.
The Address-Mr. Harkness
Then a dam was built at Tucker creek at a cost estimated at some $3,000 or $4,000, and the report states:
Its utility is not clear to me, and it was, in any event, not authorized by army headquarters.
And so on. Therefore, in these cases we see irregularities, so far as construction matters are concerned. It is possible that none of these irregularities in construction was in the major projects which the minister mentioned specifically; but certainly it would be at least misleading to the house to say that no irregularities had been found in construction, and to attempt to say, as he did, that nothing irregular was found in connection with the twenty-two major construction projects.
As a matter of fact we find in four pages of this report various instances of irregularities, so far as construction is concerned. Then, if we turn to appendix B-and I am not going to deal with it in detail-we find that, so far as Petawawa is concerned, a considerable number of irregularities which occurred were regarding construction matters. They were in the nature of illegal work orders, and things of that kind.
Another matter to which the report refers is the lack of administrative and managerial ability, poor accounting, and things of that sort, so far as the army works people are concerned, and the finding that the same thing applies throughout. At page 17 of the report we find this statement in that connection:
The situation was complicated by still another factor. The Department of National Defence (including the army works services) was largely staffed and manned by men whose military training had been received in wartime. Its establishment and administrative practices reflected more clearly the urgent needs and exigencies of war, when speed is everything and costs count not at all. The carry-forward of this war psychology . must be coupled with inadequate training and resultant ignorance on the part of personnel of their administrative duties and responsibilities.
That is the very thing about which those of us on this side of the house have complained on several occasions here, in the past. I am not going back to quote from Hansard, and to set out the particular instances of it. However, a. good deal of the difficulty in the Department of National Defence was because comparatively inexperienced men, so far as important administrative jobs were concerned, were in charge.
Once again, that is entirely the responsibility of the government. And it arose in this way, that following the war the government pursued the policy of dismissing practically all the men who had any considerable amount of experience before the war in what one might call general administrative work of the army. As a result they left in the
746	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Harkness army only those men who had gained their experience during the war and who, as a result of that, did not have the experience to carry on the more general administrative duties required during a period of peace.
The policy followed was to retire .a considerable number of senior officers many years before the normal retirement age. This was not confined to officers, because many others including warrant officers, staff sergeants and the like, were retired years before their period of useful service was up. They were the very men who in the years before the war had been trained in accounting methods, administrative procedure and the like, required to run an army in peacetime. The result of the government's policy of discharging what one might call the older and experienced men in the service, and in many cases discharging them long before their time was up, was that they were left with an army run by men who had gained their experience during the war when, as the report points out, a war psychology prevailed and speed was everything. Ideas about economy and things of that nature just did not exist.
The next point I should like to discuss has to do with the changes which were made in the report, as indicated by the hon. member , for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: May I interrupt the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member has a question, I shall be pleased to answer it; but I do not want him to make a speech.


George Matheson Murray: On a point of order, the point is this-


Mr. Fleming:: Question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member has no question, then I am going to carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may rise to a point of order.


George Matheson Murray: My point is this, that I think the discussion of this matter is totally out of order until hon. members have copies of Hansard on their desks-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Matheson Murray: -so that we can be informed about the matter under discussion.


An hon. Member:: It was tabled.


George Matheson Murray: It is not available, and private members in the house are not


informed as to the material under discussion. And until they are, this discussion should be postponed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should be allowed to state his point of order. However, my ruling would have to be that the report was tabled yesterday and it is therefore, in accordance with our rules, debatable today.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Mclvor:: On a point of order; I think it would be better cricket on the part of the opposition to wait till the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is present to discuss the Currie report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would say, as an aside, that the attempt being made at the present time to prevent my saying anything about the Currie report is indicative of the attitude taken last year in the defence expenditures committee, at which time constant efforts were made to block the securing of information in regard to this and other matters which government members thought would be embarrassing to the government.


Mr. Stick:: I do not rise in this house very often but a charge has been made against members of that committee, that we were trying to block information. I deny that charge and the hon. member knows that what I am saying is true.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) should be allowed to continue.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I trust that these interruptions will not be counted as part of my time for speaking.
In regard to what the hon. member from Newfoundland has just said, all he has to do is to refer to pages 172, 173, 174, 175 and so on of the report of the committee proceedings, and he will see how the information contained in the auditor's report was denied.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: Read them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not going to take time to read a thing like that but there were a number of instances where information was denied. The hon. member's denial of what I have just said indicates his lack of knowledge of what went on in the committee.


Leonard T. Stick: Not a bit of it.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Let us hear from the brass hats.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Address-Mr. Harkness would seem to indicate a very strong necessity for a similar type of investigation and report on other branches of the service-as a matter of fact on the service as a whole.
The hon. member for Nanaimo last night pointed to and argued for the necessity of a commission to investigate defence matters generally. I think there is no doubt but that there is a strong necessity for something along that line.
This report contains a large number of important suggestions for improvement. There is one in particular to which I would just like to pay a small amount of attention. The suggestion is for the establishment of what is called a pilot plant. This suggestion is found on page 40 of the report:
Pilot Plant .
In view of the urgent need to apply immediate remedial measures, it is suggested that consideration be given to the setting-up of one of the army works companies as an example of the ideal to be attained. In choosing this special company, care should be taken to select one in a suitable area and with as nearly a perfect layout, equipment and facilities as is possible. The administrative arrangements, as well as the operational organization, should be most carefully set up to provide a model company. Such a company would be in the nature of a "pilot plant" to which officers and other ranks from other companies could be temporarily posted to obtain rapid and concentrated instruction as to how a works company should be organized and operated.
I think that is something that should be done not only so far as works companies are concerned but also throughout the services generally. For instance, it was one of the regular recognized procedures in the German army to have what were known as training battalions. It was by means of these training battalions that the German army was able to build itself up as rapidly as it did prior to the last war and to replace its losses as quickly as it did through recruits from training battalions. That is one suggestion that I should particularly like to see adopted, and it should not be confined to works companies but should be general in its application.
I have attempted to show, Mr. Speaker, that first of all the losses at Petawawa had been going on for a considerable period of time. That is evidenced by the fact that the auditor's reports going back to 1949 were not produced. It is quite evident that those reports contained references to irregularities that were occurring at that time. As the report makes clear, during all this time nothing was done to correct the irregularities and to improve the general administrative services of the army. It is quite clear that the situation which prevailed was known by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), and as far as we can ascertain he took no action to correct it.
[Mr Harkness.]
The responsibility for the situation indicated by the report, which situation would make one very much afraid that the same poor administrative and accounting practices might be found throughout the services, rests squarely on the Minister of National Defence and on the government. When the hon. member for Nanaimo was speaking yesterday there was a lot of comment from interrupters immediately to my right. They kept on muttering, "the general staff, the general staff."


An hon. Member:: The brass hats.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, apparently it was their idea to try to make the general staff the scapegoats in this matter. I do not maintain for one moment that no responsibility for these irregularities rests on the general staff. There is no question that they must bear a share of the responsibility.


George Matheson Murray: Oh, no!


Douglas Scott Harkness: However, any attempt to make the general staff the goat for this situation will not go down so far as the country is concerned. The government and the Liberal party are very fond of making people scapegoats. They made a scapegoat out of Fred McGregor over the combines situation. They got into difficulties there and they kicked him out. They used him as a scapegoat. They made a scapegoat out of Brigadier Connelly with respect to certain international difficulties. They made a scapegoat out of Mr. Pitt because they were apparently put out over something. In other words, their general policy seems to be to make scapegoats out of people. In this particular case I do not think they are going to be able to get away with it. The only goat in this whole matter is the great big nannygoat from which the Liberal members all receive their milk, the government. It will be quite plain to the people of the country that it is the government which is the goat.


George Matheson Murray: The brass hats will get theirs before this is over.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That remark is exactly indicative and symptomatic of the comments that came from the same quarter yesterday. They are going to blame it on the brass hats. They say: "The brass hats are the only people who are to blame. We will kick them in the pants. The public will soon forget and everyone will be happy." I am quite sure that is not going to be the situation. The so-called brass hats are not going to be made the goats in this affair. All the responsibility is not going to be placed on them.


Mr. Larson:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to finish what I am saying. I will answer questions afterwards.


Frederick Hugo Larson: You can't take it, eh?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no question that the responsibility for the situation rests squarely on the government. As I have indicated, the government knew what was going on and they took no action. Under British practice, when a minister's department is shown to be so poorly administered and when it is clear that he had knowledge of the situation and took no action, there is no question that it is the accepted thing for the minister to submit his resignation. I think that the normal British practice should be followed and that the Minister of National Defence, as a result of what I can only call his dereliction of duty with respect to this whole matter, should submit his resignation.


Frederick Hugo Larson: Will the hon. member permit a question? Who runs an army camp? Is it the Minister of National Defence and his staff or is it the commanding officer of the camp?


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Do you know about government responsibility?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is exactly the point I am making. The commanding officer of a camp is responsible; there is no question about that. But the head of the Department of National Defence is responsible for irregularities that arise as the result of lax administration and failure to do anything to improve the administration. The report makes it abundantly clear that there was such failure. Any attempt on the part of the government to say that it is not their responsibility is shown to be completely wrong by the facts. As a matter of fact, if the hon. member who asked the question, and who has a farm in Saskatchewan, had a few people training in the vicinity of his farm who popped a shell into his barn and killed a couple of his prize cows I do not think he would hold responsible the man who pulled the trigger, the man who loaded the shell, the man who laid the gun or the officer in charge of the particular detachment. He would hold the government responsible, and when he instituted suit to recover damages for the monetary loss he had suffered he would not sue the individual gunner. He would sue the government.


Frederick Hugo Larson: If the hon. member were the commanding officer of an army camp would he welcome government officials running around his camp inspecting things that were going on and more or less casting doubt on his authority as the commanding officer of that camp?
The Address-Mr. Harkness


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the Minister of National Defence sent an auditor or an inspection team to inspect my particular camp I would do everything I could to make their stay as pleasant as possible and to show them everything that was there. That is the only thing I could do.


Mr. McCusker:: Did I understand correctly the hon. member who has just spoken when, he insinuated that Liberal members were living off graft from the government? Would he clarify that point?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I never mentioned the word "graft".


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I did not say the hon. member mentioned it. I said "insinuated".


Mr. Hees:: If the cap fits, wear it.


Mr. Rowe:: We never thought of it until the hon. member mentioned it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The fact that the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) has mentioned the word "graft" would seem to indicate that there must be some uneasy consciences.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I assure the hon. member that my conscience is just as easy as his so far as receiving anything from the government is concerned or from the point of view of service to my country. Just like the hon. member, who called me gutless last year because I did not answer questions when I was making a speech, I have a right to speak and I have not spoken-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: But I-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has risen on a question of privilege.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: My question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary East has explained what he said previously. If the hon. member wants to make a speech, he is allowed to do so but he will have to wait until his turn comes. I understand that the hon. member for Northumberland, Ont. (Mr. Robertson) is now ready to take the floor.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In regard to the question of privilege, I would like to say that I accept fully the member's statement that his conscience is perfectly clear, and that his service to his country is beyond reproach. I accept that very gladly.


Mr. F. G. Roberison (Northumberland, Ont.):: In joining in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend my personal congratulations to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to

The Address-Mr. Robertson the speech from the throne. Both of these gentlemen who were afforded this high honour discharged their responsibility in an admirable way and are deserving of the tributes which have been paid to them in the course of this debate.
As hon. members of this house know, I have the honour of representing one of the finest agricultural ridings in Canada, the county of Northumberland, Ontario. It is a justly deserving tribute that the first world's plowing match will be held in Northumberland county next October on the occasion of the Ontario plowmen's association annual international plowing match. This world's championship plowing match, as I have said, will be held in Canada for the first time. It has been indicated already that some ten countries will send contestants to this international match. I believe that Great Britain, southern Ireland, Finland, West Germany, Norway, Sweden and Canada have indicated that they will take part in this match. I am informed also that France, Belgium and the United States are likely to send contestants.
Each country will be represented by a three-man team consisting of a horse plowman, a tractor plowman and a coach. This world's championship plowing match will be held under rules and regulations which have been adopted by an international conference which was held in Falkirk, Scotland, just recently. This speaks well for the co-operation of these countries, because there must have been a willingness on the part of these different countries to forgo certain regulations common to their plowing at home in order to adopt regulations which are peculiar to other countries. I am informed that the nations will demonstrate some of their own plowing techniques, and that an international board of judges will pass on the competition. You will see that there will be a cosmopolitan flair to this great gathering.
Canada is honoured in toeing selected as the site for this first world's plowing match. It is to be an annual affair, and I understand that it will be held in southern Ireland in 1954; in Sweden in 1955; and in Great Britain in 1956. In addition to the world's championship match, next year's gathering at Cobourg will continue to display all the features which have made the international plowing match one of the outstanding events in agricultural circles. I wish to congratulate all the officials of the international plowmen's association on the wonderful event they promote each year; on their hard work and endeavours which make this annual match an outstanding success. I should like to congratulate also those citizens of Northumberland and Durham who


have made possible the holding ef this match in our area. I commend them for their unselfish public service. I know that the citizens of our area will do everything possible to discharge their responsibility as hosts to this event. I am sure that this event at Cobourg will be one of the most outstanding ever held. I wish to extend an invitation to all hon. members of this house to come to Cobourg for this great match next year. I am sure you will be most welcome and you will have an interesting and profitable time.
In previous speeches in this house I have expressed my interest in and concern for the welfare of agriculture in this country. I regret to see the decline in prices in certain agricultural products, and I am sure that such decline must be looked upon with real concern by all of us. We know that the prices of some agricultural products, particularly apples, vegetables, whole milk and potatoes, are about as high as they have been in our history. The prices for butter, eggs and cheese are fairly satisfactory. It is for the prices of beef and pork products that we have the greatest concern. These prices were quite satisfactory until the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Canada with the resultant closing of the United States border. I should like to congratulate the government upon the good work that was done in the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease from this country. I think there is no doubt that this matter was handled in a most efficient way. Never in the history of this disease has it been wiped out within such a short time.
A few days ago we listened to a speech delivered by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) on the subject of farm prices in Canada, particularly the prices of pork. He made what I would consider to be a wholly political, prejudicial speech. He did not take into consideration the various difficulties which confront the government in dealing with this matter. He accused the government of having a deliberate policy of destroying the hog industry in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Can you imagine anything more untrue than that? This government has done much to aid the Canadian hog industry. They have set floor prices and they are buying hogs and canning them. It is true this is done at a loss, but nevertheless it is a great aid to the hog industry. I believe that the farm prices support legislation has been a great aid to the hog and beef producers of this country. Had we not had this legislation, the prices for hog products and beef products would have fallen drastically and the producers of these items would have suffered severe losses.

The Address-Mr. Robertson
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) has placed on the record, during the course of this debate, a comparison of farm prices in Canada and farm prices in other parts of the world. Almost without exception the prices in Canada are higher than in any other country. I believe that the support legislation this government has introduced is largely responsible for that fact. All the people in Canada have enjoyed great prosperity for the past number of years. I believe that most of us would welcome a reduction in the prices of various goods. We do know that the prices of agricultural products have declined more than the prices of other goods, but I think it has always been an economic fact that farm prices fall before the prices of other goods. I believe that the farmers of this country have a right to expect that the prices of the items they buy should, in a short time, follow suit. If that does not happen, then a large part of the purchasing power of our farm group will gradually dwindle and the people in other occupations in Canada, in other industries, will suffer. Most of these people will then be earning less than they do today.
In recent years farming has changed a great deal. It was not long ago that a man could start farming with a small investment. Today he requires a large investment. He must show considerable skill and experience in developing his farm operations. I believe, therefore, that people in all occupations in Canada must realize that the farmer cannot and will not return to the low prices which prevailed during 1930 and 1939. During the war the federal government exercised certain controls over agricultural products. The courts have ruled that in peacetime this is the responsibility of the provincial governments. The provincial governments or at least some of them recognize this responsibility and particularly in Ontario they have set up marketing boards whose function it is to look after the sale of farm products in Ontario. I think that these marketing boards are doing a wonderful job and certainly should receive the co-operation of farmers in Ontario.
I mention these facts not to shift responsibility from the federal government to the provincial governments but simply to tell you that, in my opinion, all problems which face agriculture can be met by the co-operative efforts of the federal government, the provincial governments and the farm organizations themselves. We have seen an example of this in the handling of the cheese situation not many months ago. Through the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments a fairly satisfactory arrangement was worked out in the cheese industry in Ontario.
I also believe that farm organizations have a real responsibility in the handling of farm marketing. I say that because I believe that farm organizations should be kept informed of the trend in agricultural marketing and should be able to advise their members when it is wise to increase or to decrease production.
We have heard much about trade with Britain with regard to agricultural products. Members of the opposition have indicated that the Canadian government has attempted to stand in the way of trade with Britain. Nothing can be farther from the truth. We have no trade restrictions. Our dollar is freely convertible in all the currencies of the world. Canada has always indicated a willingness to join with other members of the commonwealth in holding conferences. Our various ministers have attended many such conferences from year to year. I maintain that it was not Canada's prerogative to ask for an imperial conference previous to the present time because it is not our custom to tell other countries in the commonwealth what they should do.
We have indicated a willingness to cooperate with other members of the commonwealth whenever they feel that it is in the interests of the commonwealth generally to do so. That is the spirit in which our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) went to this conference; and I am sure that all members of this house hope that something may come of that conference to stimulate greater trade not only within the commonwealth but with all countries of the world.
I will always support legislation which I believe, over the long period, is in the best interests of agriculture in this country. By so doing, I believe I am supporting what is good for Canada and what is good for all Canadians.
Yesterday we had presented to parliament the Currie report dealing with investigations by Mr. Currie into the shortages at the Petawawa army camp and other related matters. I regret that private members have not yet had an opportunity of studying this report. What information I have comes from what I have heard in this house and what I have read in the newspapers. I am sure that all hon. members were disappointed to learn of the inefficiency and actual dishonesty which took place in .the works services department at the Petawawa camp. The conduct of some of the personnel in this department is disgraceful and they should be ruthlessly punished for their shortcomings.
However, after listening to the speeches of the opposition, I am not sure whether they
752	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Robertson are more disappointed by the revelations of wrongdoing on the part of a minute fraction of the army personnel or more elated by the possibility of embarrassing the government at this time. They seem to forget that it was the government who authorized Mr. Currie to make this investigation; that he was afforded every co-operation by the government to determine the true facts; that the government has already brought many of the guilty parties to justice for their crimes and that they have indicated that all responsible for this state of affairs will be severely dealt with.
Furthermore, the report states that it was only at Petawawa that extensive irregularities took place. The camps at Toronto, London, Barriefield, Vancouver, Regina, Quebec and Halifax were investigated, with little ground for criticism being found. This is reassuring to all members of the house and to the people of Canada. It indicates that the vast majority of the army personnel are honest and are doing their duty in the discharge of their responsibilities. The government will, I know, take a serious view of this report and will make the necessary changes which will restore public confidence in the armed services to that degree which is deserved by the over-all performance record of our defence forces.
There is another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of this house. It is one which I should like to have dealt with some time ago, but these charges were made when I was in New York attending a meeting of the economic and social council of the United Nations. These are charges which were made by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) on June 24 last, when he was speaking of a new ordnance depot which is being constructed in my home town of Cobourg. As reported at pages 3629 and 3630 of Hansard, the hon. member for Peterborough West asks the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) the following question:
Why did the minister's engineers select the grounds they did in Cobourg for the ordnance building there? It is swamp land. According to a return tabled in my name, I understand that it will cost $407,250 for drainage plus $70,000 for concrete slabs to be built underneath the concrete tile. That is practically half a million dollars.
I should like to tell the hon. member for Peterborough West that the ordnance depot is not being built on swamp land.


Mr. Fraser:: Your mayor said it was.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Just you be quiet and I will tell you. I am sure the mayor never made such a statement.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was reported in the press.


An hon. Member:: Do you believe everything in the press?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Further, I should like to tell the hon. member that the land which has been purchased for this ordnance depot consists of several parcels of land. The initial parcel of land is land which had been held by the town of Cobourg for many years, reserving it for industrial use. Would a town reserve property for industrial use if it were swamp land?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Further than that, other parcels of land are being used for various types of farming, some of them for highly specialized types of farming such as fruit growing and the like. Does the hon. member grow specialized fruit on swamp land?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: I have never seen it done.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Nevertheless, it is swamp land.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: As regards the figure of $407,250 for draining, I must admit in all honesty that the hon. member for Peterborough West might have been misled by what I consider was an inadequate answer by the Department of Defence Production in reply to a series of questions concerning the ordnance depot, and which had been placed on the order paper by the hon. member. After asking in previous questions what tenders had been called for this project, what the amounts of such tenders were, he asked in question No. 8:
What is the estimated cost of draining same and who pays for it?
The Department of Defence Production answered: $407,250, paid for by the Department of National Defence, is the estimated cost of both drainage and sewage. This answer gives a false impression of what this amount of money was for. This amount covers only the sewage disposal system and the storm sewer system to carry off surplus water. In the construction of this type of buildings with all the grounds around it hard-surfaced, you can well imagine the great flow of water which must be taken away during a heavy storm. That is what this money was spent for. It would have to be done on any project of this kind, no matter where built. Not one cent of this contract is for land drainage, as was suggested by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser).


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You evidently have not been up to see the property.

The Address-Mr. Robertson


Frederick Greystock Robertson: I was there only a week ago. I might tell the hon. member that I am informed by the engineers in charge that this site is quite satisfactory in every way.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It will be now, after half a million dollars has been spent on drainage.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Let me give you another indication of the inaccuracy of the statement made by the hon. member for Peterborough West. I quote again from Hansard at page 3630:
I understand that they have 80-foot piling in the building in this case but in the Royal York hotel, the tallest building in the empire, they used only 38-foot piling.
Here again the hon. member for Peterborough West is entirely ignorant of the facts. The longest pile in the Cobourg ordnance depot is 22 feet in length, with the average being 19 feet. To further refute his charge that the ordnance depot is being built on swamp land, I should like to inform him and this house that the test on the piles now in place at the ordnance depot, as carried out by the engineers of the inspection staff, show that these piles carry far in excess of twice their designed load. May I quote from the national building code to give you some idea of how such piles are tested:
In testing a pile in place it shall be loaded to twice its proposed working load by additions at not less than four-hour intervals of loads of not more than five tons. Measurement of settlement shall be made and recorded immediately before and after the addition of each load. Such measurement shall be adjusted to compensate for the elastic compression of the pile. The pile shall be considered adequate to support the proposed working load if the total settlement so measured does not exceed one-half inch and if no further settlement occurs after the lapse of forty-eight hours.
I am informed by the engineers that after 48 hours of a load of 100 tons, the total settlement was only three-sixteenths of an inch, which is not one-half of the one-half inch allowed. These piles were designed to carry fifty tons, and I am informed that they actually can carry some three or four times that weight.
We have a very competent staff of engineers in charge of this depot, and as I told the hon. member a few minutes ago, they are satisfied in every way with the site as being suitable for a project of this kind. In addition, we have a firm of outstanding architects, E. C. Parker and Company, who are in charge of the architectural construction of this building. They too have indicated that we have a suitable site. Surely, no further evidence is needed of the ill-advised and totally unfounded charge of the hon. member for Peterborough West. I am letting the cat out of the bag now when I say that the hon. member visited Northumberland county at
the annual meeting of the Conservative party a few weeks before, and was content to take common gossip at that meeting as sufficient evidence for his charges.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is entirely wrong. I visited that site and checked on it personally.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: I noticed that the hon. member did not deny that he had been at the annual meeting of the Conservative party.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why should I? You attended the Grit meeting in Peterborough last Thursday and there were only 150 people there.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: It is a coincidence that this hon. member should make a speech after visiting the Northumberland Conservative party annual meeting. He also made reference to the fact that I had been in Peterborough some time ago. In fact I was there, and I do not believe that the hon. member for Peterborough West is too happy about the choice of the Liberal party in Peterborough. We have selected a man who, without doubt, will carry that seat for the government in the next election.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am very happy because he is a personal friend of mine.


Mr. Ferguson:: "Carry it without a doubt" -doubt is going to be there, all right.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: I cannot understand why an hon. member in an adjoining riding would deprecate at such an early stage the construction of the depot in Cobourg. One would have thought that he would be glad to see some development in that part of Canada in which he appears to be so interested.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I was glad, but I do not see why they should build it on a swamp.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my opinion on national health insurance. I believe that national health insurance must eventually be instituted in Canada. Ours is a rich country, and we have developed one of the finest social security programs in any country of the world. To my mind the development of such programs as old age security, family allowances, pensions for the blind and our national health plan are but means of allowing all the people of the country, particularly those who cannot do so for themselves, to share in the prosperity and development of our country. That has always been one of the principles of Liberalism, and the social security program is one of the main planks in the Liberal party's platform.
754	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Robertson
I am sure that as conditions allow we shall continue to expand that policy. As a member of the medical profession I look forward to the day when we shall have national health insurance in Canada. I cannot support any form of state medicine in Canada because I believe it would be a backward step in our civilization should we undertake state medicine. I think it is most important that we continue the personal relationship which exists between patient and doctor in Canada today, because if we do not the type of service the patient will receive will be not nearly as good or as satisfactory as it is today. I do not think we want any production line type of medical service in Canada today.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, health is under the jurisdictional authority of the provinces. The government could not and would not at this time undertake any system of national health insurance unless it had the co-operation of the majority of the provinces of this country. It has been indicated to us that only one or two of the provinces are interested in going ahead with national health insurance at this time. We in the Liberal party have always been zealous of provincial rights, and we shall never do anything at any time to interfere with the rights which our constitution gives to the provinces.
Our national health plan has done much to lay the foundation for a national health insurance program. We have provided many thousands of beds; we have trained medical, nursing and technical people to undertake this program, although there is no doubt that we have not yet sufficient of these trained personnel to undertake any form of national health insurance in Canada. Therefore, I say that until we have the facilities which can be built up within the next few years-it possibly will require additional financial assistance from this government in order to expand these facilities-I think we would be most unwise to undertake any form of national health insurance at this time. The cost of such a program would be very, very high, running into many hundreds of thousands of dollars. We are now spending some two billions on defence, and I do not believe the taxpayers of this country can possibly be asked to pay this money at the present time.
I think we should continue to study this problem, that we should work in co-operation with the provinces so that, when we do arrive at that stage where we can initiate a national health insurance policy, we can be sure that it will work.
There could be nothing more fatal to national health insurance than for us to start a program before we are prepared, and before we are willing to do for the people of


Canada what we say we intend to do. I believe that in due time the Liberal party will initiate national health insurance; and when they do, the people of Canada can look forward to a satisfactory health program.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose to explain why I shall not support the subamendment now before us, and also to deal with certain other matters now before the house. I think it is appropriate that an explanation should appear on the record as to why we propose to vote against the subamendment which, in itself, does not seem to raise any very serious questions, so far as the actual wording is concerned.
The subamendment reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
" (f) To bring before this house for adoption, a realistic financial and economic policy that will ensure the orderly development of Canada's resources, guarantee adequate markets at remunerative prices to producers, and provide to every Canadian his just share of the wealth our resources can be made to yield."
Those words, standing by themselves, might appear to be acceptable to most members in the house. I would point out, however, that in the very nature of any amendment or subamendment we must have regard to the interpretation placed upon those words by those who put them before the house for consideration.
There are many statements with which we would not disagree, in their general purport. For instance, there might be difficulty in understanding why anyone would vote against an amendment which expresses regret that the government has failed to introduce a plan for making every Canadian happy under every conceivable situation. But we would, of course, be bound to inquire into the kind of procedure that was contemplated to bring about happiness of that kind.
In this particular case, when we are attempting to decide whether that is the kind of financial and economic policy that we are prepared to support, we must find the interpretation of a realistic financial and economic policy from the explanations made by those who have put forward this subamendment. In the remarks that have been made in support of the subamendment we have been left in no doubt as to the kind of financial and economic policy that is referred to in the subamendment. That kind of policy, in the opinion of those who have put forward the subamendment for consideration, is a financial and economic policy in accord with their conception of social credit doctrine.

The Address-Mr. Drew
I use the words "their conception" advisedly, because I realize that there is a tremendous distinction between the social credit doctrines enunciated by Major Douglas and the social credit doctrines that emerged in this country from sources which have never been fully disclosed.
In so far as the economic policy of the social credit party is concerned I feel sure, from the statements that have been made in the house in support of the subamendment, that no question will be raised, and it would be appropriate to take their own statement of policy in that respect. Therefore I think it proper to read the statement of policy adopted by the Social Credit Association of Canada in 1944 which, I understand, has been followed since that time. It states:
The Social Credit Association of Canada reaffirms the three simple demands of Social Credit, namely:
(i)	To establish a national accounting system whereby we will know at stated intervals the net increase in our real wealth for which additional purchasing power must be created, free of debt and interest, and distributed to every man, woman and child in two ways-
(ii)	A dividend, paid at regular intervals, increasing as the national wealth increases; and
(iii)	A subsidy, or adjusted price on all wanted goods for sale by retailers;
And that the proportion of new purchasing power to be allotted to (ii) and (iii) be determined democratically by our representatives in parliament.
Mr. Speaker, if that is the idea of a realistic financial and economic policy which is to be interpreted by a resolution such as that now before us, then most certainly under no circumstances could I support this subamendment. Because what does not seem to be fully accepted by those who express their belief in this policy, with what I am sure is deep conviction, is the fact that the proposal they are making calls for an ironclad system of controls, without which no such system as this could possibly work. Nothing else would make a strange device of this kind possible.
The fact is that there has been very little evidence of the adoption of policies of this kind by a Social Credit government that has been in power for some years in the province of Alberta.


An hon. Member:: Do you know why they are not in existence there?


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member suggests I should know about it. I should think they are not in effect in the province of Alberta for the very obvious reason that they cannot be put into effect under our constitution, and it may well be that those who drafted these resolutions in the first place were well aware of that fact. I hope they were, and
that they were not so utterly without knowledge of the constitution of this country as to think really that they could put some of those ideas into effect in the provincial legislatures of this country.
We, however, are now dealing with this subject on a national level, where it could be put into effect; and I, for one, most certainly have no thought of subscribing to a doctrine of this kind which could be put into effect by the parliament of Canada. The reason the Social Credit government in Alberta has met with such continuing support as it has received is due to the fact that this doctrine never has been in effect in that province.
It is for these reasons that I certainly have no thought of supporting the subamendment. And may I say only this, with the utmost personal respect for some of the individuals who put these views before the house, that some of the statements made during this session in regard to financial policy for Canada read like statements out of "Alice in Wonderland". Far from being realistic, they are utterly unrealistic. They completely ignore any of the economic facts of life, and any government which attempted to run this country under a plan of that kind would rapidly encounter the most disastrous consequences.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with another subject that has come before us. It was raised in this house yesterday by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) in a manner which calls for comment on my part. I am referring to the statements that were made by the senior member for Queens (Mr. McLure) about Mr. Yousuf Karsh. In the statement of one of the most respected members of this house, and a man who has given inestimable service to the province from which he comes, he did in his anger, in relation to certain remarks that had been made, use a term which was taken out of an article appearing in a newspaper and which many hon. members of this house thought was only used in the context of the editorial. Hansard does disclose that the word was used in a way that might be open to misinterpretation.
I think that hon. members of this house, who know the intense pride of the people of that beautiful island province in their own island, are well aware of the way in which they naturally regard anything that appears to be a criticism of the province of which they are so intensely proud. I have known Mr. Yousuf Karsh for many years. I think it was unfortunate that he made the statements which he did about meals in Prince

The Address-Mr. Drew Edward Island. I must confess that my only complaint about meals in Prince Edward Island is that they are too good. When I have been there I have found that my great difficulty was to restrain my perpetual appetite for good food; and I do, in all seriousness, hope that I may have the opportunity some time of taking Mr. Yousuf Karsh to many places in Prince Edward Island where I have eaten food as good as I have eaten at any time or at any place I have been.
I think that perhaps from long acquaintance with Prince Edward Island, and from intimate association with the people of that island going back for many years, I can understand something of the anger that would oe aroused by the suggestion that their meals were not in keeping with the great traditions of that province. As a matter of fact, any such suggestion is denied by people who jo to Prince Edward Island as visitors. All one needs to do is to look at the list of visitors at any of the hotels in Prince Edward Island and he will find that people who can travel anywhere go there because of the lccommodation and good meals.
I might point out that one most respected nan who has lived in this country for many years, Field Marshal Alexander, while governor general, chose Prince Edward Island is a place to take his family when they were on their holidays. I think that in itself ihould remove any doubt about the quality of he meals of that island.
I do think that it was unfortunate that any ;uch comment was made and I can under-itand something of the resentment it would irouse.
Then, of course, there is something else. Those of us who know Prince Edward Island ilso recall what should be borne in mind n considering those words. I know that, in Yince Edward Island, most of us who have lot the privilege of having been born or irought up there are described as foreigners. That practice goes back to the early days vhen their pride in their own province, while t still remained out of confederation, made hem somewhat critical of those less fortunate vho lived in other parts of what is now Canada. That has carried forward and to nany the term is well known in Prince idward Island as one which is not used in the ame way that we use it. Nevertheless, I do now that the word as used and as reported in lansard is open to misinterpretation. It is or that reason that I am dealing with the latter today because I would not want to lave on the record an implication such as /as placed there yesterday in the remarks f one of the hon. members on the other side f the house. The word has been interpreted 
as applying to all those who were not born in Canada and who have chosen this country as their home.
Perhaps I should express resentment myself if that were to be the interpretation; because, if people are to be called foreigners under that formula, then, of course, my own wife would be described as a foreigner. I feel perfectly sure that no such interpretation was to be placed on the word but I do wish to make it perfectly clear that on all occasions when this subject has been under discussion, long before I had the privilege of entering the House of Commons, I have been emphatic in my statements that those who have chosen Canada as their homeland are Canadians- no matter where they were born or from what national stock they come. We welcome them to our country. We are welcoming many of them today. We wish to leave no thoughts in the mind of any one of them that there is in this country any distinction between one Canadian and another so long as that individual is a Canadian either by birth or by choice.
This country has built its strength by the blending together of people of different races and of different blood. The day is long past when we can regard the population of this country merely as a partnership between the two great races which joined hands many years ago to lay the foundation of this nation. In this country today we have large numbers of people whose blood stock stems back to many of the great nations of Europe and of other parts of the world.
I wish to make quite clear that when I refer to my own position in this house I am stating the position of our party, repeated and emphasized many times, that there are no foreigners in Canada except those who are simply visiting Canada from some foreign land, and that every person who has chosen Canada as his or her home is a Canadian and we regard them as good Canadians unless their conduct in any way challenges that position. May I say that Mr. Yousuf Karsh is a distinguished Canadian and has been a distinguished Canadian for many years. He is a Canadian who has brought honour to this country by great attainment in what is today one of the most important arts. Not only is he a great Canadian but he has resisted many inducements, which must have been very appealing, to go elsewhere.
Having known him personally for many years, I am aware that from many of the great cities of the United States offers have come to him which from a financial viewpoint were most attractive. I know that the reason he has stayed here is that he cherishes his Canadian citizenship, and for that very reason

he has demonstrated that he is a Canadian citizen who is prepared to maintain that citizenship by choice and by preference. Again may I say that this is something that need not have been discussed at this length were it not for the manner in which it was introduced into the house yesterday afternoon. I very much regret the fact that the hon. member for Ottawa West sought to imply that a comment by the senior member for Queens (Mr. McLure) that had been made in the context to which I have referred was an interpretation of the attitude of the Conservative party.
At the same time he made a political speech about the record of the Liberal party which was strangely out of place for an hon. member who has sat in this house during this session and has applauded the continuing appeals to prejudice which have been made by different members since the session began. I would also point out that it is hardly appropriate for the hon. member for Ottawa West to speak about this subject in terms of such self-righteousness at the very time that the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Kickham) was interjecting into the discussion these words: "If the hon. member made such a statement in Armenia he would be kicked out of the country".
I merely point out that the statement that was being referred to was the same statement by Mr. Karsh. Let us not for one moment pretend that careless comments or words which were not intended in the manner in which they appear in the context are the fault of any single member of the house. I certainly would be the last to pretend that there are not many words I have spoken that could be taken out of their context and meaning and so interpreted. I suspect that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would not suggest that there were not words of his that from time to time might have been open to similar misinterpretation. I suspect that there is hardly a single member of the house who can say in complete sincerity, as he looks back over the many things that have been said, that there is nothing that could be taken out of its general context and interpreted in a manner which was never intended.
Therefore I leave this subject simply with the expressed hope that a statement provoked by a criticism of something that is associated with a proud province, a province which has great justification for its pride, will not in any way be taken as interpreting either the general sentiments of the member who expressed his dislike of the criticism in the first place or of any of the members of the party to which he belongs. Having regard to other statements and interjections that
The Address-Mr. Drew have been made in this debate, I would hope that the matter would end there-


Mr. Lesage:: Oh, no.


Mr. Dupuis:: Guilty conscience.


George Alexander Drew: -and I am sure it will end there in the mind of every sincere member of the house who is not himself trying to appeal to prejudice.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to deal now, Mr. Speaker, with certain aspects of the Currie report, and the implications of that report in relation to the wider problems of national defence. In considering the importance of any aspect of this problem, it is essential that we bear in mind that the whole question is one which is primarily connected with national survival. We are not discussing the ordinary administration of any department. We are discussing the effectiveness of that department upon whose activities our contribution to the common defences of freedom is going to depend in very large measure. Therefore, we must examine any information we receive in regard to the effectiveness of that department with due consideration as to its possible bearing upon the whole question of defence, an extremely important question in relation to whether the enormous sums being spent on defence are being spent in the most efficient manner.
Before I proceed to deal with that part of the discussion, I wish to return to certain questions and answers which are recorded in Hansard of this session. First, I wish to read from Hansard of December 1, 1952, page 203. Before the orders of the day, I asked the following question:
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he inform us when he will receive the report which we were assured was being prepared some time ago by Mr. Currie with respect to the administration of the Department of National Defence so far as it affects Petawawa camp?
The answer of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) was as follows:
I have not been in touch with Mr. Currie myself for some time but I am informed by the deputy minister that he has been in touch with members of Mr. Currie's staff, and that it is expected that the report will be available within the next week or two. It has not been made yet.
Then I asked a supplementary question as follows:
As a supplementary question, may I ask whether the government has received an interim report?

The Address-Mr. Drew The Minister of National Defence replied, no.
Then on- December 4, as recorded in Hansard at page 321, there are the following questions and answers:
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, in view of the fact that it has been announced that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) will be leaving tomorrow, I wish to direct a question to him. I ask whether, since Mr. Currie's appointment was announced on April 21, 1952, he has received any positive recommendations from Mr. Currie in regard to the subject matter of his inquiry, in writing or orally, and if so is the minister prepared to convey to the house some information as to the nature of the recommendations which have been made.
To this the Minister of National Defence replied:
Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Currie's appointment I have seen him about this matter on one occasion only. That was when he was in national defence headquarters carrying on his inquiry. I asked him to see me and he did. I then asked him if he was getting all the information that he wanted and he said he was. I told him that if at any time he wanted further powers or more information such would be made available to him.
I have had no other communication of whatever kind with him.
Then I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I would ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister read to us a letter from Mr. Currie, assuring us at the time of his appointment that he would proceed with the utmost speed to make inquiry into this matter and communicate his views to the minister, may I ask if the minister has pointed that out to him and has he not indicated that it is very desirable that we have the report at the earliest possible date.
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I have not interfered with Mr. Currie's investigation in any way whatever. He knows as well as the Leader of the Opposition that it is desirable that a report should be made at the earliest possible date.
I then said:
Mr. Speaker, I ask one further supplementary question. To the knowledge of the minister, has Mr. Currie seen the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in regard to this matter within recent weeks?
The minister answered:
I have no information bearing on that at all. Had Mr. Currie seen the Prime Minister I am sure the Prime Minister would have spoken to me about it. Since he has not done so I assume that Mr. Currie has not seen him.
Then I said:
There seems a strange lack of interest in such an important matter.
May I just repeat the words in this question and answer. I asked, and I am quoting:
. . . whether, since Mr. Currie's appointment was announced on April 21, 1952, he has received any positive recommendations from Mr. Currie in regard to the subject matter of his inquiry, in writing or
TMr. Drew.]
orally, and if so is the minister prepared to convey to the house some information as to the nature of the recommendations which have been made.
To that the reply was that there was no information available. Then on December 8, as recorded at page 415 of Hansard, I said:
I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Defence. Is he in a position yet to inform us definitely when we may receive a copy of the report by Mr. Currie which was promised us last spring?
The reply was:
No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to say because I have not received the report yet myself.
I then said as follows:
Will the acting minister take steps to find out from Mr. Currie when the report will be available?
The reply was:
From the remarks which the minister made in the house a few days ago I understood that Mr. Currie had indicated that the report would be forthcoming within a week or ten days. I presume that estimate was made with knowledge of what was possible on his part. I do not mind making inquiry if it is desired.
I then said:
I would point out that the minister made a general statement with regard to that before he made the statement in the house that he had not been in touch with Mr. Currie. It is for that reason I ask the direct question: Will the acting minister find out from Mr. Currie when the report will be ready?
Then on December 12, in the absence of the minister and the acting minister, I directed a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence as follows:
In the absence of the Minister of National Defence as well as the Acting Minister of National Defence, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. Can he assure us that the report by Mr. George S. Currie will be presented to this house before we rise for the Christmas recess?
The parliamentary assistant replied as follows:
I have no information on that matter, Mr. Speaker. I shall take it as notice of a question.
I then said:
In view of the assurances given last spring, may I ask that steps be taken towards ascertaining when this report will be ready?
The parliamentary assistant replied:
As I recall, Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of National Defence left this question was asked, and he replied that the report would be given in the course of the next few days.
I then said:
Mr. Speaker, I am directing my remarks to you in the form of a question. Last spring, on April 21, assurance was given to this house that a report was to be presented at the earliest possible date. This house acted upon that statement. In answer to several requests we have been given no information, and I suggest that the department is in contempt of this house in the course it is following.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that those questions and answers are extremely important and that the implications of them go far beyond any question of the accuracy or otherwise of statements that have been made or of the nature of the report now before us. We had the positive statement of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), or certainly a clear impression was conveyed, that neither in writing nor orally had he received any positive suggestions from Mr. Currie. Mr. Speaker, the whole effect of the answers given to the questions that I have read is that the minister, the acting minister and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence knew nothing about this report and that they were simply awaiting the natural processes of the original instructions which had been given. In the light of that impression and of the statements which I have read, I find it difficult indeed to see how anything but the most serious impression can be left by the words of Mr. Currie in presenting this report to the Minister of National Defence. I would point out that it is dated November 26. It is a report by a man who has been recognized on both sides of this house as one of great competence, integrity and business experience. I think we still require some explanation as to what happened between November 26 and December 8. I should particularly like to point out these words in the letter from Mr. Currie to the minister which began the report. On the very first page I find these words addressed to the minister:
It should be noted that interim suggestions made bv me during my investigations have already been seized on and important reforms are already being carried out.
Mr. Speaker, is it possible for any hon. member of this house to be in any doubt that those suggestions were made to the Minister of National Defence? Is it possible for any hon. member of this house to doubt that in any event those suggestions were brought to the attention of the Minister of National Defence? Let it be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Currie has said "important reforms are already being carried out". I hope that no one is going to suggest that important reforms have been carried out without the minister's knowing anything about them. I must confess that it would almost seem that this might have been a happy accident, but surely that cannot be the case. Surely any inefficiency that existed cannot have reached the point that reforms in the Department of National Defence have been carried out without the minister's knowing about them or knowing the basis upon which those reforms have been introduced. I leave the matter there, but I ask every
The Address-Mr. Drew hon. member of this house to go back over those questions and answers, to read those words of Mr. Currie, and to consider in all earnestness whether any hon. member of this house in future has any right to accept any assurance of the present Minister of National Defence with regard to any aspect of the administration of his department.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not know whether you heard the words that have just been enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). If you did, I would ask you to act upon them.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the Leader of the Opposition to say that no hon. member of the house could accept the word of the present Minister of National Defence. I also heard him previously suggest that no hon. member could doubt that the Minister of National Defence knew that suggestions had been made and had stated in this house that he did not know they had been made.
It is. not in accordance with our parliamentary rules to question the honesty of any hon. member; and that includes, of course, members of the government. I included the words "members of the government" to emphasize the fact that it makes no difference whether the word of a member of the government is being questioned or that of any other member of the house. The Leader of the Opposition must withdraw his statement.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I would point out that I asked the question whether hon. members could in future accept assurances from the minister in the light of these remarks. Does Your Honour state that that is unparliamentary?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Leader of the Opposition went further than that, and in doing so I would say that that also is unparliamentary. It definitely implies that in this instance the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has knowingly said what is untrue.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, do I take it that your ruling is that the question in the form I have asked it is not parliamentary?


Mr. Speaker:: On account of the implication involved I say that the question is not parliamentary.


George Alexander Drew: I naturally accept your ruling. The words stand as a matter of record, and I ask the government to consider the effect of them.

The Address-Mr. Drew


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When the words are withdrawn they do not stand as a matter of record; otherwise there would be no purpose in having a withdrawal. If the words still stand as a matter of record-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about different words. I say that the words in the questions and answers that I have read stand as a matter of record and I hope that the government will examine them very carefully and the import of those words.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the
Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn the question which he put with respect to accepting the word of the Minister of National Defence in the future. We should clear it up. I understand the Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn.


George Alexander Drew: I said that I accepted your ruling and acted accordingly, and I did. I am proceeding to deal with the report and I assure you that any attempts that may be made to hedge this report about with any technical restrictions will not impress the public of Canada, in view of the disclosures that are in it.
I have pointed out that on page 1 of this report Mr. Currie has pointed out in clear and implicit words that he made recommendations by way of interim suggestions, and that some of these had been acted upon. Then, on page 3, I come to the disclosure of what happened at Petawawa, and in reading these words I wish to deal with the very obvious attempt that has been made, and what would appear to be part of a concerted plan, to lay the blame for what has happened upon members of the army.
Under our parliamentary system of responsible government, it is the goverment that is responsible if anything has gone wrong. It is not only the Department of National Defence that is responsible; it is the government, under our system of joint responsibility, and that seems to be completely disregarded by this government in so many instances.
I wish to point out that at page 3 Of the report Mr. Currie refers to the Department of National Defence. He is not referring to the army, to the brass hats, as we heard from some of the hon. members this morning on the other side. I quote his words which appear at page 3:
... it is an unhappy circumstance that the beginning of this investigation lies not inside the Department of National Defence and its full com-

plement of regulations and supervising personnel, but with the receipt -of an anonymous letter couched in the following terms:
"The Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,
There is reason to believe that an illegal transaction of army goods has taken place between army personnel of No. 3 works coy., R.C.E., and . . . company within the past few days.
This transaction involves the selling of several railway carloads of cook stoves and heaters without proper army authority."
Then the letter goes on to suggest places where this may be followed up. On the page following we find again that it is not the army, it is not the general staff, it is not the engineering services that are mentioned; it is the Department of National Defence. I quote the words of Mr. Currie:	"
It must be said that internal warnings had not been lacking in the Department of National Defence. The chief auditor of the department had performed his functions conscientiously. Time and again he had reported unsatisfactory conditions.
In the words of Mr. Currie, the auditor of the Department of National Defence had reported to the Department of National Defence unsatisfactory conditions, and, according to Mr. Currie, had performed his functions conscientiously.
After having described various things that had happened and losses that had taken place Mr. Currie said at the bottom of page 9 of the report:
How many more there may have been will never be known.
And then he went on, on page 11, after having recounted some of the detail:
My view would be, however, that the generally lax administrative situation would give rise to waste and inefficiency far more costly in loss than that covered by actual dishonesty.
Then on page 15 of the report we come to the statement which is perhaps the most important one in the whole report. When we recognize the fact that this department is spending approximately half of all the moneys collected by taxes from the people of Canada at this time, these words should be read with that in mind:
If there is excuse for inefficient accounting, there is none for the failure of security which is, after all, a prime military consideration. I take a serious view of this break-down. If it is easy to pilfer military stores, then, by the same token, it is easy to sabotage military equipment.


George Matheson Murray: Where did you get
your copy?


Mr. Croll:: He ought to know; a copy got away from him awfully quickly.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, if any hon. member is anxious to direct a question or make

a statement in intelligible terms I shall welcome it at this point and deal with it, but I must confess that neither from the right rear nor from the front am I able to understand the nature of the interjections that have been made.


An hon. Member:: It was pretty clear.


George Alexander Drew: Then we have the statement that has already been referred to on different
occasions, and which appears on page 17 of the report:
But, if this spirit permeated the lower echelons of the army, it is more difficult to condone the same attitudes higher up. There, a higher degree both of intelligence and responsibility is essential. It was not always present in the degree required.
When the other statements are recalled, Mr. Speaker, and it is remembered that they refer to the Department of National Defence, there is not much doubt about who the higher up authorities are, even if we do not yet know whether the unrevised report which has been mentioned in the house is the correct one, instead of the one now before us. It will be recalled that it has been stated in this house by an hon. member of the house who, of necessity, accepted responsibility for that statement, that these words are substituted for the words "at or near the top". Now, the top, or near the top, in this context, obviously refers to the Department of National Defence.


An hon. Member:: The general staff.


George Alexander Drew: Once again I hear the remark, or the blur of words, "the general staff".


Mr. Ferrie:: Whom are you trying to protect in the general staff?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I hope that interjection is duly recorded in Hansard. The statement I heard clearly was, "Whom are you trying to protect in the general staff?". Mr. Speaker,-and I hear another "Who" from another Liberal member. Mr. Speaker, let us hope that we are not going to have a repetition of some of the extremely unfair practices which have already cast serious reflections upon the Department of National Defence.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You are doing it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the persistence of those who are seeking to divert attention from the fact that the Department of National Defence should be responsible for national defence, if it is not, is merely evidence, as I pointed out before, of what appears to be a concerted attempt to create the impression that these members of the armed forces, and not the general staff-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
The Address-Mr. Drew


Mr. Cruickshank:: I hope Hansard got that.


George Alexander Drew: -and not the Department of National Defence, are responsible.


An hon. Member:: You were right the
first time.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the obvious delight of anyone who seems to see the possibility of reflection on the general staff, which has been displayed here so frequently by some hon. members opposite, indicates exactly how much respect those members have for the army, in spite of all the pretence that they have made.
Mr. Speaker, this report is one which brings us again to certain questions which have been unanswered. In the first place, I had expected and had hoped that we would hear from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) this morning some explanation in regard to the report we now have before us. It is his responsibility as a member of the House of Commons.
One hon. member has stated that there were changes in the text. That still remains to be disposed of. That must be disposed of, and I trust will be disposed of without any details left unanswered before this house rises. There is a great deal to explain about this report. It is dated November 26, and we received it here in the House of Commons on December 15.


An hon. Member:: You have not received it yet.


George Alexander Drew: The fact is, of course, that most members do not yet know the full details of this report.


Alphonse Fournier: It is in Hansard; everything is in Hansard.


George Alexander Drew: The desire displayed by so many members on the other side of the house to place responsibility on the general staff would suggest that all members on the other side of the house, including members of the government, are most anxious to throw responsibility for this on the general staff.


An hon. Member:: Where should it be?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, I hear from one of the ministers, "Where should it be?"


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Casselman:: There is a running comment all the time.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this is strangely reminiscent of the Connelly incident, about which as yet we have no information. There we had a scapegoat; and I do no.t think there

The Address-Mr. Drew is any responsible person in this country who yet believes that we have heard the real story about Brigadier Connelly.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You would drop it if you heard it now.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the interpolation by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) is simply indicative of the lack of appreciation by some members in this house of the real seriousness of the report, and its import in regard to the direction of national defence in this country.
Brigadier Connelly was a scapegoat. Brigadier Connelly was sent to Korea with the acclaim of this government. Brigadier Connelly went to Korea-


An hon. Member:: Went to Japan.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, and he went to Korea, too.


An hon. Member:: To Japan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Brigadier Connelly went to Korea with the assurance that he was a highly efficient officer.


An hon. Member:: Who told you that?


George Alexander Drew: He performed his services there, and in Japan, with an efficiency which called for the approval of the senior officers under whom he served. No explanation has been given for his dismissal-and it was nothing else. There was only one of those statements, from an informed source, which left a very serious reflection upon Brigadier Connelly. This reflection was cast upon him without even offering him a chance of challenging any individual. That cowardly procedure should stop now, and never be repeated. It is bad enough when reports that are afterwards denied by the departments which issue them in this way deal merely with ordinary problems of administration. But, dealing with an officer and his reputation, I can think of nothing more unfair than to cast aspersions upon that officer by a carefully planted statement from what is described as a well informed source, without the name appearing. Having regard to what was done in this case, I suggest, for the consideration of the news agencies of this country, the advisability of a decision that reports of this nature shall not be issued unless the individual has the courage and decency to permit his name to be appended thereto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Gauthier (Sudbury):: You scored at last.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this is the first glimmer of hope that discussion in this

parliament is actually producing results. We
have at least accomplished one reform this afternoon in this respect.
Now, the report that we have before us does not by any manner of means refer to only the army or to the army works services. May I just read these words from page 17 to indicate how directly this report is related to the very point, to the Department of National Defence, and I quote:
The Department of National Defence (including the army works services) was largely staffed and manned by men whose military training had been received in wartime.
That is the end of the quotation and the author was dealing with the Department of National Defence, pointing out that steps had not yet been taken to bring the whole organization into line with the requirements of peace. It is the Department of National Defence. And, Mr. Speaker, I hope that no attempt will be made to find scapegoats either in the general staff or in the ranks of the army for a department which must, under our responsible system, accept full responsibility for what has happened.
This is not by any means the first time that this subject has been before the house. The subject has been under discussion over and over again and the need for a full examination of the whole military set-up, and its place in relation to the Department of National Defence, has been emphasized again and again for the last three years. I shall quote from words that I addressed to this house on November 3, 1949. I am quoting from page 1405 of Hansard for that date:
This is not a new subject. Over and over again in the past the same arguments have been made, and the advances that have taken place throughout the years have been as a result of the appointment of committees of some kind which could inquire into the real requirements of our defence forces, and their efficient organization for the tasks they might be called upon to undertake. The modern army system in Great Britain, which we in Canada have followed to a considerable extent, came about as a result of the findings of the famous Esher committee of 1904. Demands have been made since the time of the South African war for an inquiry into the organization of the forces, the suitability of training, and their ability to undertake any tasks they might be called upon to perform in the future. It was not until that committee was appointed that the errors that had been so apparent in the South African war were overcome, and an effective reorganization took place under the modern general staff system. Other famous and important inquiries followed at different times. After the first world war General Otter made his famous findings known as the Otter report. In it was laid down the appropriate organization of the land defence forces of Canada, and the way in which they should be trained for the tasks they might be called upon to undertake.
It was not for some years that effective steps were taken to bring about the necessary reorganization, and in the meantime much had happened.

The Address-Mr. Drew
In 1933 and 1934 extensive inquiries were conducted by the conference of defence associations, a body which embraced both permanent and non-permanent officers of the defence services of Canada. It was as a result of their recommendations that the reorganization took place which made it possible for Canada to mobilize its forces effectively at the outbreak of the last war.
Another war has passed. Four years have elapsed since it ended. The evidence is now clear on all sides that it is essential that there be an examination of the over-all plan of national defence, the suitability of the organization of our forces for that plan, the effectiveness of the training that is undertaken, and the proper expenditure of the money devoted to this purpose. There is no occasion to go into the past. We are confronted today with the necessity of spending enormous sums of money, approximately $400 million. Only a few days ago it was indicated to us that a bill would be presented for the unification of the defence forces of Canada. Unification undoubtedly is highly desirable, but unification will not be very effective unless the forces which are unified have themselves been placed in proper relationship to other forces, having regard to what is conceived to be Canada's particular place in the general over-all picture today.
It is only by the assessment of our requirements that we can know whether our money is being properly spent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I was there referring to $400 million which we then regarded as an enormous sum. Now it is more than $2 billion, and by just that extent the importance of knowing where the money is going has increased.
I want to read these words from the reply of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) which indicate, as clearly as words can indicate, what the attitude has been at any time we have sought to emphasize the need for an inquiry of this nature. I read from Hansard of November 3, 1949, page 1415, these words by the Minister of National Defence:
With regard to organization, X believe X can say without fear of successful contradiction that in the work of unification, co-ordination and the streamlining of our forces, navy, army and air forces, the Department of National Defence of- Canada has made more progress than any other country in the world.
That, Mr. Speaker, has been the whole attitude of the department when any suggestion has been made that there could be improvements. The answer has been: No, we are better than anybody else in the world- and no recommendations were given serious consideration.
We have before us now, Mr. Speaker, recommendations which cannot possibly be disregarded. That pompous facade, which has been presented over and over by this government, has been torn apart and torn apart permanently by this present report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: No more can these arrogant assurances that the Department of National
Defence is above any suggestion of improvement possibly have the slightest sound of reality, in view of the disclosures of this report. It is the Department of National Defence that is condemned by this report; and the Department of National Defence must accept responsibility. It is the Department of National Defence that is challenged by every report now before us.
We want no scapegoats for the minister and those within his department who should be called upon by this department to accept the full responsibility. May I add something more. It is not only the responsibility of the department, it is the responsibility of the whole government until it acts in some way to deal effectively with this situation. The attitude of the members of the government in this respect was disclosed in a very remarkable way by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on December 8. I would point out that it is very significant that it was December 8, because we are informed that was the day this report was delivered. On that day the Secretary of State for External Affairs interpolated into his speech on foreign affairs the following words, as found at page 418 of Hansard:
By way of interpolation, and to dispel any remaining suspicion which may linger in his mind in regard to the relationship of myself and my department to that matter, I would merely say at this time-to clear the matter up, and I hope that it will as far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned-that neither I nor my department made any representations, oral or written, formal or informal, to the Department of National Defence about Brigadier Connelly and the Koje incident at any time. Neither I nor my department have had anything whatever to do with his retirement. That, Mr. Speaker, is by way of an aside which I consider in the circumstances to be necessary, as I did not have the privilege of attending the session of the house when this matter came up.
Let me emphasize these words: "Neither I nor my department have had anything whatever to do with his retirement." Under our system of collective responsibility, Mr. Speaker, every member of the government is responsible for every act of the government. As a member of the government the Secretary of State for External Affairs is responsible for what has happened to Brigadier Connelly. Did I hear a member of the government say "no"?


Alphonse Fournier: You are hearing
voices. Nobody said anything.


George Alexander Drew: No, I am not hearing voices. Someone on the opposite side did say "no". I repeat that under our system of collective responsibility every member of the government is collectively responsible for the acts of the government, and it is the responsibility of the government to deal with matters of

The Address-Mr. Drew this kind with a recognition of that collective responsibility. Neither the Secretary of State for External Affairs nor any other member of the government can escape responsibility for the retirement of Brigadier Connelly, call it what you will. Neither can they escape responsibility for the remarks in this report with respect to a department of the government. Nor will they escape responsibility if any attempt is made to divert attention from those who should accept responsibility by seeking to find scapegoats in uniform instead of accepting the criticism in the quarter where it should be accepted.
The report is before us. It deals only with a limited part of the whole question of national defence. No hon. member of the house who has an opportunity to read it will question the sincerity, integrity or earnestness of Mr. Currie in the task that he has performed. We have had assurances from the government of their confidence in Mr. Currie. We have expressed our confidence. I hope that confidence has been re-emphasized by this report. It certainly has been reemphasized so far as I am concerned and I am sure-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, as Hansard does not record laughter I would point out for the record that laughter greeted the remark that this report reinforces confidence in Mr. Currie. It certainly does reinforce confidence in Mr. Currie because he has dealt frankly with the problem before him and has placed the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Department of National Defence and in turn the government. This report deals only with the part of the responsibility of the Department of National Defence with which Mr. Currie was directed to deal. Already the suggestion has been made that further inquiries are necessary. I should think that the very wording of the report and its findings make it clear that further inquiries are necessary at the very earliest date. Moreover, it is clear that further independent inquiries, of the same kind as those which took place and which have led to this very important report, are necessary.
Therefore I make the suggestion to the government in all earnestness, and with the proof before them of the effectiveness of the procedure, that they reappoint Mr. Currie to conduct an inquiry into every aspect of the organization and accounting methods of the Department of National Defence. Here we have a report dealing with one part of the activities of the department. Here we have a report that I feel sure will stand the


test of challenge. Here we have a report that has expressed impartial findings. If the government wishes to deal effectively with the problem now before us, I urge them to reappoint Mr. Currie without delay, to give him the widest authority and to permit him to inquire into every aspect of the organization, accounting methods and other related duties of the Department of National Defence.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, one thing that has alarmed me in listening to this debate so far has been the attitude taken by some members on the government side of the house who, through their interjections, have indicated that the main people to be condemned as a result of the report which was tabled yesterday are the members of the general staff. We have a democratic government in Canada, and this year we are spending some $2,100 million of the Canadian taxpayers' money to build up the armed forces of the country in order to protect us. If the interjections are indications of the attitude of the government toward their general staff, who are responsible for the building of this security, then I am afraid we are not getting very much for our money. It seems to me if we are to have security there must be co-operation and confidence between the government and the general staff, not bickering, as would appear from the interjections that have been made so far in this debate.
I should like to deal with the manner in which the report was tabled. When tabling the report yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) also tabled a letter from General Simonds. The government appointed Mr. Currie to make an investigation into certain things which were taking place in our armed forces. A report was made by Mr. Currie and was presented to the government, but instead of presenting the report to parliament by itself as it stood a letter from General Simonds, the head of the army, was tabled with it. I should like an explanation from the Prime Minister as to why that procedure was followed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Does the hon. member wish me to give the explanation now?


Percy Ellis Wright: I think the Prime Minister will be replying later.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Not necessarily. I take it then that the hon. member does not want the explanation.


Percy Ellis Wright: The Prime Minister may
explain.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The explanation was that General Simonds requested that it be done; he suggested that if it were not done it might

appear that the government was accepting this report-because it might be so construed -as a reflection on the general staff, himself and his officers for whom he was responsible; that it was a report susceptible of another construction because it was supposed to deal with only one branch. But if it were generalized and, if this paragraph from which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) read extracts, were taken to be a general statement about the set-up of the army, it would reflect upon those whose reputation it was his duty to protect. It was only because I was convinced by the representations made, that he would feel it was unfair to him if his memorandum were not made public at the same time, that it was included with the production of the report.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is exactly what I feared. The government apparently was more interested in protecting the people whom they were investigating than in protecting the money of the people of this country.
The Prime Minister indicated that he hoped we would not take pieces of this report out of their context, and use them. I was surprised that the Prime Minister should be the first to do that. As a matter of fact, he used one sentence, and this is the sentence:
It does not fit the facts to indict or to smear the whole army works services personnel because of the sins of a handful of crooks.
Now, let me read what went before that to see whether it was taken in its context. Before that, Mr. Currie said:
The contents of this chapter are chiefly based upon my studies there-
That is at Petawawa.
-because of the existence there of a combination of factors; lax control, poor discipline and the presence of dishonest personnel. The combination proved disastrous.
It is mentioned in this context chiefly for the purpose of praising the personnel at other depots for not walking through the door which a fundamentally loose situation had opened before them.
In other words, the Department of National Defence has left doors open, and the commissioner commends the armed forces for not doing more pilfering. Time and again in the report it is indicated that it is the Department of National Defence that is responsible for this situation. It is indicated that the auditor general of the Department of National Defence made reports to the government pointing out irregularities that were taking place, yet no action was taken as a result of those reports. Time and again that took place. What possible excuse can the government have when they were notified that these irregularities were taking place and yet failed to take any action to prevent them?
The Address-Mr. Wright
I am sure that if any hon. member of this house were a member of a town council or a city council and he dismissed the police force and took no adequate measures to protect the people in his community, he would be severely criticized. Yet here we find that the Department of National Defence, after repeated notices, has failed to take the necessary measures to protect the people of this country from pilfering and irregularities. The ministry and the individual members of the government have tried repeatedly in this house to indicate that this was just petty pilfering; that it did not amount to very much. Well, that is not what Mr. Currie says in his report. He has indicated that it is a serious matter. It is a very serious matter for instance when a dam is built in a certain creek at a cost estimated from $3,000 to $4,000, and Mr. Currie says:
Its utility is not clear to me, and it was, in any event, not authorized by army headquarters.
Up in that area that dam is known by a certain name, and certain officers go up there to fish in. the pool which just happened to be created.


Frederick Hugo Larson: Did the Minister of National Defence build it?


Percy Ellis Wright: He certainly knew it was built. I am not so sure he may not have fished there at some time.


Frederick Hugo Larson: Did he?


Mr. Dickey:: You are certainly fishing now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Look out that he does not catch you.


Percy Ellis Wright: I suppose it is only petty pilfering when someone walks away with 18,000 bags of cement, 18 car loads that is, practically a trainload; or when someone walks away with a baby tank or a whole railroad siding, that is petty pilfering.
The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver), in a speech delivered earlier this session, tried to indicate to the house that this did not amount to very much and that adequate measures were being taken to correct anything that might have been wrong. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) indicated that it was quite possible there was something seriously wrong at Penhold in Alberta with regard to the construction of housing. What indication has the government given that they have taken any notice of his speech? What investigations are they carrying out to see that this is not general across the country and not just in the particular department that has been investigated?
I want to say this, that this government have deliberately, through their policies, encouraged this sort of thing. Last year in

The Address-Mr. Wright this house we voted approximately $2,100 million for defence purposes, while the year before we voted $1,725 million, when the government knew that there were not the facilities in this country to produce the goods and services that amount of money represented. Here is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said in this house on April 8, 1952, as recorded at page 1247 of Hansard:
Last year we planned, and parliament authorized, defence expenditures in the total amount of $1,725 million. Actually we have spent about $1,441 million, or a shortfall of $284 million. How could this come about? Let me give an example. We had planned and expected to spend about $210 million on major defence construction projects; but because of difficulties of design and construction, and shortages of labour and materials, we have found it possible to spend only about $165 million on these projects before the end of the year. The acquisition of machine tools and of military equipment and its components in the United States poses exceptionally difficult problems of estimation as to final cost, delivery dates and dates of payment. In the year just ended the story has been one of unavoidable delays and postponements.
In other words, we voted the money and this government should have known, through its economic experts, how much military equipment this country could produce in any given year to take up that amount of money. When you vote a department more money than they could possibly spend, more money than the facilities of this country are capable of producing goods to take up, then it seems to me you are asking for trouble. You are giving people money in huge amounts when there are no physical goods upon which they can spend it. As a result, you get the sort of spending that is indicated in the Currie report. Surely, if this government wants to use the people's money in an economic way to create the security and the armed forces that are necessary for this country, they should use some reasonable methods of control.
We are not getting the security we should have in this country. If someone can walk into a camp like Petawawa and walk off with a railroad siding or walk off with 18 carloads of cement, there could be sabotage in such a camp. There is no system of checks set up by our Department of National Defence. This makes it possible for people to walk into camps across this country and walk away with goods to the extent that has been indicated.


Frederick Hugo Larson: What was the equipment officer doing all this time while this siding was being tom up?


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member asks what the equipment officer was doing. Who is responsible for the equipment officer? It is the Department of National Defence. Why

does not the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) ask the Minister of National Defence some of these questions that he is asking me? He is the man who must give to this House of Commons answers to these questions, not the hon. member for Kindersley. The minister has consistently made little of these things; he has told this house that there is nothing much the matter, just a little bit of pilfering which may take place around any army camp. That is not what this report indicates. This report indicates on the part of the Department of National Defence neglect to use the proper supervisory methods that are necessary when any department is spending the sums of money that this department is spending. When this government imposes on the people of this country taxes for the purpose of procuring security for the country, they have a right to see that that money is spent in a manner which will obtain that security and to see that it is not frittered away as is indicated in this report.
I will be interested to hear what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has to say with regard to this matter, and I will be interested to hear what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has to say. It seems passing strange that, after two days of debate, no member of the government has yet seen fit to take part in this debate. It seems to me that they are a long time in reaching some decision with regard to the matter. This is not something new. This report is something that was asked for by the government. Mr. Currie was appointed to make this report. That fact indicates that the government knew that certain things were taking place or they would not have called on Mr. Currie to make this report. Yet now, when the report is tabled here, it seems to come as so much of a surprise to the government that nobody seems to be able to rise and say anything about it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They are speechless.


Percy Ellis Wright: I have been in this house for a considerable number of years and I think this is an occasion. 1 have never before seen the government sit quiet for so long.


Mr. Mutch:: We might as well hear the charge.


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister is circulating around.


Percy Ellis Wright: Someone says that the Prime Minister is circulating around. Perhaps he will collect ideas. I hope that before long we shall get his ideas in this debate.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: He is in the right place to get them.


Percy Ellis Wright: The point is this, Mr. Speaker. A serious condition has existed for a considerable length of time but as yet we have had from the government no indication as to what remedies they are going to apply. The sooner we get that indication from the government the better satisfied will be the people of Canada, because the people of Canada have indicated their willingness to see that sufficient money is made available for the security of this country but they want one thing. They want that money spent in a way that will bring security, not in a way that leaves the back door open in every camp in this country so that someone can walk in and take what he likes. That is the situation that is indicated at Petawawa in this report, where the front door was locked but the back door was open.
I am not going to deal with the matter of the two reports; it can be dealt with later. From this report it is perfectly evident that the tendency on the part of the government has been to blame the fellow down below. This report shifts the whole emphasis of responsibility-the unabridged report, as it has been called by the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Hodgson), shifted it even more-to the higher echelons. I hope this government will not try to absolve itself by blaming either the top brass or the small man in the army, because the matter goes farther than that. The pilfering and the misspending that took place were the result of lack of proper supervision, and that proper supervision could be given only by the Department of National Defence. It is the Department of National Defence which must answer to parliament and to the people of Canada for the disclosures that are made in this report.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak again in this debate, but the report tabled in this house yesterday made it necessary. At the outset I want to commend Mr. Currie on the fearless and complete report that he apparently drew up. I am going to qualify that statement just slightly because I am not quite satisfied that the report that was tabled in the house is the same as the original report given out by Mr. Currie. I was amazed to find that there is apparently another report in circulation somewhere. How our friends of the C.C.F. got hold of it, I do not know; and I imagine there are many other members in the house who are more interested in that fact than I am.
From some of the conversations I have heard, I would gather that many of the members of this house seem to think it a crime that the C.C.F. were able to get hold of the original copy of this report. I do not
The Address-Mr. Thomas think the crime is in their getting hold of it or in the fact that it did get loose. I think the crime in the whole matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the original report was not given to this house in the first place.
From Mr. Currie's report it is quite apparent that the original complaint came not from the Department of National Defence but from an anonymous letter which was quoted earlier by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew); and as it appears in this report, there is no date on it nor is there any indication as to when that letter was received by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I should like to know-as, I am sure, would other hon. members of the house-just when that letter was placed in the hands of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. That information might be quite interesting, because we should like to know just how long it was prior to this request for an investigation that this letter was received.
From the report it is quite apparent that the accounting system, as laid down by the government, is good but that the execution and enforcement of it is poor. Last year when the committee sat we were quite well informed as to the organization and the accounting system, and I must say that I was greatly impressed. But during the committee sittings last year we were unable to dig into the enforcement angle of the regulations. I had hoped at that time that we should be able to do so, and I still hope that we shall be able to dig in and get much more information when the committee is set up this session.
I was quite amazed, as apparently was the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), that the taking of 18,000 bags of cement is termed "petty pilfering". I can agree with the hon. member for Melfort when he says that that amount represents 18 box cars full. I telephoned the Canadian National Railways freight department today and found out that it would take just exactly that number of box cars to hold that many bags of cement. As the report indicates, the cement was only a test case. There were over 5,000 other items which could have been delved into, but which he thought would not be necessary. It would be interesting to know just how far things have gone as far as these other 5,000 items are concerned.
As far as the petty pilfering of a complete C.P.R. spur line is concerned, I just wonder how many men it would take to raise those tracks, and then when fear of detection came along they lifted the C.N.R. track to replace the C.P.R. or, I wonder, as one gentleman said, is that the job that the horses did. While we are on the subject of horses, I would

The Address-Mr. Thomas suggest that the government might dig into some of the other departments of government and find out whether any of these horses are married and are drawing family allowances, or are they on old age pension.


Mr. Nickle:: Are they on the voters' list?


Ray Thomas: You would wonder sometimes, would you not?
Apparently the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) wants the sole responsibility to lie in the hands of the lower departments of the army. It is quite apparent from this report that the blame cannot be placed there. As reported on page 3, a part of which was quoted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) today, the fault lies entirely within the Department of National Defence, or partially so. Originally, the fault may have been in the army, because undoubtedly that is where the pilfering came from. But the continuation of that pilfering is directly the responsibility of the Department of National Defence and nobody else. I shall repeat what the Leader of the Opposition read, because I think it could bear repeating. This is what appears on page 4 of the report:
... it must be said that internal warnings had not been lacking in the Department of National Defence. The chief auditor of the department had performed his functions conscientiously. Time and again he had reported unsatisfactory conditions. This is clear from appendix B which summarizes his findings over a period of years. The deputy minister in each case had directed the quartermaster general to investigate and report. Lack of adequate action at this point had, however, caused a progressive deterioration in the situation. Aside from reports being delayed for considerable periods of time, the record shows the next audit revealing conditions similar to those previously reported and, in some cases, worse. The process is then again repeated.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, after a second auditor's report it was the responsibility of the deputy minister of national defence to insist on some sort of investigation. It is quite true that frequently you find incompetency, laxity, and sometimes dishonesty among army personnel and among the officers; but the department must have known that this was going on, because the auditor of the Department of National Defence had brought it to the attention of the deputy minister on many occasions. Therefore the responsibility rests entirely on the shoulders of that department and upon the government and on no one else.
I noticed one thing on looking into this report, and possibly it is outside the realm of investigation. I should like to know a little bit more about the construction programs that are going on, the awarding of contracts, and I should also like to know whether mention of those contracts, and so on, were in the original copy, as the hon. member says, the unabridged copy, of this report.
	_
Mr. Currie says that these things went on chiefly in Petawawa. Probably they were not carried on to such a great extent in the other centres throughout Canada, but there is no doubt in my mind that the same thing is going on in many places, although perhaps on a smaller scale.
As I travel around through various parts of the country I hear men, army personnel, officers, complain and say: "For goodness' sake, is there not something we can do to get rid of this waste, not only of material but of time?" As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, at one army centre-and this is directly hearsay; I am not going to vouch for the authenticity of it-I was talking to one of the employees and he was telling of a truckload of cedar shingles that disappeared. Apparently the truck driver drove out of the camp with these shingles, and sometime later the truck came back empty. When he was asked by one of the other employees where the shingles had gone he replied-to use his own words-"None of your damn business."
The fact that the other camps Eire not as badly off as Petawawa shows that army personnel and the civilians working for the Department of National Defence in those various centres are fundamentally honest. But it is no credit whatsoever to the government, or to government policy, that every other camp in this country is not in the same condition as Petawawa. As a matter of fact, I would say that instead of saying, as a result of government policy these camps are not so bad, we should say: in spite of government policy these men were able to remain honest and to look after their jobs in a conscientious sort of way.
As I said before, I do not think there is any doubt in the world that this demonstrates an absolute failure of the government,, not of the army, to enforce regulations. If it were a matter of poor regulations or a poor set-up, there might be some excuse for it, because they had not found the right way of doing it. But in view of the fact that Mr. Currie says the regulations are adequate if they are enforced, it leads me to say that it is not a matter of policy but one of enforcement, and the government is at fault. Let the government either correct these faults or face the consequences.
Just to go one little bit further, this involves more than the Department of National Defence, because on page 19 of this report Mr. Currie says:
In all cases, the treasury officer, who is appointed by the Department of Finance to work within the Department of National Defence, must certify that the necessary money is available and that the expenditure is in fact in accordance with the purpose for which the funds were voted.

In other words, not only the Department of National Defence but also the Department of Finance is equally at fault. Probably the Department of Defence Production, because they have a finger in it, may also be at fault. In all probability they are involved as well as the armed forces. I would be one of the first to say that it is only a small portion of the armed forces, only a small group, that is at fault. We have three distinct departments of government involved, and unless some drastic step is taken I am afraid that the government is going to find itself in a pretty unenviable position, and it is a position of its own making, and I cannot say that I feel too sorry for it.
(Translation):


Mr. Joseph Langlois (Berihier-Maskinonge):: Mr. Speaker, in the past few days much has been said in the newspapers and over the radio about the recent happenings at Louise-ville which have brought about the proclamation of the Riot Act. To understand the situation fully, it must be recalled that the strike at Louiseville, which has been going on for more than nine months, was called as a result of a labour dispute between the national syndicate of textile workers at Louiseville and the Associated Textiles of Canada Limited. The said strike constitutes a record in the history of labour relations in Canada.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that what has happened at Louiseville since the beginning of that strike will not bring unfavourable publicity to the town of Louiseville and will not be detrimental to its economic welfare nor to its excellent reputation.
Louiseville is a small industrial centre located between Montreal and Three Rivers. Its inhabitants are and have always been naturally peaceful in their behaviour. All classes of society live in perfect harmony and everybody has at heart the progress and the development of the town. The workers also enjoy an enviable reputation.
I take this opportunity to tell the working classes and the whole population that I sympathize with them. These people are now going through a very painful experience. Business is on the decline and I do hope that a solution will be found before it is too late.
I also take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the whole population of Louiseville who, since the beginning of the strike that threatens to paralyse the whole economic structure of this locality, have displayed an extraordinary degree of courage and patience.
The Address-Mr. J. Langlois
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) referred yesterday to what happened at Louiseville. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not share the opinions expressed by the hon. member, who asked the Minister of Labour to launch an investigation into what has been going on at Louiseville for nearly a year. The strike at Louiseville is, indeed, a labour dispute over which the province has exclusive jurisdiction and no one, as far as I know, has challenged this jurisdiction. The parties themselves have never complained about it. Since the beginning, I have followed every phase of the dispute very closely and I would have intervened myself long ago, had I deemed it advisable to do so. Knowing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) as I do, I am convinced that had this question been under federal jurisdiction, it would have been possible to arrive at a solution satisfactory to both management and workers.
Now, the Riot Act has been read. I am still convinced that this business is no concern of the Department of Labour. The Riot Act is a part of the Criminal Code which, under the constitution, is administered by the provinces. And so federal intervention in this connection, if only for purposes of inquiry, would be considered as a violation of provincial rights in the field of labour relations.
Even in so far as the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is concerned, I hold that the federal Department of Labour can -only intervene at the request of the provincial department and after an agreement has been concluded between the provincial and federal governments.
Mr. Speaker, my remarks today are directed especially to the Minister of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission. I wish to bring to their attention the difficulties the Louiseville strikers find themselves in from the point of view of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Under section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, all strikers are deprived of their right to unemployment benefits as long as work stoppage lasts. Since, in this case, such stoppage has lasted for more than nine months, these workers have not been able to pay any unemployment insurance contributions since March 10 last, the date on which the strike was declared. I suggest that the Louiseville strikers no longer comply with the statutory conditions required by section 28 of the Unemployment Insurance Act and that they cannot claim the right to draw unemployment insurance benefits. If, Mr. Speaker, this
770	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. P. E. Cote strike should be settled tomorrow, and if, after a few days, the employer should be forced, due to highly important considerations, to lay off some of his employees for lack of work, there is no doubt that all these unemployed workers would be deprived of their right to benefits, on account of their having failed to pay the contributions required within the period of time laid down by section 28.
I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Labour and the unemployment insurance commissioners should examine the urgency of amending, during this session, paragraph 3 of section 28 of the act, so as to grant benefits for prolonged periods of unemployment resulting from a labour dispute.
I would be inclined, Mr. Speaker, to go further and even to go beyond the framework of this act. I would also like to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to the advisability of studying the possibility of granting unemployment benefits to the Louiseville strikers, since they have been out of work for several months. I understand that it would create a precedent. However, I believe it would be a humanitarian gesture that would alleviate the sufferings of these people and bring a little sunshine and happiness to the families of Louiseville, where women and children are the innocent victims of that painful experience. As the Christmas season is approaching, it is the nicest gift we could make to the families of the Louiseville workers.
Several strikers also find themselves in an abnormal situation, because at the beginning of the strike they found work elsewhere, worked for several days or even a few months, but are now again unemployed. When they apply for unemployment insurance, they are told that they are not entitled to any benefits because they have not resumed their work. That decision is based on section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
It is an unfortunate situation, because these people have made sacrifices, they have left their home town to take work elsewhere, they have done everything they could to provide for their families, but today they are unable to find work anywhere. They are practically reduced to begging. The situation warrants careful and immediate attention. Knowing the concern of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) for the workers, I am confident that he will take my remarks into serious consideration and I hope that he will find a way of helping those people.


(Text):


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words following the remarks of the previous speaker.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I would like, first, to offer my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Langlois) for the interest he has always taken in the situation, particularly with regard to the painful conditions which have been prevailing in the lovely town of Louiseville for almost nine months.
I am personally aware of the interest shown by the hon. member, who, on several occasions during this long period of time, has sought my advice with a view to finding a solution to the difficult problems which most of those who are affected by this strike must face, or even a remedy to their sufferings. Since the federal government has no jurisdiction in the matter, we have studied together various provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act that might concern these workers. Most of them, as a matter of fact, have been contributing for many years to the unemployment insurance fund and sincerely believe they have claims to assert under this act, since they have been deprived of their livelihood. Unfortunately, as my hon. friend stated, under section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act the payment of benefits to any insured person taking part in or directly affected by a strike or a lock-out is prohibited. The only way to remedy the situation is to introduce an amendment to that effect by an act of parliament.
For my part, I doubt whether it would be wise to recommend payment of unemployment benefits to workers on strike. In doing so, parliament would take sides in a dispute between workers and employers and its action, through its payment of unemployment benefits, would likely help prolong a situation which it is in the interest of all to settle as soon as possible.
As to amending the act by adding to section 28, subparagraph 3, a provision which would take no account of the period of time spent by the striker away from his work, as soon as he has resumed his employment, for the purpose of calculating the 188 contributions which he is supposed to have paid during the two years preceding an eventual application for benefits, I may say to the hon. member, knowing the spirit in which he makes this suggestion and his earnest desire to help

solve some of the problems that might arise, that I am quite willing to give his request most sympathetic attention.
I am not sure how the unemployment insurance commission's advisory committee could see its way clear to accept this request since its granting would inevitably affect the unemployment insurance fund. As it happens this amendment would delay the payment of benefits beyond the limits provided by legislation at this time.
I can assure the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge that I will personally bring to
the notice of the unemployment insurance commission, and through the commissioners, to the notice of the advisory committee, the advisability of exempting an unemployed worker, under the provisions of section 28 of the act, should he have been out on strike in the two years preceding an application for payment of such benefits. This would more particularly apply to the workers at Louise-ville, who against their will have been unemployed for the past nine months.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I have just said. However, through you, I wish to assure the working population of Louiseville of the interest shown by their representative in this work stoppage which has affected them for so long, and of the interest which the Minister of Labour and myself, as parliamentary assistant, have been continuously taking in the matter for the past nine months. Should the opportunity arise to put an end to the difficulties of the working population of Louiseville, we will gladly avail ourselves of that opportunity and co-operate with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge.
I most sincerely want this situation to come to an end as soon as possible.
I hope that Christmas will not go by without my hon. friend-should he be unable to obtain for them unemployment insurance benefits-having at least the pleasure of seeing all his constituents resume work under fair and equitable conditions in the best interest of the working population of Louiseville.
(Text):


Mr. T. J. Kickham (Kings):: I wish first to extend my congratulations to the newly-appointed Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. Knowing the minister's exceptional qualifications, I am sure the Department of Fisheries will not be lacking vigorous leadership.
68108-49J
The Address-Mr. Kickham
Our second largest industry is our fishing and, while some progressive methods have been evolved in later years, I am confident that under the new minister's direction we will experience a revivication, and a complete and thorough study of what the industry has accomplished in the past and what is possible to attain in the future. I now invite the minister to come to the province of Prince Edward Island at the beginning of fishing operations in the coming season to obtain firsthand knowledge of our industry. I will take him to the first fresh filleting and fish meal processing plant in our province, located at Souris in my riding. The minister will there have an opportunity to meet the personnel management of the island fisheries, and other progressive citizens engaged in the processing and packing industry, and to discuss with them processing methods, markets and common problems. The company referred to have the quick-freezing facilities necessary in the marketing of fresh frozen fillets processed from many species of fish.
Our provincial department of industry and natural resources, in conjunction with the federal department, has carried on scientific research work which has proved of great value to the provincial industry. Under the direction of the minister, Hon. Eugene Cullen, and his deputies, this department has surely proven its worth by the results it has already attained in promotional work and advancement for the industry.
I am pleased to note that the speech from the throne indicates that legislation will be implemented to provide some measure of assistance for the rural mail couriers in this country. Provision was made in the session of 1951 for increases to couriers receiving less than $1,000 per annum, and the increases granted to those couriers on application have been generally satisfactory. Now I am confident that the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) will provide, through the coming legislation, liberal increases for those couriers presently underpaid.
To the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) I would suggest that the eligible age for blind pensions be reduced from the present age of 21 years to 16 years, so the blind child may receive assistance from the termination of the family allowance. There is every justification for this because the parents of blind children are subjected to greater costs for education, to make them useful citizens, than in the case with nondefective children. It is my opinion that the means test should be dispensed with for

The Address-Mr. Kickham blind people, and I would like to see the minister remove this impediment to full pensions for the blind.
From listening to the remarks of the hon. junior member for Queens in this house, I am sure his words were not calculated to further advance himself politically in Queens because the Liberal government's public works in that riding are too obvious. The hon. junior member for Queens, for example, cannot place the Charlottetown C.N.R. hotel under his hat; and if he takes himself down to the shore he will see a newly-constructed railway wharf. This work was completed by the Canadian Dredge and Dock Company of Toronto last spring. When he takes a look at the large, commodious frost-proof potato warehouse recently renovated and resting on that spacious wharf, he will see that he cannot put that under his umbrella. All these were constructed by Liberal governments. Further, I understand that the enlargement of the Charlottetown airways in Queens will be proceeded with, and I am sure that if the late J. L. Douglas had lived Charlottetown would now have a spacious public building, provided the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) could release the steel and other materials required for such a building. I can, however, give the junior member for Queens the assurance that it will be built by the Liberals just as soon as supplies are made available and with the backing of the next two Liberal members for Queens, Messrs. Miller and Matheson.
It is my pleasure now to express my thanks to the efficient and friendly Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) on behalf of the people of my constituency and myself for his response to my many requests for construction work on wharves, breakwaters, frostproof potato warehouses and extensions, and the dredging of channels, harbours and rivers to provide more adequate facilities for oceangoing vessels which carry our produce to foreign ports, thus bringing about cheaper freight rates and competition with the government-owned railway. The provisions to assist fishermen at the many fishing points have been of great assistance. There still remains much to be done. We need a new protection work constructed at Murray Harbour north for the protection of fishermen's boats and equipment. At this point boats and valuable equipment are subject to the crippling lashes of the sea. I am confident that an adequate amount will be included in this session's estimates for this very necessary work.
We also need a complete reconstruction job on the government-owned railway wharf at Georgetown. In its present condition the


wharf cannot provide safe accommodation for large boats tying up alongside the frost-proof potato warehouse, and does not provide the proper facilities for loading pulp and pit prop boats. A dredging job is necessary in the inner part of the harbour. An extension to the protection work at Basin Head harbour is also awaiting attention. So far as the public building at Montague is concerned, the necessary building sites have been purchased and are now vested in the crown. An estimate for this building has been passed by the house, and the Department of Public Works will in all probability proceed with the construction in the near future.
Before concluding my remarks on public works, I wish to extend my thanks to the deputy minister and the engineers at Ottawa and Charlottetown. They have at all times extended to me the greatest measure of assistance and co-operation.
With respect to the ferry service to and from our province, it is most imperative that additional services be provided from Wood islands to Caribou and from Borden to Tormentine. I do know that an additional boat for the Wood islands service is being given much consideration by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) inasmuch as I attended a meeting with the minister in that connection last week. So far as the Cape Tormentine-Borden service is concerned, I suggest that if we had a boat to carry passenger and railway freight cars in the summer months this would permit the space now taken up by those cars to be used by automobiles and trucks.
I am confident that if the government realized that new ferry boats were an urgent need at both Wood islands and Borden financial provision would be made at this session for their immediate construction. If the amounts necessary were voted at this session I expect that it would be all of two years before the boats would be ready for service. We are entitled to adequate ferry service under the terms of confederation, and I am sure the people of Canada would not wish to have the smallest province restricted in any way. They want to see our province enjoy the same transportation facilities as are enjoyed by them. We wish to develop and exploit to the fullest measure the tourist industry in order to help to finance the province's road and electricity programs. We need the additional ferries to move our fish and farm produce to export markets. Can one picture the provinces of Quebec and Ontario in our position, not having adequate transportation facilities available to transport tourists and exportable products?

I said in the beginning I was confident that if the government fully realized the situation that now exists it would arouse their gravest concern, with the result that additional transportation facilities would be immediately provided. If the Canadian economy can afford to contribute millions of dollars each year to the Asiatic countries under the Colombo plan, if we can lend and donate millions to Great Britain, surely we can find sufficient funds to provide essential transportation services for Canadians.
The co-operative movement in our province and in the maritimes generally met with a severe loss in the passing of Dr. A. B. MacDonald, one of its pioneers. I knew Dr. MacDonald personally, having met him on numerous occasions in our province during the fourteen years he was associated with Dr. M. M. Coady in the work of St. Francis Xavier university extension department. His boundless energy and devotion to the work of organizing adult study club groups, cooperative producer and consumer groups, credit unions, etc., led him to larger fields of endeavour, and in 1944 co-operative leaders saw the need of a larger and more active national co-operative organization.
Those leaders, knowing of Dr. MacDonald's unsurpassed ability in the field of organization, selected him for the task. Having formed the larger organization, he served as national secretary of the Co-operative Union of Canada until his death on September 13 last at the comparatively early age of 59 years. Dr. MacDonald was a great maritimer. He was a great Canadian. The work he accomplished in teaching the labouring man, the fisherman and the farmer a way to more general prosperity, thus raising his standard of living and giving him greater economic freedom, will ever remain a tribute to his memory.
In closing my remarks I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we had a visitor to our fair isle and he was harsh, by Karsh!


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the Currie report is undoubtedly one of the most important documents to come before the Canadian parliament in recent history. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the arrival of the Currie report in the House of Commons yesterday operated like a bombshell so far as the government and its forces were concerned. Is it not proof abundant, Mr. Speaker, of the decline of a sense of parliamentary responsibility, alike on the part of the government and those who follow it in this house, that the discussion of this matter of such vital importance has followed the course we have seen today? This report has been dealt with in masterly style by some of the leading figures of the house, by
The Address-Mr. Fleming the hon. member for 'Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) last evening, by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) this morning and by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) this afternoon. But we have yet to hear one word, except by way of raucous interruptions, from a member supporting the government, let alone one of Her Majesty's ministers.


Mr. Pearkes:: Where are they?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Where are they? There is in the house at this moment one member of the government, just one, and I think there are approximately eighteen Liberal members present in the house. Is this an example of the way in which the government addresses itself to public business of the highest importance?


Mr. Studer:: Where are all the members of your party?


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are here at the present moment in greater numbers than the 185 Liberal members of the house. If you cannot see that, your counting must be about as bad as the government counting as indicated in this report.
This situation is by no means new. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has a paramount responsibility in this matter, particularly in view of the absence overseas of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). The Prime Minister has chosen to grace the house, during the debate on this matter of high importance, for a matter of about forty minutes or three-quarters of an hour this afternoon during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Having done so he took his departure, after some scurrying about the house and whispered conversations with ministers. If any further evidence is required of the decline of the sense of parliamentary responsibility during the lifetime of the present government, alike on its part and on, the part of those who follow it in the house, you have seen it in abundance this day.
I think it may be said, Mr. Speaker, by way of fair warning to this government that if they think that by being parties to some conspiracy of silence they are going to discourage the discussion of this very vital and important report, then they are very much mistaken. This report has arrived in the House of Commons where it ought to be fully discussed, and where it is going to be discussed, whether the government likes it or not.
I should like to observe at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Currie has rendered a national service in writing this report. I can well imagine, indeed I think we were so informed by the Minister of National Defence at the time, that Mr. Currie assumed
774	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming this duty with some reluctance. Apparently he realized it was going to be a formidable undertaking. I believe the public of Canada may well thank Mr. Currie for assuming this responsibility and staying with this task until its completion, for in this report it seems to me we have a public service of the highest quality.
I am interested, of course, in this matter of a second edition of the report. The Prime Minister said yesterday when this question of an unexpurgated edition of the report was raised, that he would give orders to get to the bottom of the matter. He has had more than twenty-four hours to get to the bottom of the matter, but still his silence continues. Has efficiency within the government service dropped to the point where the Prime Minister cannot get information about this other edition of this report within the time that has now passed, or has the Prime Minister decided he has had enough embarrassment over this report, and is not going to take the house into his confidence about it?
I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), the leader of the house; perhaps he can enlighten us on this matter. No; only silence comes from the Minister of Public Works.
Again I might say to the government that if they think that by ignoring this important question they are going to escape discussion of it or going to escape a demand by this house for an accounting in regard to the unexpurgated edition of the report, then I may tell them they are completely mistaken.


Alphonse Fournier: You are putting up a straw man.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am surprised indeed to hear the Minister of Public Works refer to himself as a straw man, because he is the man I am putting up at the moment.


Alphonse Fournier: You do not understand English.	.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You understand most things around here, except the necessity for preserving parliamentary institutions.


Alphonse Fournier: I need your help for that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I turn to this report in the light of what I think is the responsibility of the members of this house to relate this question fairly to the matter of the government's responsibility. The first thing that strikes anyone reading this report is the statement on page 1, where Mr. Currie says: It should be noted that interim suggestions made by me during my investigation have been already seized on, and important reforms are already being carried out.


Sir, let us lay that statement alongside the statement made in this house in recent days by the Minister of National Defence. Let us remember that the Minister of National Defence, when questioned about the receipt of interim reports, said in this house that he had no communication from Mr. Currie or had no discussion with him. Lay these statements side by side. They cannot be reconciled. Either Mr. Currie is wrong or the Minister of National Defence is wrong. There is just one possibility of an out for the minister, and that is that suggestions of importance-because these are obviously important suggestions-came to the Department of National Defence from this important inquiry, and things are so organized in the Department of National Defence today that the minister of that department does not know when important recommendations come into the department or are apparently put into effect with salutary results. Have things come to this pretty pass, that the Minister of National Defence is so utterly unaware of what is going on in his department that when recommendations come from Mr. Currie on matters of leading importance they escape his notice? Well, hon. members opposite can take their choice. Either the Minister of National Defence has been unaware of what any minister of defence ought to be aware of within his department, or Mr. Currie and the Minister of National Defence are in pointblank contradiction. I leave the matter there. The rules of the house compel me to do so.
Again thinking of this in terms of the responsibility of the government, hon. members opposite are trying to find some comfort in the fact that they say, "Oh well, whatever happens in the department is not the responsibility of the government." It is a curious statement which I hope to have the opportunity of examining shortly.


David Arnold Croll: Who said that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has been said several times during the course of these raucous interruptions. There is no member opposite who has had the courage to stand up on his two feet and say so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should say of any other hon. member that he has not the courage to stand up and say something. The hon. member has jusit referred to hon. members on this side, saying that they did not have the courage to stand up and say so. When the hon. member debates a question, I do not think he should accuse others of not having courage; that is the expression to which I take

objection. I believe the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) will understand what I mean.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not recall that I have reflected in any unparliamentary sense. In that regard, I draw attention to the fact, for I think it is a matter worthy of comment, that not one member on the government side of the house has risen here today to offer a word on what is the most important subject that has come before the house during our time. I think I am entitled to draw an inference.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is quite right in pointing out that no hon. member has tried to rise or has risen on a certain question. The expression which I think is objectionable is to say of an hon. member, even if he is not referred to by name, that he "has not the courage to stand up". It should not be suggested of any hon. member that he did not have the courage to do what he is supposed to do in this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I now turn again to this question of governmental responsibility.
I am glad to hear an admission at last from an hon. member opposite-and I take it that it came from the hon. member for Spadina- that apparently the government is responsible for what happened in the Department of National Defence.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member was saying that the government were attempting to lay the responsibility on the general staff. What I said was "Who said that?" He has no right to draw any other inference from that. He said "hon. members in this house" and he did not name anyone. He had no right to draw any other inference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that is an
example of how hopelessly inaccurate a view of this matter is taken by hon. gentlemen opposite. I did not use the words "general staff" at all. I did not refer to them. I was referring to the subject of the government's responsibility for what happened in the Department of National Defence.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The hon. member is saying what the people are thinking.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us deal with this question. I said that hon. members opposite are apparently trying to take some comfort from the fact that, as they say, the Department of National Defence was not aware of what was going on. Were they not aware of it? If they did not have any responsibility at the time these things were going on, did they not acquire some responsibility when they learned
The Address-Mr. Fleming or ought to have learned that these things were going on and were there to be seen?
The fact of the matter is, as Mr. Currie has pointed out here, that reports were made.
I think attention should be drawn again to the service rendered this morning by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) who called attention to the fact that before the committee on defence expenditure last year it was brought out that reports had been made to the Department of National Defence concerning irregularities at Petawawa, and they were reports that had gone back indeed as far as May, 1949. The committee was not permitted to know the contents of those reports, but the fact was that reports disclosing irregularities going back that far were made to the Department of National Defence. That much the committee was permitted to know.
What became of those reports? Were they shelved? Is the Minister of National Defence not going to assume any responsibility for reports coming into his department? Does he not know what is going on? Does he not assume any responsibility for knowing what is going on in his department? If he knew of these reports, why did he not take action? Is not the responsibility on him and, through him, on the shoulders of the government, for taking no action? If he did not know, why did he not know? Why did he not read those reports?
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but in this report by Mr. Currie we are told at page 4 of the report as follows:
. . . internal warnings had not been lacking in the Department of National Defence. The chief auditor of the department had performed his functions conscientiously. Time and again he had reported unsatisfactory conditions.
Mr. Speaker, what became of those reports? What did the Minister of National Defence know of those reports? If he knew about them, what action did he take? If he did not know about them, why did he not know? Every member of the government shares that responsibility with the Minister of National Defence, the silent Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) included.


An hon. Member:: Where were you?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Last April we obtained some information from the minister. On April 21, as reported at page 1424 of Hansard, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) questioned the Minister of National Defence as to when trouble was first discovered at Petawawa. The answer given by the minister was "in October, 1951". The government took action to appoint Mr. Currie in April, 1952,
776	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming iix months after the discovery of irregularities at Petawawa, according to the minister's statement. Of course in this statement of April 21, the minister made no reference to all those reports from the chief auditor of the department that we read about, nor has he referred to those reports going back to May, 1949. He overlooks all those reports in this answer of April 21 but he says "We learned about it in October, 1951", six months before the date on which he was speaking.
What did he do in those six months? Apparently the same thing he had done for more than two years before that, in the face of similar reports, namely, nothing. Is the government going to deny responsibility in the face of the facts? Here is a government that either knew, through the minister, of the existence of these irregularities, and calmly did nothing about them or apparently the minister did not know anything about them, in which case he was guilty of the grossest possible dereliction of duty as minister and head of that department.
The matter of government responsibility is one that does not even admit a difference of opinion in this house. I am just waiting, Mr. Speaker, to hear any member of the government courageously or otherwise, if you please, rise to his feet and say that the government denies responsibility; because if the government does, it has shed any semblance of responsibility to this house and has literally destroyed the whole basis of parliamentary institutions according to our system of government. It is a plain and elementary fact that the government, and every member of the government alike, must accept responsibility for whatever happens in these government departments. What could be a plainer case of responsibility than ope in which a situation was disclosed by reports to the department running back for more than three years? Here we are three and a half years after the first of these reports of which we know. Whether there were other reports we are left only to surmise. However, we know that reports were coming in more than three and a half years ago. What greater proof of dereliction of duty on the part of a smug and complacent government do we need than this?
And to think that this should happen in the Department of National Defence gives one pause! This is the minister, Mr. Speaker-and you will not have forgotten this fact-who, alike when he was minister of national health and welfare and since he became Minister of National Defence, has been the opponent of the appointment of standing committees of this house on the theory, which he declared on all those occasions, that such appointments cut across or cut at the root of


our whole system of responsible government. He said, "We do not want anything savouring of the American system. Oh, no; we want to maintain the closest possible relationship between the cabinet and the House of Commons, because the cabinet is responsible to the House of Commons." He even used this analogy and said, "Why do we need another committee of the house because, after all, the cabinet is but a committee of the house. Therefore we must not have any more committees of the house because the government takes all responsibility and is fully accountable to the house." Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is in the department of this same minister that this scandalous and shocking situation is found to exist.
Yes, it was not necessary, although it is indeed striking, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Currie in this report puts the responsibility

more clearly, it is true, in the unexpurgated edition but nevertheless he does so in both editions -squarely where the responsibility properly lies, not only in fact, but also according to the elementary practice of the British system of responsible government and parliamentary institutions.
Speaking of this spirit within the department itself where, by reason of the fact that experienced officers and experienced personnel of the department had been let out, in the face of warnings in bygone years from the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and others, now we find a new situation, in which the whole idea is that speed is everything and cost means nothing-in the face of this spirit within the department, Mr. Currie says:
But, if this spirit permeated the lower echelons of the army it is more difficult to condone the same attitudes at or near the top.
Those are the words of the unexpurgated edition. In the expurgated edition the words are "the same attitudes higher up." Mr. Speaker, those words were not necessary to fix responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the minister, but they are there.
Here is an inquiry conducted by a man appointed by the government. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when they are so busy finding scapegoats, the government are not going to turn around now and try to make a scapegoat of Mr. Currie. It would be in keeping with the way they have been picking scapegoats indiscriminately in all directions for many days.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Who picked! Mr. Currie?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government picked him, and they picked a good man. I gather from the strange silence that prevails over the government benches today that they are not too happy about the whole situation. Let

the government get up and say whether they accept the report of Mr. Currie. If they do not accept it, let them give good reasons why they do not. I can tell them that if they are going to try to make a scapegoat out of Mr. Currie, they are biting off a great deal more than they are going to be able to masticate, even this government, with all its appetite.


John James Smith: You are
putting up a straw man.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, you see it is inevitable, in the light of experience this house has had, to which the hon. member has apparently closed his eyes and ears, that we would think it very natural that the government would look around for a scapegoat. They always do look around for a scapegoat, because the one impelling obsession of this government is that they must not lose political face. It does not matter whose business career is sacrificed or whose army career is sacrificed as long as the government does not lose political face. That is the only thing that matters. The hon. member opposite is quite prepared to give political allegiance to a government so lacking in standards and principles as is this government.
Now, sir, what of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister apparently was anticipating trouble in the Department of National Defence, because on November 24 he was at pains to say, as we find at page 39 of Hansard, that what was happening in the way of disclosures of the most astounding and shocking extravagance and waste in that department and what had happened at Petawawa were regrettable and deplorable. He said: We in the government have not done this ourselves. You should not hold us responsible. He said:	When people steal
money from the Bank of Nova Scotia nobody holds the directors of the bank responsible. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is all the Prime Minister has learned about the essence of responsible government then it is high time he made way for somebody who does understand those elementary principles.


Mr. Bennett:: Whom do you suggest?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You know very well whom.


Mr. Riley:: We know whom you want to replace him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is the hollow voice of Saint John. We will not be too concerned about the voice of the lesser Saint John.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I thought it was Mr. Drew whom you wanted to replace him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I am very happy to say for the edification of the hon. msmber for 68108-50
The Address-Mr. Fleming Saint John, or Saint John the lesser, that I look forward with confidence to the day in 1953 when Mr. George Drew will assume the office and role of prime minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I may tell hon. members that it is going to take a good deal more than the calculated and contemptible campaign of personal abuse they are directing at the Leader of the Opposition to prevent him from becoming prime minister. If they have any more to say on this subject I should be interested to hear them.
Now, sir, the Prime Minister, as I have indicated, sought in advance to wash his hands in public of any responsibility for what happened at Petawawa. Well, the Prime Minister cannot wash his hands, nor the hands of any member of the government, of responsibility for what is disclosed in this report.


Mr. Heiland:: He did not say that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, he said about as near to it as it was possible for him to go at that stage without disclosing what we find now in the report. That is precisely the idea that he was trying to convey. He said in effect, we have had some prosecutions, and what -more could we do? We are not responsible; we did not do it ourselves; we did not carry off the rails. That is the gist of the Prime Minister's argument, and it just will not hold water.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: That is your argument.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it is the Prime Minister's argument. If the hon. member has not grasped the fact, then I can only invite him to go back and read page 39 of Hansard, because apparently he did not pay any attention to the Prime Minister when he was speaking.
I wish to say this also to the Prime Minister: If this happened at Westminster, if in the mother of parliaments it was disclosed in a report made by an official appointed by the government to conduct an inquiry that the things had been going on within a government department which are disclosed in this Currie report, the minister at the head of the department would have resigned at once, Mr. Speaker. He would not have had to wait for the Prime Minister to call upon him to tender his resignation; he would have resigned at once. And the fact that, far from the minister resigning, or far from our seeing the Prime Minister call for his resignation in this case, far from there even being a statement from the government on this question, the government have remained silent
778	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming on this question proves abundantly that they have lost all sense of responsibility to this House of Commons.
I will tell hon. members opposite why the government have lost that sense of responsibility. It is not alone their own arrogance; it is not alone their own smugness; it is not alone their own indifference; it is the fact that a majority of the members of this house calling themselves Liberals have condoned that arrogance and that smugness on the part of this government. Is there any wonder that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said in this house a year and a half ago: "If we wanted to get away with it, who would stop us?" Well, the fact of the matter is that the official opposition, by reason of their numbers not being great, can only make a fight. On a vote they cannot overcome the government, but the hon. members of this house who do form the majority could have stopped the government from getting away with these things, and because they have remained supine-


An hon. Member:: What is that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Because they remained supine in the face of this situation, and have sat silent here now in the face of this disclosure of the scandals that are revealed in this report shows abundantly, Mr. Speaker, just why the Minister of Trade and Commerce could ask a question like that in this house, why he could insult this house by saying: "If we wanted to get away with it, there is nobody here to stop us." It was because the opposition was not numerous enough, and the government supporters in the house who are numerous enough did not have the will and the sense of responsibility to stop this government when it was trying to get away with such things. How otherwise, Mr. Speaker, *could these things have gone on? With reports coming before the government for a period of three and a half years, how could these things go on in an intelligent country like this, if it were not for the fact that hon. members opposite, constituting a majority in this house, have simply sat there and acquiesced in and condoned what the government has been allowing to happen. Yes, it will be interesting to see-


An hon. Member:: Keep your temper.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My temper is completely under control.


Alphonse Fournier: It does not show it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And it is at all times. Well, the Minister of Public Works is about as far at sea in that respect as he is on what constitutes propriety in the conduct of the affairs of the Department of National Defence.


Alphonse Fournier: You must be good in all things.


Jean Lesage: What do you know about the Minister of Public Works?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think he is a very jovial and amiable colleague in the house.


Alphonse Fournier: Thank you.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: So are you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you.


Jean Lesage: At times.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This whole subject has to be considered in relation to the background. I have said something about the background, the fact of reports coming in over this long period, the fact of the minister apparently either not knowing what was going on in his department or closing his eyes to what has been happening there, but there is something else about the background that should be considered in relation to the astounding disclosures in this report. It has to do with the sacrifices of the Canadian people, Mr. Speaker. Canadians are not a martial people. They have shown that when war is forced upon them they are prepared to meet it, and meet it with courage unsurpassed. But we are not a martial people. We do not as a people like to keep standing armies; we do not flaunt any military spirit before the world. It was with a measure of acknowledged reluctance that the Canadian people faced up to what was put before them as the stern necessity for rearmament. They accepted the burdens courageously, but regretfully. And I think, Mr. Speaker, it is only right and proper to say that when they were called upon to face these heavy exactions they expected all their elected representatives in this House of Commons, and all members of the government opposite, would see that every dollar that was taken from the pockets of the people for the purpose of rearmament would be spent carefully for that purpose.
Never has a higher obligation rested upon a parliament, or upon a government, to make sure that every dollar expended for this purpose was carefully and prudently expended, than has rested upon this government and this parliament in connection with this rearmament program.
It was something of the spirit of a crusade that prompted the Canadian people to support Canadian participation in the efforts of the United Nations to withstand aggression in Korea and in the garrisoning of Germany to withstand any possible aggression by the Kremlin in central Europe. Mr. Speaker, what a betrayal of the confidence of the

Canadian people that, in the face of that crusading spirit and in the face of acceptance by the Canadian people of these heavy burdens and exactions for the purpose of providing needed rearmament for this country, the Canadian government has failed so lamentably to see that this money has been carefully and wisely expended!
Mr. Speaker, you will remember that Mr. Currie says in this report that, far more serious than the actual defalcations, and far more serious than the actual amount of materials and goods which have been stolen, is what has been lost to the Canadian people in the proven waste and inefficiency which has been exposed. In the face of the colossal expenditures by this department it was the duty, not simply of the minister of the department but, to a superlative degree, the dutj of every minister in the government to see to it that there was efficiency in that department, to see to it that there was strict honesty in all the procedures of that department, to see to it that the dollars that were hard-earned by the Canadian people, from whom they were taken, were carefully expended.
And what do the Canadian people find? Well, we have had exposures in recent months of colossal waste and extravagance; and now in this report, to cap it all, we find proof of shocking irregularities and of what is, in effect, a whole break-down of the system of supervising expenditure.
No government in office at a time like this, in the face of proven facts like these, can escape its responsibility for these facts. It cannot escape its responsibility, in the light of parliamentary practice. And above all, Mr. Speaker, it cannot escape its responsibility to the supreme Canadian people.
We in the official opposition have fought, and fought uphill, in the face of overwhelming numbers of government supporters in this present House of Commons, for the direct maintenance of parliamentary control over expenditures. We have had to fight uphill because the government opposite would not listen to anything from us. They would not listen to the wise warnings given to them in these recent years by experienced members like the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) and many others who are quite competent to give the government sound advice on these questions. No; their ears were stopped to any words of warning from this side of the house. In their smugness and self-satisfaction, what they knew was enough; and all they had to tell us was that, so long as they were in office, everything was all right. Well, the Canadian people well know now 68108-50i
The Address-Mr. Fleming that while this government has been in office everything has not been all right.
In the face of Mr. Currie's report it would be much more accurate to say that, so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, everything has been all wrong. Mr. Speaker, we of the official opposition can point to those many occasions when, in this House of Commons, we have fought as hard as we could fight for the maintenance of that sound principle of parliamentary control over public expenditures. And here, because this government has defeated sound, sincere and earnest attempts on the part of the opposition to maintain effective parliamentary control over expenditures, when they have used their overwhelming numbers both in the House of Commons and in the defence expenditure committee of last session to prevent any attempts to get to the bottom of these expenditures, or even to elicit the essential facts for the elected representatives of the people to put them into the position of judging the spending of these colossal sums of money, we now see in these painful events of the past two days a complete vindication of that sound principle of parliamentary control. A very serious mistake has been made by the Liberal majority, which must assume the full responsibility for the mistake it has made in departing from the precious principle of parliamentary control over the government's purse strings.
We are tired of the smugness of this government. We are tired of their official utterances put out through anonymous sources. We are tired of their lofty and haughty attitude in this house. It is a pity that another Gilbert and Sullivan could not arise now. What an opportunity they would have in dealing with a situation such as we are confronted with in this parliament today. There would be another H.M.S. Pinafore, I am sure. I shall mention only one passage from that operetta which you, Mr. Speaker, with your profound classical learning, will recall at once. You will remember those words which Sir Joseph Porter addressed to Captain Corcoran in H.M.S. Pinafore:	"Captain Corcoran, it is
one of the happiest characteristics of this glorious country that official utterances are invariably regarded as unanswerable."
Mr. Speaker, we are tired of that kind of attitude on the part of this government, the assumption that because they are in office everything is all right. That is the kind of answer they have given; and we of the official opposition join our voices now in saying that there has been enough exposed in this Currie report, dealing with one small segment of the operations of this one department, to make it essential and imperative

The Address-Division
now that the inquiry be reopened, and that it be extended into all the other recesses of that department. Enough has been found here to put every hon. member of this House of Commons on his guard, and on notice. That responsibility now rests with every member of this House of Commons.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we have been dealing in the last few hours with what may be called an error of omission on the part of the government due to negligence which has been shown in the Department of National Defence. I wish now to come to an error of commission due to unwarrantable government interference. I wish to return to the matter I brought up last Thursday in connection with the Fort Garry hotel and Mr. Pitt. I do this because the matter has been answered not only briefly by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) last Thursday but at greater length by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) yesterday.
I brought the question up originally because I believed that a great injustice had been done as the result of unwarrantable government interference. I believe that much more strongly now than I did last week, because to me the defence that has been made is utterly unconvincing. I do not think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has anything to do with this matter, but I had hopes last week when I made an appeal to him in his absence to have some justice done. The

only answer we have got so far in my opinion is a cover-up, coupled with the suggestion of a threat which I found very unpleasant. For that reason I come back to it.
I have tried in this house to speak with a certain sense of responsibility, and I never had a greater sense of responsibility than I have now. Yesterday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), to my regret, referred to this as a small matter. I said to him then, and I repeat to him now, that I do not regard justice as a small matter. I regret that it would appear that the attitude of the government-because there has been no other attitude expressed-is that it is a small matter. I still hope this attitude may be changed. I shall try to satisfy the house that the answer that has been given is no answer. If the house should accept that, then I still hope something may be done.
The Minister of Transport spoke more in sorrow than in anger, and wanted to treat me as some kind of erring child. He pointed out to me that I had made a terrible mistake in relying on hearsay. I suppose, in a sense, whatever is in a newspaper is, in the technical, legal sense, for all I know hearsay. After all, the people who are reported in the newspaper do not speak with their own voices. They are reported in the newspaper, and to that extent, in the narrow sense, the minister may be right. However, I do not think we should be bamboozled by the legal jargon, and I suggest that is all the minister was doing. When I asked the minister if he impugned any of the facts on which I based my speech, and which were reported in the Winnipeg Tribune, a responsible newspaper, all the minister said was that it was hearsay and therefore he would pay no attention to it. In my opinion the important thing is whether these facts were true as they were related in the newspaper. I believe they are true. Neither of the ministers appeared to say they were not true; therefore I am entitled to believe that, like me, they believe they are true.


Mr. Chevrier:: Then why don't you bring them to the proper forum?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I consider
that this is the proper forum. I understand that this House of Commons is the place where grievances can be brought and where they may be redressed. I believe this is a grievance against the government directly, and that is why I bring it here.


Lionel Chevrier: I disagree with you fully on a C.N.R. matter.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well now, I think I understand what the minister is saying, but I disagree with him wholly. I
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell regret that it seems to me-I was trying to press this point further-that this is one of the things which we on this side so often, and sometimes it seems so unavailingly, press in this house; that is, that the long tenure of power has really made the government believe it is almost an impertinence to come into this house to criticize them. They have got into that state of mind; therefore I think the view of the Minister of Transport, who would ordinarily be a very fair-minded man, in a matter of this kind is just perverse. He is beaten before he starts.
I base my argument on what I believe to be the facts, facts which have not been controverted. There has been an attempt to impugn them, to smear them by saying they are hearsay. If they are facts, then we in this house are entitled to look at them and consider what is the result. I said last Thursday, and I repeat it and feel much more strongly now, that no sane man could look at the two events, the event of September 10 when the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg and the demotion of Mr. Pitt two months later, without coming to the conclusion at which I have arrived. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) referred to "unpleasantness". I shall come back to that because I thought perhaps the minister made a larger contribution to the debate than he intended. He revealed to us that he had known about some unpleasantness. I am going to ask later on if he will tell us how that word "unpleasantness" came down here, because in the report we get from the Department of Transport there is no suggestion of unpleasantness. Apparently everything in the garden is lovely. There is no grievance of any kind.
I gave two reasons-there are many but I gave two-for believing that these two events were connected. In the first place I said, how can any sane person believe that the management of the Canadian National Railways could so far forget their common sense as to demote a man who had been in their service ten years in the management of the Nova Scotian hotel, a large hotel with 150 rooms; five years in the management of the Bessborough hotel, with 260 rooms; over a year in the management of the Fort Garry hotel, with 260 rooms. I said it was not possible to believe that the management of the hotels would treat a man in that way, of their own motion, but only if they were impelled to do so by somebody else. Secondly, I gave as an even stronger reason the impossibility of any sensible person accepting the explanation of the president of the Canadian National Railways. I regret more than I can say that a man whom I have always respected
782	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell should have given such a reason. The reascfn given was that this demotion of this trusted man, after nearly twenty years of service, was occasioned by "changes in the management affecting every hotel following the normal review of hotel operation that is carried out by the general manager of hotels". 1 submit that no man who looks at the facts and is familiar with the ordinary relations between man and man could accept that.
I say, therefore, that it is only to be expected that what the Winnipeg Tribune records would be the fact. In its issue of November 14, I believe it is, the Winnipeg Tribune says "of those contacted by the Tribune today, none accepted C.N.R. president Donald Gordon's explanation of Mr. Pitt's transfer which was announced on Wednesday". I say, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that no one could accept these reasons. The very fact that the president of the railway would put out a reason which cannot be accepted by any sensible man as a reason for doing this shows what a jam they were in, and forces us to look elsewhere.
Let me go back for a moment to the speech delivered by the Minister of Transport. His two complaints against me were apparently that I relied on hearsay. I have dealt with that. I would say that some things are self-evident, and that the connection between these two events is self-evident. We do not need to rely on the technical rules of law. These events carry conviction to any sensible man who will look at the facts. I come back to the other matter. The minister said I had not been very consistent, and that although I had made the statement I believed the Prime Minister had nothing to do with this, as I do believe-I cannot believe the Prime Minister had any truck or trade with small stuff of this kind-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why keep mentioning his name every few minutes?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall tell you why in one second. The reason I am mentioning him is to answer something the Minister of Transport said. I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce will think that is a sufficient reason. The Minister of Transport said that although I had said the Prime Minister had nothing to do with it, nevertheless I was inconsistent because, as I understood him, I had several times implied that he was responsible.


Lionel Chevrier: You most certainly did.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has mentioned the Prime Minister about fourteen times since he started this debate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce through?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have mentioned the Prime Minister at least twelve times since you have been on this subject.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps the minister is being as accurate as he was the other night when he contradicted me by saying that Mr. Pitt had not been manager of the Nova Scotian hotel, and had to admit later that he was wrong. I come back to the Minister of Transport for a moment. I want to say this. If by any implication I suggested that I was not sincere or that I was qualifying what I said about the Prime Minister having nothing to do with this, I did not intend to do so and my statement was intended to be taken at its face value.
I come back to this suggestion of unpleasantness which we got from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That, of course, seems to tie in some of the things that are said by the Winnipeg Tribune. It does not seem to tie in too tightly with the explanation or the denial that has been given in the answer by the Department of Transport and in what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) himself said yesterday. It may be that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will wish to say something more about this unpleasantness.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will indeed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There may be an aroma of unpleasantness down here, after all. Is it a fact that these things were being bandied about? Is it a fact that these things were being discussed in the department? Is it a fact that there may have been more to it than the answer of the Department of Transport suggested? Perhaps the minister will explain.
I now return to the charge made by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other night that I am interfering with the management of the railway. I am interfering. I am trying to discharge the duty of a member of parliament by protesting against government interference. After all, the government is responsible to this house, although they seem often to forget it; and we as members of this house are surely entitled to come here and complain about it if we believe, as I do, that the government is interfering. I am interfering to that extent. I know they are in danger of forgetting that fact. I suppose if I were in power for 17 years I might be in danger of forgetting it too, but it is a fact. The attitude on that side of the house has come to be: we get away with everything we can and we ignore

complaints because we have the voting power. When other arguments run out, or when there are not any arguments, we are accustomed to hear this one: "Have we not got the votes?". They have the votes, Mr. Speaker. The only question is how long they will have them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: For a long time yet.


Mr. Graydon:: Don't be too sure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Time is running out.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have
explained why I interfered. I believe the government or someone purporting to speak for the government has played a part in this matter. The reference of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to unpleasantness seems to tie in with that explanation. I believed and still believe that a gross injustice was being done, and I have found a great many people-some inside this house and some outside of it-who agree with me. I believe there was government interference, and I am not the only person who believes that.
I should like to read from a paper which I imagine usually supports the government. It has already been quoted in this house, but I should like to put it on the record again.
I should like to read what the Saskatoon paper-I think the Star-Phoenix is the name of it-has to say. They are fairly plain. They say:
We suspect that some member of the Prime Minister's group, possibly some officious party slavey who might have regarded the railway system as strictly Liberal party property, in a fit of pique registered a complaint, and that this brought disaster to a lifetime of service. It is too bad it seems to us that the Prime Minister's name should have been linked with such a business.
Let me say that this is not any reference to what I said about the Prime Minister. This is their own reference. To continue:
This newspaper, which in this matter presumes to speak for the owners of the C.N.R. who happen to live in this city and who have had the privilege of having Mr. Pitt serve them, would like a fuller explanation from the hotel management and from the Prime Minister's office which, whether properly or not, is involved in the matter.
I should like to read again a sentence I read from the Winnipeg Tribune the other evening:
Was Mr. Pitt given any kind of fair trial? Were the complaints against him and his hotel investigated? There is no evidence that we have been able to uncover that the answer is in the affirmative to either of these questions. Rather, the answer seems to be that the hotel manager was removed from his job without proper investigation because someone in the government or close to the government had thundered. It will be a bad state of affairs for the Canadian National Railways if it is saddled with government interference in manage-
The Address-Mr. Howe
I believed and still believe that this house exists for the ventilation and the redress of grievances, and to prevent the exercise of arbitrary power by the executive. That is why I spoke. I repeat that the minister has made no answer to what I said, except the denial and the harping on the word "hearsay" as though it were a kind of spell or incantation. I have said that the facts I have quoted have not been denied in any way. Therefore all we have is this spell or incantation and the taking of refuge behind a denial of his own department and the railway.
My answer is that, however sincere the minister and the president of the railway may be in their denials, I believe that somewhere, somehow, someone has forgotten, or that perhaps the word "complaint"-and the word "complaint" was the one I used in my question-may have been construed in some narrow technical way so that an artificial denial could be given. In other words, I suggest that it is a denial of convenience.
As I said the other night, I still hope that in spite of everything that has happened the Prime Minister may take steps to see that this injustice is redressed as a kind oi Christmas present to the gods of justice.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I feel that 1 should say a further word on this matter Just let us review the great injustice tha1 has been perpetrated. A hotel manager has been moved, for reasons that I do not know from Winnipeg to Brandon. Apparently mj hon. friend claims that is a fate worse thar death. I never knew that Brandon was as bad a place as that. I thought Brandon wa: a rather pleasant city. I have stopped at thf hotel there, and I found it to be very comfortable. I just mention that aspect when we seek to measure the terrific injustice that ha: been perpetrated against Mr. Pitt.
My hon. friend gave me information whicl I did not have, namely that Mr. Pitt has beei transferred to Brandon at the same salary he was getting at the Fort Garry hotel My hon. friend goes into the reasons ant he speaks of facts. It is a fact that tin Prime Minister visited Winnipeg. He did no stop at the Fort Garry hotel, but he hai occasion to go there in order to attend ; meeting. I suppose he was in the hotel al of two hours during his visit. He went t the hotel. He was greeted by the committe in charge of the function he was attending He was greeted in the lobby. He went t the function and made his address. He wa escorted to the door by the committee and h departed. That is what the Prime Ministe tells me his visit to the Fort Garry hote
ment.

The Address-Mr. Howe amounted to. The Prime Minister said he shook hands with everybody in the group that greeted him in the lobby. He does not know whether he greeted the manager of the hotel or whether he did not. But it he did not, he did not know it, and certainly he made no complaint about it. I hope my hon. friend will accept that explanation. Having mentioned the Prime Minister in every sentence or two since he started to talk on this subject, I hope that he will in future omit the Prime Minister's name in this regard.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I said that before you did, and you know it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then why mention the Prime Minister's name? If the Prime Minister cannot go to Winnipeg, walk into a hotel and address a meeting and then walk out of the hotel without having his name bandied about from coast to coast and bandied about in this house on that account, it is. iust too bad, in my opinion. My hon. friend is certainly guilty-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Tell us about the unpleasantness.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All right, I will. I asked about that. I asked in the only quarters in which l am entitled to ask. I did not ask in railway -ircles, because it is none of my business what the railway does about its internal management, but I did ask two or three1 members of the party who registered at the Fort Garry on the previous day what had happened. Well, i wire was sent from the plane when it was .ound that it would be necessary to stop in Winnipeg on account of weather. Reserva-;ions were requested and were confirmed back o the plane. The party arrived there and the *ooms were not assigned for about an hour md twenty minutes, I believe, after they trrived.
Well, that was all right, but naturally it vas unpleasant for the party. I have had he same thing happen to me, and I have leen annoyed about it, but I have not com-ilained to the railway management about it. have not complained to the manager about t. I have groused a little to the desk clerk, erhaps. I daresay something of that kind appened; but every member of the party ssures me that they entered no complaint o the management, and I believe it. Why hould I not? Not only that, but the presi-ent of the railway says that no complaint ras entered to the management against what ad happened. Because the newspapers have hosen to associate that event with the trans-ir of the manager my hon. friend believes '>
and there is no evidence. What evidence ; there?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On the
information of labour people.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of labour? How would labour know what happened?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: They were in the hotel. They saw the unpleasantness, no doubt.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They saw the unpleasantness in
a party that included a minister of the crown, but not the Prime Minister? A minister of the crown was in the hotel lobby sitting on his bags. Since it was a considerable party it would be noticed, I presume.


An hon. Member:: Who did?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I say those who saw the thing-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister says the Prime Minister's party was there. He has got the wrong end of the story.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said nothing of the Prime Minister. I said a minister of the crown was there. I said the Prime Minister was in the hotel next day for about two hours attending a meeting. I do not know whether it was a luncheon meeting, but it was a meeting in the middle of the day. The Prime Minister did not register at the hotel; he had other sleeping arrangements, and therefore he is not involved in any delay at the hotel. There was a party, we will say, of five or six people who had had their reservations confirmed. They are delayed in being assigned rooms. That happens in hotels. It has happened to me and has happened to my hon. friend, and we both get a bit annoyed about it. These people were annoyed about it, but there is no evidence whatever-in fact I have the assurance of the men themselves that they made no complaint to the railway management. We have the assurance of the president of the railway that they did not complain, that no complaint was entered. My hon. friend thinks there is something behind this. Well, he is not flattering Donald Gordon. To believe that a complaint that someone was kept waiting in the hotel lobby for an hour and twenty minutes would be considered so serious that he would immediately transfer the manager is ridiculous. If Donald Gordon did that he is not fit to hold the job of president and I am perfectly certain that he did not do it.	.
If my hon. friend wants to know why this man was transferred, he has the privilege of taking up his complaint in the committee on railways and shipping, and if he does not follow up in the committee I will be there to remind him to do so. It is his duty to find out. He can demand the facts; he can demand the files on the man; he can demand the

operating records of the hotel. He can go to the bottom of this matter, and certainly it is his duty to this parliament to do so.
He says it is his right to redress a grievance. Well, there are grievances all the way from the trackmen up through the list of foremen, superintendents, managers who are retired, and so forth. I have had them all come to me-not all of them, but I have had a few of them come to me, and I have said: I am sorry, it has nothing to do with me. It is a matter for the railroad; and such is the situation as far as Mr. Pitt is concerned.
I do not know that I need say any more. I do say that not a fact has been presented by the hon. member. My hon. friend has before him the official return from Mr. Gordon, the official return from the Department of Transport. He can accept my statement made after questioning two or three members of the first party and of talking with the Prime Minister. He can accept my facts as correct or not, as he likes, but he has not presented one single fact to substantiate his position that the government was involved in the matter, or that it is a matter which he is entitled to take up on the floor of parliament.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question? Who were in this other party?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not remember all of them, but Mr. Robert Mayhew was the minister involved.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Which of them did you question?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I questioned Mr. Mayhew. He was in Canada at the time. He is not in Canada now; and I questioned one or two of the others. I do not remember who they were, but I questioned enough people to know-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who were the others?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I do not remember.


Arza Clair Casselman: Pickersgill?


James Arthur Ross: Who made the requests for the reservations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was made from the plane in flight; I imagine it was made by the pilot.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I rise to make a few observations on the Currie report, and a few other observations on the report of a royal commission that we are hoping to receive at an early date. Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The Address-Mr. Argue AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, along with other members who have spoken in this debate I was amazed at the contents of the Currie report. I think members of parliament generally will regret exceedingly that thefts have prevailed at the Petawawa camp to the extent disclosed by the report, and that there has been such a terrific waste of public funds. The types of thefts are now well known to members of the house. For instance, we hear of such things as the loss of 18,000 bags of cement and 550 tons of so-called scrap iron, part of which turned out to be not scrap at all but kitchen ranges, cannon heaters, shower stalls and sinks. This is something that all of us must regret exceedingly.
Reading through the report I was amazed to learn that there had been the loss of C.P.R. rails, and that immediately this loss was brought to the attention of persons at the camp they proceeded to tear up and steal the rails from the C.N.R. spur line, to replace the C.P.R. rails that had been taken.
It seems to me clear from the report that the responsibility is very definitely that of the Department of National Defence. If the department had been doing its job these thefts would not have taken place. In Mr. Currie's report, as it appears in Hansard at page 712, he says:	.
At Petawawa, however, the crooks were present and took advantage of the situation, and it is an unhappy circumstance that the beginning of this investigation lies not inside the Department of National Defence and its full complement of regulations and supervising personnel, but with the receipt of an anonymous letter.
The Department of National Defence, with its full complement of officers and personnel, was either unwilling or unable to discover that thefts were taking place. Placing the responsibility squarely on the laxity of the Department of National Defence, Mr. Currie goes to say:
It must be said that internal warnings had not been lacking in the Department of National Defence. The chief auditor of the department had performed his functions conscientiously. Time and again he had reported unsatisfactory conditions . . . The deputy minister in each case had directed the quartermaster general to investigate and report. Lack of adequate action at this point had, however, caused a progressive deterioration in the situation. Aside from reports being delayed for considerable periods of time, the record shows the next audit revealing conditions similar to those previously reported and, in some cases, worse. The process is then again repeated.
As I have said, the responsibility lies with the government, with the Department of National Defence. Under our system of responsible government, in my opinion the

The Address-Mr. Argue government is unable to make a scapegoat of anyone; because even though it may take action against the wrongdoers, nevertheless in the light of this report it is definitely responsible for having neglected to provide against such a possibility, even after having been warned periodically by the auditor.
This report is dated November 26. As one of the press representatives has said-I believe it was Mr. Blakely in this morning's Gazette-this is the date of the official version. And the date of the authorized version, the other edition, is exactly the same. We have had therefore two versions of this report.
Well, this is not the only report of a government commission of which we may have two versions. Members from Saskatchewan, in particular, have been hoping that the report of a royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river development project would be made public at an early date. We know, from the reply of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to a question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) on Friday, November 21, that the report was ready as early as November 19, except for printing, and that according to a letter received by the Prime Minister from the secretary of the commission it was expected that the printing and publication would take place by December 15.
We are now waiting for the Prime Minister to table that report in the house, so that we may see what is in it. I think we have an inkling already of what it may contain, because Mr. V. J. Mackie, a very responsible member of the press gallery, in an article appearing in the Regina Leader-Post of November 22 had this to say:
The royal commission does not recommend that the proposed irrigation and power project be proceeded with, on the grounds that it would be too costly to undertake at present.
The report will suggest an alternative, but much less ambitious, development of the Saskatchewan river, it was learned.
Well, apparently the experience we have had in regard to the Currie report is being repeated at least to some extent in connection with the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan dam, because as long ago as November 22 this press representative makes a categorical statement as to the main findings of the commission. I think it is the duty of the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to produce the report of that royal commission to this house before the Christmas recess. I can tell the Prime Minister that if the royal ddmmission recommends against the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam members of parliament from western Canada, at

least members of this group, will have something to say about it. We will condemn the abandonment of that project, whether or not the royal commission is in fact recommending against it.
I should like to know if the contents of this article sum up the report of that royal commission. If the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan dam is adverse, then in the light of Liberal promises made in every election since 1935, especially by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), I believe it will be found that the Liberal party has lost the confidence of the people of Saskatchewan.
It seems clear to me that with the bringing to light of the Currie report, with its damning evidence against the Department of National Defence, the whole government now lacks the confidence of the Canadian people. I suggest to the government that in view of the Currie report, and particularly if the royal commission should make an adverse recommendation as to the building of the South Saskatchewan river dam, the best thing it can do is go to the people of Canada in a general election at a date as early as is practicable having in view road and weather conditions.
I turn now to a matter of local interest which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). I refer to the request that has been made for the erection of a federal building in the town of Assiniboia. The population of that town is around 2,400. It is a progressive and growing town; it is a town in which new places of business are opening every year, and it should have a federal building.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member has just mentioned that we have lost the confidence of the people. Does he think I would dare bring in an item for his post office?


Hazen Robert Argue: If the estimates are brought down at this session I suggest in all seriousness to the Minister of Public Works that he include an item for a federal building in Assiniboia. I do not think the people of Canada, at any rate the people of Saskatchewan, are going to return many Liberals to parliament, but no matter; I do feel that the people of Assiniboia are deserving of such a building. The premises now being used for a post office are rented, and a new federal building could be used not only for the post office but for the local detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the federal officials working for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I want to refer now to what I consider is the plight of agricultural producers, particularly the producers of livestock and dairy

products. I followed with interest the proceedings of the recent dominion-provincial conference on agricultural matters, and I was concerned with the many reports released by officials of the federal government who were attending that conference. According to the Regina Leader-Post of October 24 the Minister of Agriculture stated at a public meeting:
"Our livestock difficulty is not there because of anyone's wish," he said, "but because of foot-and-mouth disease".
Then it continued1:
"If we could keep our livestock on our farms and feed our surplus grain to it we would solve both problems.
I think there is an increasing indication that today livestock prices in Canada are not at a low figure because of foot-and-mouth disease or because of the loss of the United States livestock market. I should like to quote from a press release which was made at the dominion-provincial conference concerning statements made by officials of the federal Department of Agriculture. One statement referring to the United States was as follows:
The number of cattle slaughtered has begun to increase this year with a more rapid rise in prospect for 1953.
And again:
A further easing of prices received by farmers is suggested for 1953 whereas the index of prices paid by farmers will likely be slightly higher.
Referring to the United States market this official states that there is likely to be a further easing of United States cattle prices. Referring to Canada, this press release stated:
A decline in Canadian livestock prices in 1953 from corresponding levels a year ago will probably result from increased marketings and an anticipated further easing of United States prices. This decrease is likely to be more pronounced in cattle and calves than in hogs, with least change in prices of lamb and mutton.
There we have Department of Agriculture officials saying that 1953 will see a further lowering of cattle and livestock prices in Canada. There has been a terrific fall in livestock prices in Canada from the autumn of 1951 until the present time, and the best prospect officials of the minister's own department can hold out is that Canadian livestock prices will go down even further. Dealing with the farmer's general income position in relation to his 1952 income, the press release had this to say:
Although farm cash income from the sale of farm products and from participation payments may reach a new all-time high, it is estimated that a lower income in kind, reduced values of year-end inventory changes and higher operating costs will serve to provide a net farm income about 5 per cent below a year ago.
The forecast is that farm net income for 1952 will be 5 per cent below farm net income in 1951. It goes on to say that farm
The Address-Mr. Argue income is also expected to be somewhat lower in 1953. In other words the position of the farmer is worsening. Even though the United States market will be opened on March 1 the officials of the minister's department hold out no hope for an increase in livestock prices. In fact they say that there will be a further decrease in Canadian livestock prices. The Financial Post of December 13 contained an article on the front page entitled: "Cattle Prices May go Down, Won't Lift With U. S. Ban."
It says:
Thousands of Canadian farmers who are planning to withhold their cattle from the home market in anticipation of higher prices when the United States embargo comes off March 1 may be in for a rude shock. Unless there is a big change in the next two months, and top beef authorities in both countries cannot see it now, Canadian farmers will be forced to take sizable cuts in most cattle prices to get into the big United States market, cuts that could make today's domestic prices look pretty attractive. On the basis of today's prices, for instance, Canada could market only one class of beef cattle in the United States, choice steers. That class represents some 5 per cent to 10 per cent of total normal marketings in this country. None of the big volume cattle types could lay down competitively in the United States after freight, tariff, brokerage and exchange. Here is the current price differential.
Then follow figures with respect to the differential between Canadian and United States cattle prices. If the embargo were lifted now Canadian choice steers, red label beef steers, probably would go up by $1.30 a hundredweight. Good steers probably would go down by $4.30. Canadian commercial steers would drop $5.35 a hundredweight. Commercial cows, good, would drop $2.50 a hundredweight; utility cows would drop $1.80 a hundredweight and canner cows would drop $1.50 a hundredweight. The article to which I have referred shows that the opening of the United States market now to permit Canadian cattle to go into that country and United States cattle to come into Canada would have the effect of lowering Canadian beef prices instead of raising them.
Therefore before the Christmas recess begins I should like an explanation from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) of his statement that the only trouble with the livestock industry today is the fact that the United States market has been closed. I should like an explanation of his statement that the thing for farmers to do to solve our surplus grain problem and our inadequate livestock market is to feed our livestock on the farms. If the farmers keep back, as they have been asked by the minister to do, increased numbers of livestock on the farms at the present time, the only effect that can possibly have is a further lowering of prices

The Address-Mr. Argue when these livestock are placed on the market some months from now. I have here a Canadian Press dispatch from Winnipeg dated December 11, which reads:
United States cattle prices are due for a 20 per cent slump in the next four years as beef on the hoof nears 100 million, highest production level in the country's history, Wayne Darrow, president of Farm Reports Incorporated, Washington, said today. In Winnipeg to address the Winnipeg stock exchange annual meeting, Mr. Darrow said in an interview the United States herds are reproducing so fast the American population gain can't keep up.
We have had a dominion-provincial conference on farm matters, and the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture's own officials are almost consistently gloomy. They are forecasting lower livestock prices and a lower net income for agricultural producers. In view of the difficulty we are having in finding adequate markets for beef, pork, cheese, eggs and poultry products, I think the Minister of Agriculture owes it to the house and to the country to make a statement in parliament outlining the position of the agri-;ultural industry and advising our agricultural producers as to what they should do in order to receive the highest possible return in the coming year. I have in my hand the dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin for Thursday, December 11. In it there is one paragraph headed, "Drop in Index Number of Farm Prices of Agricultural Products in October", which reads as follows:
Canada's index number of farm prices of agricultural products dropped in October to 243-5-
Mark this.
-the lowest monthly standing since April, 1948.
Farm product prices in October of this year were at their lowest point since April, 1948. While farm prices have been going down since April, 1948, farm costs have been .ncreasing at an alarming rate. In 1949, for example, the index number of farm prices of igricultural products was 255-4 while the 'armers' cost of production index was 204-1. in 1950 the agricultural prices index was !60-8 while the farm costs index was 210-4. in 1951 the index of prices of agricultural products for the whole year was 296 * 9 while ;he index of farm costs was 229-9. For October of this year the index number of 'arm prices of agricultural products was 243 [DOT] 5 while the index of farm costs was 543 -4.
In other words, according to those figures )f the dominion bureau of statistics Canadian igricultural producers on a relative basis are n exactly the same position now as they were n the base period of 1935-39. I say that when igriculture is now placed in the position in which it was from 1935 to 1939 it is becoming i depressed industry; and it is becoming a

depressed industry because of the policies or lack of policies of this government. Of course members of the cabinet get up and brag about employment statistics, the high national income, the very large gross national product, and they say we have prosperity throughout Canada. There may be prosperity throughout Canada today, but we are rapidly approaching a situation where there may be general prosperity for all but the agriculture industry, which may face a depression.
When the agricultural index figures show that agricultural product prices for October of this year are no better than the prices of agricultural products based on costs of production in the period from 1935 to 1939, then agriculture in Canada is not in a very healthy position. On January 1 the Minister of Agriculture is going to drop the support price of hogs by $3 a'hundredweight, from $26 to $23. The government are following a policy of cutting floor prices to the very bottom in the hope that they may prevent full production by the agricultural industry. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) tells us every time we ask for an increase in the old age pension or the family allowance, or every time anyone suggests that the government should reduce taxes, that the only hope of increased services or decreased taxes is through greater production in Canada, a real increase in the gross national product. While the Minister of Finance is telling Canadians that they must work harder and produce more the Minister of Agriculture is telling the farmers, by the actions he takes, that he is afraid of their production. He wants them to cut hog production, beef production, poultry production, right down the line.
There was one reference during the dominion-provincial agricultural conference that did not appear so bleak. At one point one of the economists said that the future may not be too bad for the Canadian turkey industry. He pointed out that turkey prices are away down this fall, and said that no doubt turkey producers are going to cut production to such an extent that those that stay in the business can expect higher prices next year. I believe that is a bankrupt policy if I ever heard one.
I do not commend a minister very often, but I want to commend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the government upon the fact that we have, and have had now for a number of years, a Canadian wheat board handling the marketing of all western grain. No party has more consistently supported the Canadian wheat board than the party to which I have the honour to belong. I want to say that I appreciate a statement made by the Minister

of Trade and Commerce when he spoke to the investment dealers' association of Canada in Toronto on October 28 of this year. I wish the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would study that address very carefully, and I wish he would apply to the rest of the agricultural industry the same type of provision that is now made for the grain producers of western Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce had this to say:
In a year like the present, when handling facilities are congested, you can well imagine what an advantage it is for one marketing agency to have full control over the main western grain crops, and to be able to sell them and move them to market as opportunity arises.
He went on to say that the wheat board had successfully marketed last year's crop much of which was of a very low grade, and that this was one of the most remarkable achievements in the history of the grain trade. At another point he said:
-I believe that the wheat board has been able to handle the western crop, during the war and since the war, more successfully than it could have been handled by any other marketing method.
The minister pointed out that because of the way the wheat board is operated, all the producers in any given year get exactly the same price for a given grade of grain. I do not need to repeat that I support the Canadian wheat board and the wheat board system of marketing grain. I should like to see the Minister of Agriculture and this government set up a livestock board or agricultural products board along the lines of the Canadian wheat board, to assemble such agricultural products as beef, dairy and poultry products going into interprovincial and export trade, set a proper initial price and pay the farmers the same prices for the products after the year is completed and the final payment is made.
I see that my time is going, Mr. Speaker, and I have an amendment to move. In order to protect myself against loss of time I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright):
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following:
"(f) To recommehd legislation providing for the payment to producers, in respect of farm-stored grain, of an advance equal to 75 per cent of the initial price as established at August 1 in each crop year."
A few days ago I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he would consider making such an advance payment. He said that such a payment was not needed this year because the farmers had marketed more grain this year than in the same period last year, and they were receiving total final payments amounting to $158 million. I want to point out to the minister and to
The Address-Mr. Argue the house just what this final payment means to the average wheat producer.
According to the 1951 census there were 248,716 occupied farms in the three prairie provinces. As reported in the last grain statistics weekly, the grain marketed up to November 27 of this crop year amounted- this is my estimate on the basis of initial prices-to $335 million. This works out to an average income for the western farmer from the sale of grain of $1,350. Participation payments for each farmer averaged $630. This meant that up until that time a farmer had received or was about to receive in payments on grain, both the initial payment and the final payment, something in the neighbourhood of $2,000 each. This is a small gross income, out of which the farmer has to pay his living expenses; his land taxes; pay for machinery; for petroleum products, and the other costs. Certainly this indicates that the average farmer needs some other provision, which I suggest should be an advance payment on farm-stored grain.
I have heard it said, Mr. Speaker, by various members over a cup of coffee that the western farmer is rolling in money; that the Saskatchewan farmer has never made more money in his history. I have heard it said that if you want to find the western farmers in the wintertime go to California, Florida or Texas; and if you cannot find them all there you may find a few of them in British Columbia. Apparently a lot of eastern people believe that the average farmer in Saskatchewan has three or four sections of land, has modern equipment, works a few months a year and spends the winters in the southern United States. I have the census figures which illustrate the size of farms in Saskatchewan. I find that of the various categories of farms by far the largest number were in the category between 240 and 399 acres. I find that 29,000 farmers in Saskatchewan out of 112,000 operated a farm equal to a half section of good land or three-quarters of a section, one-quarter of which was not entirely under cultivation. Farmers who owned more than five quarters of good arable land amounted to only 8 per cent of the total number of farmers. The farmers of western Canada are on the whole not large land owners but farmers with a half or three-quarters of a section, and it is in the interests of the vast majority of farmers that I am proposing this further subamendment.
I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that United States farmers are able to obtain a loan on farm-stored grain. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that the banks will lend the farmers money. I saw a statement in the Regina Leader-Post, I believe
790	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low it was about November 30, in which the bank officials said they were prepared to lend money on farm-stored grain provided the grain was in good condition and the farmer was in a sound financial position. I am afraid not all those farmers about whom I have been talking, because 80 per cent or more are relatively small farmers, would be able to convince the banks that they were in a sound financial position.
In this proposal, I am not asking for any money from the federal treasury. I am asking for legislation to make provision for the advancing of money on farm-stored grain. I believe it is the best security in the world, and I believe the farmers would be prepared to pay a nominal rate of interest to cover all the costs involved.
Another reason I feel such a proposition should be implemented is the further fact that the farmer is perhaps not the person who suffers most when he cannot sell his grain. The person who suffers greatly, in my opinion, is the businessman in our small communities. A farmer may owe $1,000 or $2,000. A small businessman may have on his books $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000. He knows the accounts are good. The grain is in the bins. But the farmers are unable to sell their grain as rapidly as they would wish and for that reason are unable to speedily pay their accounts.
I moved a similar amendment last year. At that time the hon. member for The Battle-fords (Mr. Bater) moved a subamendment. That subamendment wiped out almost all of my amendment, certainly that part of it in which I was interested. His amendment thanked the government for everything they had done for the farmer. That was fine. This amendment I am now moving is a subamendment and, as I understand the rules, we shall have an opportunity to vote on the subamendment. I ask the hon. members from western Canada, particularly those from Saskatchewan, no matter to which party they may belong, to consider this amendment carefully. I submit that they should vote for it on the basis of the advantage which will accrue to the people they represent.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity of saying a word about the Currie report, for two reasons. The first and most important one is that I had already exhausted the time I had under the subamendment which we had moved. I therefore could not speak again until now. The second is that I wanted to read the report most carefully and to weigh as calmly and as carefully as possible every word in it, in pursuance of the request made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)


yesterday. I have now given it as much consideration as I can in the time I have had, and I should like just to sum up briefly the attitude I take toward it.
I think there are three things more particularly about which I find myself concerned, and I believe these will be the things that will concern the people of the country as well. The first is that the report is full of evidence that what we told the government two years ago was correct. On several occasions we warned the government that they would have to use vision and foresight, and that they would have to make careful provision against possible wrongdoing, graft and dishonesty because their defence effort was growing bigger every year and would therefore offer greater opportunity for these evils.
The people of the country are certainly going to be greatly alarmed over the evidence of lack of vision and foresight on the part of top or near-top officials of government, as revealed in the report. The government must have known that the bigger the defence effort, the greater would be the opportunity for waste, dishonesty and graft. To me it is surprising-and I suppose it will be surprising to everyone in the country who thinks about it-that, under the circumstances, the government did not see fit to place in responsible positions of authority first-class administrators with adequate training so they could administer the billions of dollars that are being spent and see to it that a system was provided that would prevent waste and graft. Civil administrators of top ability were not appointed and placed in proper positions, although adequate warning came from this side of the house on various occasions. The government therefore really has no excuse.
The second thing about which the people are going to be greatly concerned is this. There are plenty of indications that officials in responsible positions have winked at and continue to wink at evidence of wrongdoing; and they continue to do this until the accumulation of irregularities grows so big as to excite the public in the area in which they have occurred to make complaints and ask for an investigation. In the report of Mr. Currie there seems to be plenty of evidence that a breakdown of morality followed a breakdown of watchfulness and control in the Department of National Defence. If a blind eye continues to be turned toward the serious breaches of regulations, the question most of us ask is this: how long will it be until the whole administration is shot through with immorality? That is the big issue. The government should crack down hard on those who are guilty; and in doing so they must not overlook the people in top positions. They are guilty. There is no question about that.

The third thing I found that concerned me greatly was the situation with which we are confronted when anyone would attempt to tamper with royal commission reports, to change them in order to soften the impact of the findings on the people concerned. I think it is a shocking situation that has been laid bare here in these past two days, and the taxpayers of the country will not be insensible to the fantastic things that have been revealed. I cannot reach any other conclusion in connection with this matter than that the government must take the full responsibility. Inasmuch as that is so, it seems to me that I must add my voice to the voices of those who have already asserted that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) ought to resign.
Perhaps there are others who ought to resign along with him. It is that subject that I should like to talk about for the next few minutes. What I have to say now, Mr. Speaker, was occasioned by a speech made in this house on the evening of December 4, to which I have not yet had a chance to reply.
I should like to refer in a general way to the speech that was made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) that evening. The case he made then was sound, wholly sound. I should like to emphasize the fact that his arguments appeared at that time to register with some of his frightened Liberal colleagues in this house, but they certainly fell flat in Alberta. The people out there are well enough informed that speeches like the one the minister made serve only to convince them that they have made a serious mistake in sending down to parliament a man who cannot do a better job than he did on that occasion.
To all of us who watched the minister as he delivered his speech it was quite evident that the arguments that were written into it did not appeal greatly even to him. He says he wrote it himself. He therefore will have to take full responsibility for it and for what I have to say. I think he might learn that ghost-writers can be a terrible handicap. The beggars are never around to take the rap when the rap comes. Perhaps we should not be too severe on the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys because giving that speech was likely one of the prices he had to pay to his party for the privilege of being Alberta's only cabinet minister.
These things seem to carry their price tags, especially in the Liberal party. This past summer I saw the minister's buddy doing some chore-boy footwork for the party around various communities in the Peace river country. That was likely to pay off his debt for the security he obtained. I am speaking now of the senator from Alberta. It
The Address-Mr. Low must have seemed queer to the house to watch the spectacle of a minister of the crown in this parliament firing the first gun in the Peace River election campaign, a constituency that is over 300 miles from his own constituency of Edmonton West. Hon. members did not know that the minister had been laying the groundwork for that campaign for over a year.
This was not the first instance. I want to give the background to measure what he had to say, because one has to have it. Early this year the minister went to the radio bureau in Ottawa requesting the right to participate in the free -time reports from parliament hill over the radio station in the Peace river country, and he based his demand on the argument that there were certain people in a remote part of his constituency of West Edmonton who could not be reached over the two Edmonton stations, although no part of his riding is more than a few miles from those stations while the station in Grande Prairie is 340 miles from the farthest elector in the West Edmonton constituency. Well, he got the time over the air, and he has been sharing that free time with me over station CFGP in Grande Prairie. Therefore it was not surprising, sir, that the minister carried his Peace River campaign into this house. But what is surprising and almost beyond belief is that a responsible minister of the federal government, the only one Alberta has down here, would rise in his place in this house and make such utterly irresponsible statements as he did a week ago last Thursday night.
People have a right to the truth, particularly from men in the responsible position of ministers of the crown.


Mr. Prudham:: That is what they got from me.


Solon Earl Low: I will examine that in minute detail, and we shall let the people judge for themselves on the basis of the facts and the evidence, not just hearsay, or what some ghost-writer puts in.
The minister showed himself to be more irresponsible than any other minister in my experience, Mr. Speaker, and I have seen a lot of them come and go. I am going to say that his speech was full of half-truths and misrepresentations. There were at least two distortions, out of all semblance to their real selves; and there was one statement-well, I do not say it was a complete distortion, Mr. Speaker, it was totally wrong. The minister must have had his green spectacles on when he read what I heard him say here on the 25th day of November, because he did not seem to know that I did not say that his trip to the Peace river was a casual one. I never made any such statement at any time. I did
792	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low say that he had gone up there to attend a nominating convention, and at that nominating convention made certain statements and cast some rather serious personal aspersions, one of which was that I was not sincere. Well, I was answering that, and the speech he gave the other night in the house was an answer to what I said. I will not take much time to deal with the minister's transparent effort-and it was a transparent effort -to belittle me and hold me up to ridicule.
I am of course grateful to the minister for revealing this far ahead what kind of personal attack he and his Liberal party will launch against me in the federal election campaign next year. You know, it is a good thing to know ahead, because good strategy says: find out what your enemy wants you to do and just do not do it. I thank him for letting me know of it. The only thing he and his party can find to criticize in the eight years I have represented the Peace River constituency is that I do not live there.
The minister says the people of that district are becoming very much aware of the fact that they should have a member of their own community representing them. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals up in Peace River and the minister over the radio are doing their level best to whip up that kind of sentiment by every means, fair or foul, they can think of. Let me make it clear that I have never at any time felt that the people of the Peace river country could not find plenty of individuals amongst themselves who are perfectly capable of representing them in this house; but I did not seek the nomination, and I would like the minister to know that. I did not seek the nomination in Peace River;
I was invited, and I was strongly pressed and urged by the people up there to let my name stand for nomination both in 1945 and in 1949. And I will just tell the minister something else that he seems to forget. In 1945 when the people of the Peace river country held their Social Credit nominating convention I was not even there. I was nominated in absentia, and was notified by telegram that that had been done.
In the intervening years I believe that I have served the people of the constituency well. Most electors up there admit that every section and every corner of the vast constituency, one of the biggest in Canada if not the biggest, have seen me, their Social Credit member, more often and more regularly than they have ever seen their other representatives, including the Liberal ones they have had. I have made a sustained and conscious effort to do my duty to those I represent, and from the evidence I found on my most recent journey through that great constituency the 

vast majority of the people up there have appreciated the efforts I have made and the service I have earnestly tried to give them.
It is true that I live in Ottawa, but so does every other party leader; but of course the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys did not want to be fair about that and grant me the same privilege he grants to his own party leader and to other party leaders as well. He claims, of course, that he lives in Edmonton. The fact is that he lives in Ottawa and continues to own a home in south Edmonton. Let me make it abundantly clear that I do not begrudge him owning that home. If he owned three I would say we ought to be glad we live in a country where people can own three homes if they want to. I say that is his own right, and he does live in Ottawa to carry on his work; but not many of us, sir, can afford two homes. Most of us have a hard enough time to carry the expenses of one home; but those of us who are called to party leadership find that we must live in Ottawa to be able to faithfully and efficiently do the work that devolves upon us. Of course it would hardly be expected that the minister would be moved by any feelings of justice and fairness in such matters, inasmuch as some political advantage might be lost if he did so.
I should like to turn for just a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to some of the particulars of the speech the minister gave, because I want to substantiate what I said at the beginning that his speech was full of half-truths, told as if they were whole truths, misrepresentations and distortions; and if I cannot do this then I shall proceed in the minister's presence to eat this whole Hansard.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Will you eat the Alberta story too?


Solon Earl Low: In the first place I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the minister seemed to be very concerned about the Peace river country, and he spoke very well about it. I was glad to hear him say the wonderful things he did, because it is a great country. But I am interested in this particular thing. They say that in 1492 Columbus discovered America; in 1952 it appears that the Liberals have discovered the Peace river. That is most interesting to me. He told some very interesting things about the Peace river country. I do not know why, but he got it mixed up with British Columbia building a little connecting highway from very near the Alberta border to Prince George. At any rate, he said the people of the Peace river district looked forward to the day when they could have rail transportation to the Pacific coast. Well, I say, "Yes", just as I did when

the minister was speaking. They certainly do look forward to that. Let me point out just a few things that perhaps the minister has not reviewed.
In the election campaign of 1925 the prime minister and leader of the Liberal party promised an Edmonton audience that the Liberal party would make the Peace River country the spearhead of that party's program. That was in 1925. Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King assured a lot of Peace River people that that would be done. There were a lot of Peace River people at the Edmonton meeting and the Liberals wanted a Liberal member up there, you see. In the 1926 campaign this same Liberal leader told a similar audience in Edmonton that he would build a coast outlet to the Peace river country as soon as it was humanly possible-to get votes, of course. Then when the 1930 election campaign got under way Mr. Mackenzie King told another Edmonton political gathering that he would support the construction of a railway from the Peace river country to the Pacific coast within one year, if the railway companies failed to build a coast outlet within the year. At about the same time Sir Henry Thornton, then president of the Canadian National Railways, said that when grain shipments from the Peace river country reached 10 million bushels per year, the railway from the Peace river to the coast would be built.
Well, this is the final month of 1952, and that great country of the mighty Peace is in much the same position with regard to rail transportation as it was in 1925, except that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) has again said that the Peace river country ought to have a railway to the coast.
Twenty-seven years of promises, broken Liberal promises, are all the people of my constituency have had, and no rail outlet westward is in sight even yet, despite the fact that the total yearly grain production has reached almost four times the 10 million bushels that were held by the president of the C.N.R. to be necessary before his company would begin building that railroad.
My constituency of Peace River does, indeed, need a rail outlet to the coast. The vast majority of the people out there have no confidence whatever in Liberal promises.	So they are prepared to support a movement that has demonstrated that it just does not go around at election time making idle promises. They know that a Social Credit government at Ottawa would have that railway between
The Address-Mr. Low Hines Creek and Dawson Creek extended to Prince Rupert and/or Vancouver in its first term of office.
The Peace river country is even now one of the greatest food producing, timber producing and mineral producing areas in America; and the 65,000 people up there are entitled to better treatment than they have had at the hands of a Liberal government here in Ottawa. They are carrying a transportation burden away beyond their ability to bear, and certainly away beyond what they should bear.
The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys made a statement in connection with conservation in Alberta. He claimed there was no conservation being carried on, and then he said:
One place in Alberta where conservation is being practised is on the important eastern slopes of the Rockies where under a federal-provincial arrangement a splendid timber and water conservation program is being carried out. In this case, under the joint agreement, the federal government is contributing the major share of the required funds, close to $4 million to date.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I admit that there is a very, very wonderful joint conservation program going on. I admit openly, and have done for many years, right before this House of Commons, that the eastern slope of the Rockies agreement is a splendid agreement. But what the minister does not tell the people, when he makes reference to this matter, is that for a good many years Alberta carried the total cost of preserving the watershed on the eastern slope of the Rockies, which gives rise to interprovincial waters and therefore becomes essentially a federal matter.


George Prudham: How much did they spend on it?


Solon Earl Low: We spent a good many hundred thousand dollars before we even got the federal government to come in. As far back as 1937 and 1938 I recall making visits to Ottawa as one of the ministers of the crown of Alberta. I was accompanied by Hon. Mr. Tanner, and we pleaded with the federal government to take action and help us preserve the eastern slope of the Rockies. It took them a good long time to make up their minds that it was at least partially a federal responsibility.
I do not mind admitting that the federal government are now doing a good job, and the provincial government are doing a good job along with them. But what I do mind is efforts on the part of the minister to make it appear that the federal government proceeded alone to do this whole thing.


George Prudham: I did not say that. I said it was a joint effort.

The Address-Mr. Low


Solon Earl Low: The minister made the statement, ofiiy a half-truth, that the federal government has already done the lion's share. Let me say this, that at the time the negotiations were under way for legislation making provision for a commission to deal with the eastern slope of the Rockies, a former minister of mines and resources, Mr. Glen, had this to say on February 28, 1947, as reported at page 889 of Hansard:
May I add a word of appreciation of the wholehearted co-operation extended by Premier Manning and the Hon. Mr. Tanner in working out the details of the arrangement. In our discussions at no time did they forget the wider interests involved.
Now, if the minister would indicate a similar attitude, I am certain he would feel the warmth of complete co-operation, too.
Then here is another half-truth: The minister referred to oil and gas development. He said it would not have been possible but for the federal geological surveys and studies, as well as the production of federal maps ever since 1873. Well, we recognize, and we always have recognized, the work of the federal department. But let me just point out that the Liberals sat on the oil in the province of Alberta for a long time without developing it. I say that it is providential for the people of this country that the discovery of oil came as it did come and when it did come, at a time when a government was in office in that province that would see to it that the development took place, and that such development was carried out in the interests of the people.


George Prudham: Do you think Providence arranged it that way?


Solon Earl Low: If I had the time I could easily make some comparisons showing the development of resources in provinces that have been presided over for a long time by Liberal governments. The share of the resources recovered for the people in those provinces would bear a mighty puny relationship to what has been recovered out of the resources developed in Alberta. I might point out that in an article written recently by none other than the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Nickle) as reported in the Calgary Herald, he said:
During the first six months of the current fiscal year, from April 1 to September 30, the Alberta government poured into its bulging treasury an estimated total of $31,338,000 setting a new record half-year "take" from the 132 million acres of crown petroleum and natural gas rights administered by that government on behalf of the joint owners, Alberta's 900,000 citizens.
And let me say just this to the minister, that when he talks about the great help the federal government has given to the oil industry, I wonder if he will claim credit for the

crown reserves idea. Does he claim credit for the checkerboard idea? Does he claim credit for the idea of the lease, rental and royalty system? Those are the things that count, not just the fact that some maps and surveys were supplied although, as I say, we fully appreciate what the minister and his department have done over the years.
In the course of his speech the minister had something to say about coal. I should like to read his statement in this connection as it is reported at page 356 of Hansard:
On the other hand, so far as the coal industry is concerned, in my opinion the Alberta government, though it has collected large sums in royalties, has done little to assist the industry in a practical way. Actually a total of over $6 million in royalties, fees, rentals and mineral taxes has been collected by the Social Credit government from coal mines in Alberta since it came into office. I want to make it quite clear, however, that the Alberta research council, within the scope of its limited facilities, has co-operated at all times with federal agencies. The relations between the scientists of the council and the scientists of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys have always been most cordial and mutually helpful.
Well, the implications of the last part of that statement are that relations between the minister's department and government departments in Alberta are not so good. That is the only implication I can take from it.


George Prudham: Oh, no, I did not say that.


Solon Earl Low: I shall leave it to the people who read this to say if that is not so. I think it is quite understandable in the light of the speech made the other day by the minister. If he would not come down here and slander his own province in connection with what is going on there he would be able to expect a whole lot more co-operation than he seems to get.
While we are talking about coal, and in the light of the statement the minister made, I took the trouble to inquire of the department in Alberta that has to do with coal just what were the facts. I should like to place on the record what the minister of mines and minerals of Alberta, none other than Premier Manning, had to say. I quote:
Alberta has consistently pressed for a national coal policy which the federal government to date has failed to establish. Nature of federal subventions discourages planning long term operations and substantial capital investments in operating equipment. Federal government has failed to prescribe and enforce proper standardization and classification of coal sold with resultant adverse effect on Alberta mines. Since nineteen thirty five four hundred and seven thousand dollars spent on coal research and eight hundred and sixty four thousand on mine safety.
I leave it to the people who read both those statements to decide whether the minister was telling the truth or whether he was telling just a very small fraction of the truth.

The Address-Mr. Low


George Prudham: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. member has suggested that I was not telling the truth.


Solon Earl Low: I said that the people of the country, with those two statements before them, what the minister said and what I have put on the record as factual, would be able to determine whether the minister was telling the truth or a fraction of the truth.


George Prudham: The statistics I quoted can be verified from the bureau of statistics figures. Any figure I gave can be verified from official sources. I resent very much the insinuation that I was not telling the truth.


Solon Earl Low: As I said, I shall let it rest and the people can see for themselves when the minister stands up with all the figures at his disposal and says, as reported on page 356 of Hansard:
On the other hand, so far as the coal industry is concerned, in my opinion the Alberta government, though it has collected large sums in royalties, has done little to assist the industry in a practical way.
I have shown already how much money the Alberta government has spent in assisting the coal industry. That seems to me to speak for itself. Then the minister is reported on page 357 of Hansard as having said:
In Edmonton a great monument has been built to the high priest of the Social Credit, the late William Aberhart. It is a beautiful, up-to-date and modern sanatorium. The federal Department of National Health and Welfare contributed $600,000 to the cost of that building, including furnishings and equipment. So far as I have been able to find out the provincial government has not at any time publicly acknowledged this assistance.
I am sure that subtle dig at the fact that Mr. Aberhart was a minister of the gospel will not be lost on the people of Alberta. I am certain that it will be noted and resented by a good many people in the minister's own constituency. But the point I want to get over is that in various places in his speech of December 4 the minister said that the province of Alberta had failed to acknowledge certain gifts by the federal government. In every single instance, including this item of $600,000 contributed by the federal government toward the construction of the Aberhart sanatorium in Edmonton, the money was earned by the province by living up to certain prerequisites laid down in statutes passed by this parliament. In other words, the things we have earned are statutory. I take it for granted that when we earn them by living up to certain regulations, it is just the same as subsidies and over the years it would become an old payment. If you earned it you would get it. There was not a single thing mentioned by the minister that does
not come within that category. I do not suppose the minister meant that every time we earned one of these things we should put up a sign that the federal government in its beneficence has given us something.
The thing the minister does not say is that all the federal government is doing is paying back to Alberta some of what it has taken out of Alberta in the form of taxation. He has tried to get over to the people of my constituency and others that the federal government has been paying sums of money to the people of Alberta. The fact is, according to bureau of statistics figures which I have right here, that total expenditures in 1951 in Alberta by the federal government were not equal to the income tax alone taken out of that province. I shall be glad to furnish these figures to the minister so he can see for himself. Both statements are here. That is a point of fairness to be considered. The federal government are not giving the people of Alberta anything. They are simply giving back some of what they think the people of Alberta have not brains enough to administer for themselves. That is why they are centralizing financial authority in the federal government, something which we have fought against for many years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does Alberta want to look after its own defence?


Solon Earl Low: We are prepared to pay our share of the cost of defence. We have never complained about that, but we have never heard any complaints that we do not raise a flag or standard every time you spend a dollar on defence in Alberta.


George Prudham: You even put the oil in the ground.


Solon Earl Low: Oh, now. Here is another misrepresentation, and I refer again to page 357 of Hansard where the minister is reported as follows:
The matter of highway construction is yet another example of federal aid. The trans-Canada highway, which is being constructed in Alberta, is without question the best engineered and best constructed highway in the province. This has been done under supervision of the Department of Resources and Development. Approximately $1U million of federal money has been spent to date on this one highway. It is hoped that the provincial government will in future follow the same engineering practices that have been instituted on that project, and endeavour to bring the provincial highways up to a safe standard.
And again:
It is my observation that the provincial highways in Alberta very closely resemble the Social Credit movement; they have a very expensive top but no solid foundation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
796	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low


Solon Earl Low: I am glad hon. members opposite applaud that remark, because it indicates that they join in what the minister has said and furthermore there is an implication that they approve. We will see what the facts are. That whole statement is couched in such a form as to suggest that federal government shares the cost not only of the trans-Canada highway but of other highways in the province. That is misleading.


George Prudham: No, it does not.


Solon Earl Low: We will let that pass. I want to put on the record the facts about the trans-Canada highway. I took the trouble to refer what the minister had said to the proper officials in Alberta, and I am going to read into the record what they gave me from their own records. I quote:
Prudham's highway statements ridiculous to a point that it makes it hard to believe they were made by responsible federal official. ' All main arterial highways including trans-Canada in Alberta being constructed-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is it parliamentary to read a statement from another government into the record?


An hon. Member:: Of course it is.


Solon Earl Low: Of course it is.


James Arthur Ross: It is difficult for you people to understand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister is asking if it is parliamentary to read-did he say the orders of another government?


Solon Earl Low: A statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To read a statement of another government into the record of this parliament.


Mr. Fulton:: You knew it all the time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, it is unparliamentary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In order to throw some light upon the point, perhaps the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) would tell the house what is the source of his information.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I referred the words of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) with respect to Alberta highways, contained in the speech which I just quoted, to the department of highways of the Alberta government and asked for the facts. I am now reading into the record the facts given me by the premier as he got them from the highways department.


George Prudham: What did I say that was not a fact?


An hon. Member:: Everything.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Really I do not think there is anything under our rules that pre-


vents the reading of a document such as the one the hon. member for Peace River now has in his hands.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just listen to the opening words.


Solon Earl Low: I would be glad to table this but my time is passing and I must hurry. I want to start from the first again. It reads:
Prudham's highway statements ridiculous to a point that it makes it hard to believe they were made by responsible federal official. All main arterial highways including trans-Canada in Alberta being constructed to same specifications. Apart from trans-Canada highway there are several hundred miles of equally as well constructed roadway. Where warranted some stabilized gravel base courses being built thicker on provincial highways up to 14 inches in depth as compared to 9 on trans-Canada. No main highways in Alberta being built without proper subgrade. Prudham's statement that work done under supervision of Department of Resources and Development is absolutely ridiculous. Department of resources has one engineer in Alberta but all engineering of the trans-Canada is being done and has been done by provincial government engineers.


George Prudham: Under his supervision.


Solon Earl Low: I continue:
At a recent dominion-provincial conference of engineers called by Hon. Mr. Winters high praise was tendered to Alberta for their work including the origination of the stabilized gravel base shoulder. All expenditure on trans-Canada appropriated by Alberta legislature, and federal government reimburses Alberta up to 50 per cent. Whatever the federal government contribution the Alberta government contribution has been greater as we pay entire costs such factors as right of way and categories of fencing. Present specifications in trans-Canada and other Alberta highways devised by engineers of provincial governments and not federal government. Original draft of specifications used throughout western Canada prepared by-


George Prudham: The standards were set by this government.


Solon Earl Low: I continue:
[DOT]-Alex Frame, deputy minister of highways for Alberta and Harry Anderson of British Columbia's highways department. Present four-year program of construction including subgrade, stabilized gravel base course, surface course and seal coat was wholly and completely policy of Alberta government. Soil testing laboratory in Alberta comparable any in Canada. Alberta likely will be first province to complete its trans-Canada highway commitment. In further reference Prudham claim that federal government-


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker-


Solon Earl Low: I continue:
-has spent ten million on trans-Canada highway in Alberta-


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to citation 306 in Beau-chesne's second edition, which reads as follows:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member-


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the point was raised a moment ago I had in mind citation 241 in Beauchesne's third edition, which is about the same as the one the minister has read from the second edition of Beau-chesne. It reads as follows:
A statement made by a member in his place is considered as made upon honour and cannot be questioned in the house or out of it.
Then there is also citation 259, which reads as follows:
It is a well known principle that a statement made in this house cannot be contradicted by a statement made by a person who is not a member of the house.
As I pointed out a moment ago, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce rose on the point of order I could not hear-and this is no reflection whatever upon the value of the new sound system now in operation- what the hon. member was saying in beginning to develop the particular point. However, as I now understand it he is trying to contradict a statement made by the minister in the house with certain evidence or statements given to him by somebody outside of the house. According to the citations I have just read it would appear that the point of order raised a moment ago is well taken.


Alphonse Fournier: If the point of order is well taken-


An hon. Member:: It is not well taken.


Alphonse Fournier: -I would suggest that Your Honour direct that the portion of the document that has been read into Hansard be expunged therefrom.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You cannot do that.


Solon Earl Low: Wouldn't that be wonderful!


Alphonse Fournier: When the hon. member began to read the document the point of order was raised but it was not decided, and I cannot think, Mr. Speaker, that you would allow to remain on the records of the house something which was absolutely out of order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling and your ruling is in Hansard. That expunges it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is a very elementary rule that when the Speaker rises hon. members must at least give him certain attention, and that applies to all hon. members. I do not think I have the authority to instruct that anything be expunged from Hansard. It may be that it has been done, but to my knowledge it has never been done since I entered the house. The ruling I have given on the point is in itself tantamount to
The Address-Mr. Low expunging the record of what is there. It is the same as when certain offensive words are uttered and a member is called upon to withdraw. The offensive words remain in the record but the withdrawal which follows is an indication that the words should not have been said. The same thing is applicable in this case, unless the minister has a citation which is relevant.


Alphonse Fournier: Here is the position I would take. The Speaker has now ruled that the hon. member was out of order, and knowing that the hon. member would like to be in order I suggest that he should withdraw all that part of the document which he read.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Solon Earl Low: Speaking to the point of order, may I remind my friend the Minister of Public Works, the house leader, that if he were to ask all members of the house to do what he is asking me to do there would be only half a Hansard left.


An hon. Member:: That would be good.


Alphonse Fournier: All to the good, Mr. Speaker.


Solon Earl Low: I will continue on my own responsibility, Mr. Speaker. I certainly will not read anything more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is unfortunate that some time has been taken up by the discussion of the point of order, but on the other hand the hon. member's time was due to expire at 9.25. In all fairness to the hon. member, I will let him conclude now if he wants to do so. Otherwise his time has expired.


Solon Earl Low: I will conclude what I wanted to say about highways. There is one point that I think should be cleared up with respect to this highway matter. It is a part of what I wanted to say in rebuttal to the minister's speech. He claimed that the federal government had spent $10 million. I want him to know-


George Prudham: Approximately.


Solon Earl Low: You did not say "approximately". You said that the federal government had spent $10 million on the trans-Canada highway in Alberta. I have ascertained that the actual payments by the federal government received by the Alberta government on the trans-Canada highway account up to December 1 of this year total $1,321,000. That is just the kind of thing that I say is misrepresentation. Let me say further, Mr. Speaker, that the Alberta government is anxiously awaiting payment by the federal government of additional claims that have been made and which, for some reason, are being held up.
798	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low Now, Mr. Speaker, since you have drawn my attention to the fact that my time is almost up I can let my case rest for the time being. There are quite a number of other things which will take more time to present later.


George Matheson Murray: I should like to clarify something that was said by the hon. gentleman with reference to the construction of a railway from the Peace River country to the Pacific coast. Is it not a fact that the provincial government has the right to construct a railway to the Pacific coast? Provincial governments have authority over property and civil rights. You have control of the governments of Alberta and British Columbia. Why would you postpone the building of the railway until you take over the House of Commons?


Solon Earl Low: Would the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) advocate, or is he advocating, that Alberta take over British Columbia?


George Matheson Murray: It is a fait accompli, as some people say. It has already been done. I want to say that the government of British Columbia-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to point out that the hon. gentleman speaks solely and exclusively for himself.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Matheson Murray: -last year built 80 miles of railway.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has had a reply to his question and should not now make a speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the hon. gentleman speaks solely and exclusively for himself. Both hon. gentlemen know that British Columbia stands on its own feet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think an hon. member should rise on a so-called question of privilege; that does not help to keep decorum in this house. I do not think hon. members should stand up on the pretext of rising on a question of privilege in order to discuss a matter not concerning a question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Apply the rules to both hon. members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have already told the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) that his question having been answered he should not make a speech.
Before we leave the matter which was raised a moment ago, may I say that the Clerk has just handed me a decision which 

was made by Mr. Speaker Black on April 10, 1933. It is reported on page 802 of Beau-chesne's third edition. This judgment by Mr. Speaker Black does indicate that the house has the authority to have certain declarations expunged from the record. The Speaker, his ruling being subject to appeal to the house, is allowed to do it. I merely wanted to have this citation quoted so that it reads with my remarks concerning the point of order raised earlier.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I am not rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but to make a speech; and not about the Currie report.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Pretty late in the day.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This matter will be fully dealt with by my colleague the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney).


An hon. Member:: When?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Tomorrow. However, there are one or two observations I should like to make in connection with that report, arising out of the prosecutions that have taken place. As hon. members know, commencing in May of this year, with the last case being disposed of early this month, eleven persons were convicted-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: To which report are you referring?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the hon. member who has the floor does not resume his seat upon request for permission to ask a question, no question should be asked.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The records indicate, Mr. Speaker, that in those prosecutions some eleven persons were convicted and are now serving terms in the penitentiary, and three were acquitted. I am sure all the members of this house are familiar with the fact that engaged for the defence in many of those cases were some of the cream of the criminal law talent in the province of Ontario. I do not know of any more efficient way of testing facts that are facts than in a sternly contested prosecution with able counsel on both sides.
There is one thing in all these prosecutions that I believe is clear from the evidence which was adduced. That is, that whatever the merits or demerits of the accounting system that were in question in those prosecutions, the conditions which were revealed at Petawawa according to the evidence in those prosecutions were not attributable to the systems but to the human frailties of those who occupied senior positions in the works company at that camp. I am given to understand by those who prepared the cases for trial that it became quite apparent that those

men who were convicted had determined that they would use their positions to further their personal ends, and that they were able to do so not so much because of the system being inadequate as because they had determined to circumvent the system, and to falsify the records in some cases.
Everyone knows that in any large undertaking where responsibility, as a matter of necessity, must be delegated to a great many persons, unless you can rely upon the honesty of those who are in the higher positions no system, however well it may be designed, will prevent misappropriations. It is to be noted in this connection that no shortages have occurred since these men have been removed. According to the Currie report itself, no shortages have occurred in other camps where honest men are in control, even under the same accounting system. I am sure, therefore, that where defaults have occurred through these human frailties of trusted employees it behooves all of us, in fairness to those who are naturally affected by the Currie report, to withhold judgment on whether the system was entirely bad until there has been an opportunity of having this matter brought before the committee on defence expenditures, and in this way hearing all the relevant facts concerning the whole matter.
My purpose in intervening in this debate, sir, is to examine and discuss certain statements made by a number of opposition speakers, particularly of the official opposition and notably the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), to the effect that this government has been imposing unduly high taxes upon the Canadian people. In the welter of broad statements and generalities, most of which do not even glitter, I suggest that the best way, and indeed the only accurate way, in which this question can be satisfactorily determined is to place upon the record the plain facts so the Canadian people may judge, from those facts, whether they have been called upon to carry a heavier load of taxation than that of citizens of comparable countries.
I should like to start out with those facts upon which, in my judgment, the government and the Conservative opposition at least- and perhaps the other opposition parties- seem to be in agreement. I think we agree that, by and large, government expenditures, no matter how wise and proper they are, must be paid for by taxation. Therefore the main factors in determining the amount of taxes which Canadians have to pay are Canadian policies which involve the expenditure of money. Are the government and the official opposition agreed upon those policies involving the expenditure of money? If we can take
The Address-Mr. Garson at their face value the statements made by the members of the official opposition, I think the answer to that question is yes.
Let me illustrate this point by quoting from the words of the Leader of the Opposition himself as set out in his interesting and useful speech at the beginning of this debate, which may be found at pages 20 and 21 of Hansard. To begin with he agreed-and I think this is true of every member of the opposition and of every member of all parties-with the wisdom of Canada's foreign policy and the need for military preparedness which is an integral part of that policy. The Leader of the Opposition made this abundantly clear in language which I think we would all endorse. I will not go into the details of everything he said, but he clinched the point when he said:
Canadians are I am sure all ready to pay the taxes that are really necessary to defend our freedom.
There seems no doubt, therefore, that the opposition fully supports the military preparedness program of the government and any expenditures and taxes which are really necessary to carry it out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not the Petawawa kind. Don't include them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I can see that my hon. friend is getting impatient.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about horses?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I hasten to make it clear that it is not at all inconsistent with their position in this regard that they should be entitled to criticize the government in respect of what they may regard as carelessness and extravagance in the carrying out of that policy.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is
mighty decent of the minister.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: At another point in his remarks the Leader of the Opposition also made it quite clear that the opposition fully supports the entire social welfare program of the government. This is what he said as reported at page 21 of Hansard:
No one is suggesting the cutting down of social services. They are part of the social development of this country. Every party has supported them.
Our military preparedness program and our social welfare program are two major items in our budget and account for no less than $3-1 billion out of a total budget of $4-3 billion. The balance of our budget is made up of two other major items, namely the carrying charges upon our public debt and the ordinary expenses of government, in the old sense, which in these modern days
800	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Garson account for only about 15 per cent of the total budget. Hence, even if we were to cut the general expenses of government even to the point where we would seriously interfere with its administration, it would still represent but a small proportion of the total budget.
Let me clear up another point. The government does not admit that there has been large-scale carelessness and extravagance; but we entirely agree that the government's administration of all of the affairs of the country should at all times be carried on in an economical and prudent manner and that any carelessness and extravagance which is disclosed should be eliminated at the earliest possible moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Along with the government.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is the policy the government has consistently tried to follow. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I think it is highly significant indeed that the opposition members, who have from time to time argued that large economies are possible and that they could be made in this country, have never once during any time I have been in this chamber moved to reduce a single item of the government's estimates.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, they have.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If such huge savings as they indicate were possible, it is hard to understand why it has not been possible for them to move a reduction of some small item in the total estimates.


James Arthur Ross: They have moved a
reduction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They certainly have, but
apparently the minister was not here.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. My hon. friend is quite wrong. They have not. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) has done so on two or three occasions; but none of the other members would take the responsibility-


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the minister is quite wrong. I made such a motion two years ago and the minister voted against it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I can rise and bear the same witness. I made such a motion three years ago and the minister voted against it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I accept my hon. friends' corrections and point out that it is two years since one moved such a motion and three years since the other moved one, and they have not moved any since then in


spite of the fact that they are always arguing that there are millions of dollars to be saved.


James Arthur Ross: A moment ago the
minister said that nobody had made a motion to reduce an item in the estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The reason more such motions have not been made is that they are regarded as motions of non-confidence, and the minister and his party vote against them. So what is the use of making them?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Majority rule.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Every reasonable member in this house knows that, at the best, the savings in respect of careful administration are small indeed in comparison with the savings that can be effected under the heading of the substantive policies. For example, if we were able to conclude an armistice in Korea, and if the situation in western Europe improved to a great extent and we were able to substantially cut our military preparedness program, everyone knows that that cut would result in much greater economies than all possible administrative savings that could be made. And if we were all willing-but we are not-to eliminate some of the present items in our social welfare program, that action would also represent a large saving. But it is significant that in these fields of policy where the large economies could be effected, I think it is safe to say that every opposition party is in complete agreement with the government. In the light of these facts it does seem inconsistent

and I shall not use any stronger word-that the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech in this debate, should argue that the government still continues not only to impose extremely heavy taxation but to overtax the people far above the amount actually authorized by parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My friend the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) says "hear, hear".


James Arthur Ross: And others.


Edmund Davie Fulton: $3,350 million last year.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, he says "Hear, hear" to a statement which is wrong on the face of it-


Edmund Davie Fulton: $700 million last year.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -because he knows quite well that the taxes which are imposed in this country are all authorized by statutes passed by this parliament. It is true that the amount of business that is done, the volume of investment and the amount of economic activity

may produce from given rates of taxation a better return than was anticipated. To distort that fact into the statement that that is unauthorized overtaxation is an interpretation which cannot be supported.
In this same connection, if we were to examine, in the same factious spirit, the record of my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he was premier of Ontario, in respect of this same species of overtaxation that he is urging against this government, we would And-and for my own part I would say to his credit-that during that time he was able to show very substantial surpluses from year to year through the same type of overtaxation he is now attributing to another sound financier, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott).
This brings me to the second point of the official opposition, and really the central point to this whole question, namely whether the taxation which is imposed upon Canadians at the present time, measured by any fair standard of comparison, is an extremely heavy burden. In this connection, as I said at the outset of my remarks, in the consideration of a matter of this sort there is actually no substitute for facts and figures. Either these contentions of the opposition are true or they are not, and the only way to prove or disprove them is to bring forward the facts and figures. That is what I now propose to do.
First of all I should like to present certain comparative figures in relation to the tax burden of Canada and of certain other countries of the British commonwealth. I suggest that the countries which are most comparable to our own are the free Englishspeaking countries of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. In order to avoid the charge that I am selecting from the whole body of taxation for comparison certain taxes which are not a fair sample of the whole picture, I should like to begin with to make the test, which I think is by far the fairest over-all test which can be made, by examining what percentage of the gross national product is taken by all the taxes of this country, federal, provincial and municipal, no matter what they may be, and comparing them with all of the taxes which are taken in these other countries from the taxpayers thereof.
Here are the results, based upon the figures for the year 1951. Taxes as a percentage of the gross national product: The United States, as one would expect from a more populous, economically mature and wealthy country, having a very large production and a large gross national product, is the lowest, 23-2. Canada, a much smaller, less populous and less developed country is just a fraction of 68108-51
The Address-Mr. Garson 1 per cent more, 23-7; Australia is 25-8; New Zealand is 27-8 and the United Kingdom is 32-7. Canada has a substantially lower over-all tax burden, federal, provincial and municipal, as a percentage of the total gross national production than any of the other British countries I have named.
Next, I should like to compare the rates in these countries in respect of certain specific taxes, so that we shall examine how they apply to John Doe, the ordinary citizen. The example I have taken is that of a married man with no dependents. It is the fact that in Canada we have much more generous family allowances than in those other comparable countries. Therefore if one were to take the case of a man with dependents perhaps hon. members across the way who are now shaking their heads at the point I have not yet started to make would argue, "Oh, well, you have taken what is not a fair sample". I should like therefore to table five comparisons between these countries I have named. If hon. members are agreeable perhaps it would be a good idea to place them on Hansard. They show a comparison of the pre-war taxes on personal income; a comparison of the wartime peak taxes on personal income; a comparison of the post-war low, that is the lowest point which the taxes on personal incomes reached after the war; a comparison of the post-Korea high after Korea was invaded, that is the faxes that had to be imposed in all these free countries in order to meet the costs of this military preparedness program, at what was the highest point which these taxes reached in all these countries after the Korean aggression. Finally I think it would be most interesting to all of us to have a comparison of the present taxes on personal income in these countries.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where did the minister get these figures?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: These figures were prepared by the tax branch of the Department of Finance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Your new department?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Did I understand that the tables are to appear in Hansard?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; read them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall be making more allusions to them than perhaps my hon. friend would want to listen to.


Some hon. Members:: Read them.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Very funny.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I understand, Mr. Speaker, the rule of the house is that one may not read

The Address-Mr. Carson from a document of this sort unless he tables it, and I am complying with the rules of the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, there is a contrary rule to be observed which is that an hon. member may not table such a document unless he reads it, unless he has the unanimous consent of the house.


Mr. Laing:: Let us get unanimous consent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the other hand, he cannot table it unless he reads it, and he cannot read it unless he tables it. '


Pierre Gauthier: Very funny.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad the hon. member for Portneuf is amused.


Pierre Gauthier: Why don't you sit down and let the minister carry on?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What I should like to know is this. Does the house wish that these tables should appear in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: .Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My only point in rising was to point out that the minister could not table these except by unanimous consent; and although the hon. member for Portneuf is very interested in them, nevertheless I will not insist upon the minister reading them.


Pierre Gauthier: Very funny.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand they are to appear in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The tables are as follows:



TABLE 1.

[Stage Direction]
Comparison Pre-War Taxes on Personal Incomes
-	Canada	U.S.A.	U.K.	Australia	N.Z.$	$	$	s	$(£ = $4.00)	Exemptions and deductions-	Single status	1,000	1,000	400	not available	not availableMarried status	2,000	2,500	720	Dependent child	400	400	200	Tax payable by married tax-	payer no dependents for	following incomes-	S 1 000	7	' 1,500	X	2,000	139	2*500	18	X	3; 000	36	8	X	not available	not available5,000	144	80	799	10,000	655	415	2,234	20,000	2,835	X	6,277	100,000	39,022	32,469	54,922	
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Garson

[Stage Direction]
Comparison War-time Peak Taxes on Personal Incomes
Canada	U.S.A.	U.K.	Australia	N.Z.	$	$	$	$	$	(£=$4.00)	(£=$3.58)	(£=$3.59)	Exemptions and Deductions-	(a)	Single status	660	500	320	376	718Married status	1,200	1,000	560	400	897Dependent child	Tax Credit	500	200	X	179$28-$S0	Tax payable by married tax-	payer no dependents for	following incomes-	$ 1,000	15	49 (61)	102	92	(50)1,500	100 (100)	130	185 (94)	281	218	(75)2,000	231 (200)	245	378 (127)	473	253	(100)2,500	401 (250)	360	586 (143)	678	501	(125)3,000	584 (300)	475	795 (160)	959	661	(150)5,000	1,378 (500)	975	1,628 (227)	1,860	1,418	(250)10,000	3,762 (1,000)	2,585	4,245 (260)	5,475	4,118	(500)20,000	10.279 (1,000)	7,315	10,970 (260)	14,520	12,352	(1,000)100,000	77,987 (1,000)	69,435	83,820 (260)	X	82,355 (5,000)	
The figures in brackets for Canada and U.K. are refundable amounts payable in addition to the income taxes shown. For New Zealand they are social services tax payable in addition to amounts shown.
(a) Exemptions shown are for surtax only. The exemption for normal tax was only $500 for all taxpayers.

[Stage Direction]
Comparison Post-War-Low Taxes on Personal Incomes
Canada	U.S.A.	U.K.	Australia (6)	N.Z.1950	1949	1952	1952-53	1951-52$	$	10 11	$ (£=$2.15)	$ (£=$2.87)Exemptions and deductions-	Single status	1,000	600	330	224	574Married status	2,000	1,200	578	447	861Dependent child	400	600	234	168	144F.A. child	150	234	168	144Tax payable by married taxpayer no dependents for following incomes-	$ 1,000	30	39	** (75)1,500	15	128	109	51 (112)2,000	100	264	206	137 (150)2,500	75	174	436	324	236 (187)3,000	150	249	621	464	346 (225)5,000	510	548	1,360	1,213	930 (375)10,000	1,660	1,400	4,134(a)	3,873	3,242 (750)20,000	5,510	3,948	11.209(a)	10,823	9,779(1,500)100,000	53,064	45,769	86.321(a)	79,794	62,579(7,500)
Amounts in brackets for New Zealand are social services taxes payable in addition to income tax shown.
(a)	These are the taxes payable in 1950 (£=$2.90) when rates for these incomes were lower than in 1952.
(b)	Income tax and social services contribution combined.
804
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Garson

[Stage Direction]
Comparison High Point of Post-Korea Taxes on Personal Incomes
Canada	U.S.A.	U.K.	Australia	N.Z.1951	1951-52	1950-51$	$	$	$	S(£ = $2.98)	(£ = $2.35)	(£=$2.90)Exemptions and deductions	Single status	1.000	600	328	244	580Married status	2,000	1,200	566	489	870Dependent child	400	600	209	183	145F A Child	150	209	183	145Tax payable bv married tax-	payer no dependents for	following incomes	$ 1,000 	46	36	(75)D500	33	156	107	67 (112)2]000	133	323	205	157 (150)2,500	88 (5)	233	513	325	260 (188)3,000	175 (10)	333	703	468	375 (225)5,000	596 (30)	733	1,463	1,237	984 (375)10,000	1,946 (30)	1,823	4,290 (a)	4,030	3,382 (750)20,000	6,431 (30)	5,076	11,728 (a)	11,512	10,206(1,500)100,000	61,220 (30)	56,182	88,072 (a)	77,443	65,406(7,500)
Amounts in brackets for Canada and N.Z. are old age security taxes and social services taxes respectively payable in addition to income taxes shown.
(a) These are the taxes payable in 1952 (£ = $2.75) when rates on these incomes were higher than in 1951.

[Stage Direction]
Comparison Present Taxes on Personal Incomes
-	Canada	U.S.A.	U.K.	Australia	N.Z.1952	1952	1952	1952-53	1951-52$	$	$	$	$(£=$2.75)	(£=82.15)	(£=$2.87)Exemptions and deductions-	Single status	1,000	600	330	224	5<4Married status	2,000	1,200	578	447	861Dep't. child	400	600	234	168	144F A phild	150	234	168	144rax payable bv married tax-	payer no dependents for	following incomes- % 1 ooo 	30	39	. * (75)' 1500 	33	128	109	51 (112)2 000 	133	264	206	137 (150)2^500	88 (5)	233	436	324	236 (187)3'ooo	175(10)	333	621	464	346 (225)5'000 	596(30)	733	1,360	1,213	930 (375)101000	1,946(30)	1,823	4,290	3,873	3,242 (750)20 000 	6,431(30)	5,076	11,728	10,823	9,779(1.500)100', 000	61,220(30)	56,182	8S.072	70,794	62,579(7,500)
Amounts in brackets for Canada and New Zealand are old age security taxes and social services taxes respectively, payable in addition to income taxes shown.
﻿805

I should like to say in relation to these tables, in order to be fair with all members, that the changes in the exchange rates of the various currencies which are involved, all of which have been noted in the tables, make some comparisons difficult, and may sometimes unavoidably distort the true picture to some extent, but these distortions do not affect the validity of the use to which I propose to put these figures, nor the conclusions which I am going to ask hon. members to draw from them.
Mr. Speaker, what do these figures show? Well, the first point that stands out in all these tables is that personal exemptions in Canada are much higher than those in any of these other countries. This means that the great mass of Canadians in the low income brackets bear a much smaller rate of income tax than do the mass of citizens in any of the other countries named, and particularly those citizens in the low income brackets in countries like New Zealand and the United Kingdom, where Labour party social welfare and other policies have been the major factor in determining the tax patterns which the present governments of those countries have inherited from their Labour predecessors. Even Labour governments cannot solve the financial problem of paying for heavy welfare costs by soaking the rich. Unhappily, there are not enough rich to soak, to begin with; and when they are too heavily soaked they cease to be rich.
Next they show that during the wartime peak, Canadian taxes were the lowest of all these countries on incomes up to $2,000 a year. Above $2,000 a year Canada's income taxes were somewhat higher than those of the United States, but they were appreciably lower than those of the United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand throughout the whole range of incomes.
Now, what about the post-war low, when the war was over and taxes went down or were reduced in all these countries? How does the Canadian post-war low compare? The Canadian post-war low tax upon a married taxpayer with no dependents was the lowest of all of these countries on incomes up to $5,000. On incomes above that level Canada's taxes were higher than those of the United States but considerably lower than those of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
Well then, after our taxes had been reduced in all these countries, and we were making a good recovery when the war was over, Korea occurred. Then all these countries had to impose taxation in order to defend freedom and to meet the threat of aggression. And at the high point of the post-Korea
The Address-Mr. Garson period, Canada's personal income taxes were the lowest of any of these countries on incomes up to $5,000. Above that level they were somewhat higher than those of the United States, but much lower than those of all the other countries named.
Now, most important of all, what about present taxes, the taxes which we are told by all members of the opposition are such an inordinate burden upon the Canadian people? At the present time, of all these countries I have named, Canada's taxes are lowest on all incomes up to $5,000. Above that level they are much lower than all the other countries except the United States. In other words, at all these periods the burden of Canadian taxes compares very favourably indeed with that of other comparable countries in the English-speaking world.
Inasmuch as the present taxes are those which are being particularly urged as excessive, I think perhaps some hon. members might find it instructive if I were to put on the record in some detail what they amount to. The exemptions and deductions for a single person in 1952 are as follows:
Canada	 $1,000
The United States	 600
The United Kingdom	 330
Australia	 224
New Zealand	 574
Canada provides by far the largest exemption of all. This means that the great mass of the Canadian people, those in the low income brackets, are freer from the income tax burden than the people in these other countries. Then I shall give the exemptions for the married man with no dependents:
Canada	 $2,000
The United States	 1,200
New Zealand	 861
United Kingdom	 578
Australia	 447
Canada again provides by far the largest exemption.
Mr. Adamson:: Yes, but the United States exemption is divided; the wife gets $1,200 and the husband gets $1,200, making $2,400 in all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am coming to that.


Jean Lesage: They get only $600 each.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I know about this, because I have many friends in the United States.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You are $1,200 out.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Then for a dependent child Canada allows $400-


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the family allowance?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member in giving these figures should be allowed to proceed without interruption.

The Address-Mr. Garson


Agar Rodney Adamson: I regret having made the interruption and I apologize through you, Mr. Speaker, for it.


Jean Lesage: Especially since you were wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: I was not referring particularly to the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson).


Agar Rodney Adamson: I try not to interrupt, Mr. Speaker.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In relation to the point raised by the hon. member who has so graciously just taken his seat, I wish to enter a provision which has been specified by the tax experts, when they state that because of credits for earned income and minimum amounts subject to taxation in the United Kingdom, and a tax rebate in New Zealand, the effective exemptions in these two countries may be somewhat higher than the amounts I have indicated. But the difference is not sufficient to alter the comparison to any significant extent.
What is significant in this connection is that Canada's family allowance, itself, is substantially higher than that of any of the other countries. And of course in the United States they have no family allowances at all.


Agar Rodney Adamson: No, but they have social security.


Mr. Sinclair:: When they are 65.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But let us leave family allowances out of the picture, and compare the tax payable by a married taxpayer, with no dependents, on an income of $1,000. These are the figures:
Canada	 No tax
The United States	 No	tax
The United Kingdom	 $30
Australia	 39
New Zealand	 75
Then let us go the $2,000 level. These are the figures:
Canada	No	tax
The United States	 $133
The United Kingdom	 264
Australia	 206
New Zealand	 287
I would ask my hon. friends of the C.C.F. particularly to look at these figures for the $2,000 level, where the tax in the United Kingdom is $264, in New Zealand $287, while in Canada there is no tax.


Mr. Knowles:: Is there not a Conservative government in power over there now?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, but this is part of its inheritance.


Mr. Bryce:: These are the latest figures, I suppose.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Then to go rapidly over these figures-


Agar Rodney Adamson: Oh, no; that would be a great mistake.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: At the $3,000 income level
the tax is as follows:
Canada	 ?185
The	United	States	
333The	United	Kingdom	
621Australia	
464New Zealand	
571
Then these are the figures for the $5,000 level:
Canada	 $ 626
The	United	States	
733The	United	Kingdom	
1,360Australia	
1,213New Zealand	
1,305
Then when we get up to the $10,000 level in Canada, because we take the good advice lavished upon us by hon. members of the C.C.F., but which their own fellow socialists in other countries where they are in power do not take, for the first time our taxes begin to be higher than those of the United States.
These are the figures:
Canada	 $1,976
The United States	 1,823
The United Kingdom	 4,290
Australia	   3,873
New Zealand	 3,992
Perhaps I had better put all the figures on the record. The remainder are as follows, starting with the $20,000 level:
Canada	  $6,461
United States	 5,076
United Kingdom	  11,728
Australia	 10,823
New Zealand	  11,279
And then for the $100,000 tax level:
Canada	 $61,250
United States	 56,182
United Kingdom	 88,072
Australia	 70,794
New Zealand	 70,079
The figures given in the table indicate the income taxes plus social security taxes that are collected in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. In the case of the United Kingdom the figures are translated from pounds into dollars at the proper rate of $2.70 per pound, not at the old rate; in the case of Australia, at the rate of $2.15 per pound; and in the case of New Zealand, at the rate of $2.87 per pound. This sample shows that the income tax, one of the most typical taxes and the tax upon which hon. members of the official opposition have lavished their greatest criticism, is not only lower in Canada but in low income brackets is substantially lower than in the case of all these other countries.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister permit a
question?

The Address-Mr. Garson


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall be glad if my hon. friend will save it and I will answer his question when I am finished. It is rather hard to keep this material in consecutive order.
To add a little bit of perspective, a married man in Canada without dependents and with an income of $5,000 now pays in income tax only about half what he paid at the wartime peak in 1945. Do we hear hon. members of the loyal opposition tell us about that fact? Here is another important fact. What has happened to the disposable income of Canadians? By disposable income I mean the personal income after direct income taxes have been paid.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What you mean is what Abbott leaves them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend wants to put it in that uncharitable way, all right. It is the same rose; no matter whether he adorns it with a thorn it still smells sweet. The per capita disposable income in Canada

I will not reply to my hon. friend in kind by referring to what it was in Mr. Bennett's time -for 1939 was $373; in 1951 it was $1,057. That is to say, in 1951 it was two and four-fifths times as great as it was in 1939.


Agar Rodney Adamson: In 48-cent dollars as compared to 1939.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is very astute. He answers every point. As I move toward the beginning of the point he interrupts me.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I know the figures.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Of course the increase in real income was not as striking because there were price increases during that period. But let my hon. friend listen to this. After allowing for those price increases, the average per capita income of a Canadian would purchase about 50 per cent more in goods and services in 1951 than in 1939. What is more significant about all this to those who make a fuss about our resale price maintenance legislation is that it is at least three per cent more in 1951 than in 1950.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Bravo.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Resale price maintenance has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is entitled to his opinion for what it is worth, which in my view is not very much.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How about loss leaders?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would point out that this
substantial rise in real income took place in a period when personal income taxes in this country had to be greatly expanded, through no choice of ours, in order to take care of defence costs. We absorbed all that, raised the
real income and in addition greatly increased our social welfare services. This is clear proof that we have surmounted all the economic obstacles and have grappled with very seriously, if not overcome, most of the economic problems to accomplish these things, and all on the basis of a tax level that by fair standards of comparison with comparable countries is very favourable indeed.
Moreover there is every indication of a further substantial increase between 1951 and 1952. For example, the total wages and salaries, which is a large component of personal income comprising upon the average more than 60 per cent, was 12 per cent higher for the first eight months of 1952 than for the comparable period of 1951. During the first nine months of 1952 the total value of retail sales exceeded by 6-6 per cent the total of the comparable period in 1951.
Then in reply to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that the vast tax burden of the government is impoverishing the Canadian people, let me give the house some figures which I received just a few days ago, as prepared by one of the most eminent Canadian economists.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Gilbert Jackson. I know those figures.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I expect to get another loud cheer from my hon. friend when I say this is from the Globe and Mail.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I know, published by
Gilbert Jackson in the Globe and Mail. I worked on those figures.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend absorbs all these figures into his system but he will not take any cognizance of them when he comes to judge the record of the government.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Oh, but I do. That is exactly what I do. I judge the government by the figures that have been quoted.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This article is headed:
Did you know Canadians in 1951 actually saved nearly 13 times as much as Britons did in relation to disposable income? Here's why.
The article continues:
It is not because Britons are any less able to save than Canadians if given the incentive and the opportunity to do so. Those tables show, however, that the previous government took in direct taxes and in direct social security taxes a far greater proportion than is deducted by governments in Canada. The disposable income in Britain leaves less than in Canada, therefore, to spend on goods and services and to save-
Is my hon. friend still cheering?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Life insurance in force per capita in Canada in 1939 was $625; in 1951 it
808	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Garson was $1,279. Savings bank deposits per capita in 1939 were $150.79; in 1951, $327.85.
I suggest that the only base upon which our hon. friends are able to argue-I must say that having a very poor case they make a good fist of it indeed-is that although we impose in this country rates of taxation which compare very favourably with other comparable countries, the economic results of government policies in Canada and of the great amount of effort put forward by the Canadian people are so favourable that these tax rates, applied to the national income of the country, produce the surpluses of which my hon. friends complain. They not only have done that but they have enabled Canadians in the period since the war to invest in this country about $16 billion of money in all sorts of additions to Canada's productive capacity. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the main reasons these investments, to the extent of about 85 per cent I believe, are made by Canadians, and the balance by outsiders investing their money in Canada, are the very surpluses and reduction of debt concerning which certain opposition members are always complaining.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We only
complain because you blunder into them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, you do not complain because they exist, but merely because we did not do it in the proper way?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Because you do not know anything about what you are doing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, I see. Of course Mr. Bennett knew what he was doing. He was blasting his way into the markets of the world.


An hon. Member:: You bet he did.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Judging by results there is
great advantage in knowing what you are doing.


Mr. McGregor:: And he got results.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As a matter of fact it is not the surpluses about which we complain; it is the high taxes.


An hon. Member:: Now you are switching.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have been attempting to show my hon. friend that the tax rate is not high judging by any fair standard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is $700 million more than
you need.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the most important reason why the men who put these $16 billion of investments into Canada did so is that they had
(Mr. Garson.]

confidence, not necessarily in the government but in the steadiness and reliability of the Canadian people, because they had seen the Canadian people over quite a period of time now-too long, I know for our friends in the opposition-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -steadily support a courageous and honest government financial policy which, by keeping our budget in balance and reducing our national debt, thereby guaranteed the safety not only of this new $16 billion worth of investments but of all the existing investments and properties of the Canadian people as well. If we had not followed this policy, does any reasonable man suppose there would have been that confidence in this country, in our dollar, in our prospects and the like, that would have brought about this amount of investment? Perhaps some of these investments would have been made. But I suggest that the majority would not, for the simple reason that not one of us in this chamber would want to take his own money and invest it in a country in which even in good times the government was going perennially into debt year after year without making any attempt to properly balance its budget. These investments constitute by far the largest single increase in Canada's productive capacity that has ever taken place in our history.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The government is floundering.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For that reason they are
enormously important to every single Canadian. The hard fact is that all our wages, our pensions, our social welfare benefits, all the arms that protect our liberty and the whole of our standard of living come from one source only, the production of goods and services by Canadians. They come from that source not only for us but for our children and for our grandchildren. Therefore anything that, to the extent of $16 billion of investment, increases that production benefits every Canadian, the big shots and the little shots alike. Whatever my share of this total national production may be, I am bound to benefit if the national production is increased.
All this has been done, may I suggest to my hon. friends, especially to the official opposition and particularly to the financial critic of that party, at no real cost to our present standard of living. Let me quote a question which was asked in that great Conservative paper, the Winnipeg Tribune, by a highly intelligent correspondent who, as it happens, is a professor of economics at the University of Manitoba.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is his name?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Professor Barber. He said:
Would you agree that the $2 billion surplus which the dominion government has managed to build up over the past five years has not meant the loss of an equivalent amount of goods to the Canadian people? In fact, even if the dominion government had reduced taxes during this period by $2 billion and thus wiped out its surplus entirely, there would not have been one more car, house or suit of clothes available to the Canadian people.
Accordingly, if it is possible to reduce the national debt without in any way reducing the real income or real welfare of the Canadian people, why is this such an undesirable policy?
It is no wonder then, Mr. Speaker, that, except for a small minority of Canadians who hope to pick up a few votes by misrepresenting the achievements of their own country, there is a very clear understanding today amongst all competent judges throughout the whole world that the Canadian people since the war have done an absolutely magnificent job of handling their economy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The people, but not the government.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Obviously the greatest part of the credit for this achievement must go where it belongs, to the Canadian people and producers; but it is also a fact that none of the sophistries of my hon. friends can disprove that if government policies had not been as courageous and realistic-


Donald Methuen Fleming: And extravagant.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -and aggressive and successful-


George Harris Hees: And wasteful.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Wasteful and extravagant.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -we would have never had these results. To indicate that this is the view not of myself only, as a very interested person, I must confess-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of the people who wrote your speech.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -but is the opinion of highly competent and completely disinterested judges, I should like to quote from only two sources, one of which I think has been quoted before, but it cannot be quoted too often. The first one is taken from the Economist of July 5, 1952, certainly the greatest economic journal in the English language, and reads as follows:
No boom was ever painless, but the Canadian boom perhaps comes nearest to earning that distinction ... It has found, in the short space of two or three years, a degree of self-confidence that is the proper mark of a country entering upon the early stages of economic maturity. Already occupied with a load of work that less vigorous countries might stretch over a generation, Canada has the faith, and professes to have the capacity, to proceed with the gigantic St. Lawrence seaway scheme and to disregard Washington's refusal to
The Address-Mr. Garson participate. It would certainly be unwise to reach the conclusion that too much is being attempted too quickly. It is true that the defence program has yet to make its full impact on the Canadian economy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is making it on the Canadian political scene though.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I continue:
But the rise in both industrial and agricultural productivity since the war has been so astonishing that Canada may well be able to provide-
Listen to this from a responsible economic journal.
-guns, factories and butter all at the same time.
I have deliberately left out of that quotation the three most significant sentences in it which in my submission are the key to all of these results. These sentences are as follows:
Canada is not merely favoured with abundant material resources. It has had the good sense-or the good luck-to provide itself with good government.


Some hon. Members:: Hurrah.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is obvious the writer does not live in this country.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend said it is obvious the writer does not live in this country. I suggest that as an authority upon Canadian economic matters the gentleman whom I have been quoting will compare very favourably with my hon. friend. I continue to quote:
Its economic affairs have been handled with a skill unexampled throughout the world.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That shows how little he knows about Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Let us look at another journal, a conservative journal-not spelled with a capital "C"-in the United States. The following appeared in the month of August, 1952.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What paper is this?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is from Fortune, and the quotation is as follows:
Canada's progress during the past dozen years is one of the economic marvels of the age. Thanks to an extraordinarily high and well distributed volume of investment, public and private, she has undergone an all-around development not matched even by that of the United States.
Now, sir, the policies of this government, as these quotations indicate-there are many more of them, as I am sure even my hon. friends of the opposition know and I think in private conversation at any rate would be prepared to admit-are admired by responsible economists and journalists in other countries, because I believe they realize that the implementation of these policies has required political courage, honesty and true
810	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Decore devotion to the long-run interests of Canada and of the free world. Since the war-and this is the central theme of my remarks- Canada's great national achievements and defence have been financed by tax rates upon the Canadian people which do compare very favourably indeed with those of other comparable English-speaking countries.


Gordon Graydon: I did not want to interrupt the minister while he was speaking, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to ask him one question. Is the speech which he has just delivered on finance meant to hail some major change in government portfolios in the near future?


Agar Rodney Adamson: There is only one observation I wish to make, and that is that he neglected the sales tax-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Agar Rodney Adamson: -and the income tax.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister was good
enough to say he would answer questions, Mr. Speaker, when he had finished his speech. I put this to him seriously. Did he consult the Minister of Finance before he made this speech tonight in which he has entered such a strong defence of the government's policy of extortionate overtaxation and opposing any tax reductions in the next budget?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) is such an amiable gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that I always like to accommodate him with an answer if I can. Much of the material that I have used tonight was supplied by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) before he had to leave for the economic conference. I am only sorry that I have not done it as great justice as the Minister of Finance would have done if he had been here.


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate again, but in view of some of the statements that have been made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) I felt compelled to make some reply. This is especially so, because of the references he made to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham). I do this with regret, because I think hon. members in this house are getting fed up with listening, day in and day out, to the type of propaganda that has been dished out by the Social Credit group in dealing with provincial matters. They have even gone so far as to obtain statements from the premier of Alberta to refute a statement made in this house by a cabinet minister.

I am sorry the hon. member for Peace River is not in his seat tonight. Among the phrases that have been used with reference to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, as I have them noted, was one to the effect that the people of Alberta made a mistake in sending a man like that to Ottawa. I think Alberta is fortunate in having here a man of the calibre of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, and we respect him for his honesty and his sincerity. The hon. member referred to the minister's statements as being utterly irresponsible; half truths; misrepresentations and distortions, and so on. One could add to those some of the statements the hon. member made in this house quite recently, such as master of smear technique; master of evasion; questionable methods, bandit leaders; stinkers in high places. These are the type of phrases used by a gentleman who is not only the leader of a political party, but who aspires to become the prime minister of Canada.
I notice that some of you are smiling, and some of you are laughing. You may think this is funny, but the leader of the Social Credit party doesn't think so. Let me quote a press report appearing in the Edmonton Journal of November 27, 1952. The headline is "Solon Low sees possibility of federal control by Social Credit." The article reads in part:
Solon E. Low, national leader of the Social Credit party, said Wednesday he would not be surprised if his party controls the Commons at Ottawa after the next federal election.
Farther down the article reads:
"I do not mean to boast that we will become the government, but I am not ruling out anything", he said. "It is possible".
Then the hon. member goes on to give three reasons why he thinks this party will control the House of Commons or form the government. One of the reasons he cited was the result of the British Columbia election. The second reason was the result of the Alberta election. As to his third reason, I quote from the article:
"On top of that, Premier Manning made a triumphant tour of eastern Canada-not for political purposes but to do a job in religion". He added: "It has its political implications. It will hold implications for us (the party), I am sure".
He said political writers read into the premier's trip political significance, which was not designed.
"It will have that effect, but that is not what he went east for", he reiterated. "But if a man does a good thing, and it rebounds to the good of the political movement he leads, I am not going to deny it".
The hon. gentleman feels he is probably coming to Ottawa to form the next government. He has made a reference to highways, and has introduced a statement by Premier Manning of Alberta. Let me read to you,


Mr. Speaker, an editorial appearing in the Calgary Herald of April 17, 1952. I believe nobody would accuse the Calgary Herald of being a Liberal paper. The heading oi this editorial is "Millions of dollars for potholes". I shall read the editorial:
The province of Alberta intends to spend $24,400,000 for highways this year but if the examples of past highway construction are to be the criterion of future development, the money is just being wasted.
You heard what was quoted tonight in the letter from Premier Manning of Alberta. To continue:
There may be 1,200 miles of paved road in Alberta today, but great chunks of it are no better than plowed fields right now because of the spring thaws. It was only four years ago or so that the new direct route to Cochrane was built. Now there is a section on that main highway which looks like one of the so-called streets in southwest Calgary, a morass of muddy ruts, fit for a tank training ground.
The other entrance highways into Calgary from the south and the north are in terrible shape also. Reports from all over the province indicate severe upheavals on the paved roads, as well as the usual quagmires on the gravelled secondary highways. One expects mud, ruts, bogs and natural corruption on Alberta's unpaved roads during the spring break-up. It is traditional and the province wouldn't be the same without it. But why should the citizens have to put up with these hazards and discomforts on the allegedly "surfaced" roads of this province?


Mr. Johnston:: That is a lot of baloney.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


John Decore: It is a matter of opinion.


Charles Edward Johnston: When people say things like that they should make sure they are true. Anyone who has driven on those roads knows it is a lot of baloney.


John Decore: I am sorry-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I could not hear what the hon. member was saying.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, according to the opinion you expressed a while ago with regard to truthful statements, an hon. member should be sure that the things he is quoting are true. That is only a newspaper report. Anybody who knows the Calgary Herald knows they have stretched the truth once in a while, and that is one case.


John Decore: When the hon. member is speaking about truth it reminds me of a line in one of Lord Bacon's essays in which he says "What is truth, said jesting Pilate, and would not wait for an answer."


Charles Edward Johnston: Maybe the hon. member would not know.


John Decore: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I am reading from the editorial as it appears in the Calgary Herald.
08108-52J
16, 1952
The Address-Mr. Decore Mr. Johnston: It is not too reliable.


John Decore: I wish I had with me other editorials which have appeared in the Edmonton Journal from which the hon. member has read, and other papers in the province, dealing with our roads in Alberta. I regret that I have to deal with provincial matters because this is not the place to deal with them.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then why are you doing it?


John Decore: When the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) brings in a statement which he reads into the record, signed by the premier of Alberta, then I think I should read these editorials.


Mr. Quelch:: The hon. member should give the date of the editorial.


John Decore: Yes. One is under date of April 17, 1952. I have quoted from that one. There is another one to which I am going to refer and it is under the date of June 27, 1952.


Charles Edward Johnston: That was just political
propaganda.


John Decore: To continue further with this editorial:
One would have thought that, after years of experience with climatic conditions here and the experiments on soil which have been carried on at the university of Alberta, the highways department would have learned a few lessons in the art of road building. It surely should have realized, as even Alberta cities are beginning to realize, that you can't just roll a bit of pavement on the prairie and expect it to last. It must know that if roads are to last they have to have bases several feet, not several inches, thick.
Hence when the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys made the statement that the roads in Alberta are just like the Social Credit party, with a fine surface and very little foundation, this editorial bears him out. It continues:
It should experiment on materials to find the best ones to combat Alberta's continual freezing and thawing weather. It should learn to build wide, solid highways, not long, narrow collapsible ones.
But then, we suppose, the highways department isn't allowed to be interested in building roads, but must make sure that it builds votes instead. It must allocate its expenditures (and therefore establish its specifications) to construct the mostest with the least. It must see that some pavement gets into the good Social Credit constituencies, even if it means skimping elsewhere. Thus the province can expand its mileage while retaining low grade standards.
That sum of $24,400,000 is an awful lot of money to sink in the paved mudholes Alberta is getting. When will the government begin to use these moneys properly and efficiently?
I am also going to quote from another editorial in the same paper. The date of this one is June 27, 1952. The heading is "Is This All We Get for Our Oil Money?" I am not going to take the time of the house to

The Address-Mr. Decore read all of it, but will content myself with reading the part which is as follows:
As we have said before, we do not think the government is building its major highways to the proper specifications for this country and climate. We only have the word of private road contractors on that, but surely the condition of the roads this spring should be evidence enough.
Then it goes on further to say:
The people of this province are getting pretty fed up with excuses for provincial road-building. Millions for back-fill and nothing for surfacing is no answer to the motorist's prayer. This government is raking in oil revenues at a wonderful rate, but if the debilitated pavement outside Calgary, the washboard surfacing around Waterton and the bogs near Jasper are the best examples of long-term capital expenditures for the future of this province, we'll eat Mr. Taylor's speech.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Liberals were elected on that kind of material, both of them.


John Decore: Mr. Speaker, as I say it is with considerable regret that I rise and deal with these matters on the floor of this house.
I would not mind listening to a lot of this propaganda coming from the Social Credit group if only they were consistent. Referring again to the hon. member for Peace River, may I say that he was one of the first members of the Social Credit group in 1935. That was the time William Aberhart put over one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the people of Alberta when he promised them the sum of $25 a month; that is, he promised that to every citizen in Alberta, whether he worked or not, and he did not have to pay it back, either. That promise was made to the people of the province of Alberta in 1935. The leader of the Social Credit party in this house was one of the instigators of that plan at the time, and the people of the province of Alberta fell for it. Those were depression years. Economic conditions were terrible out west, and many of the people said: We will vote Social Credit regardless, as things couldn't be worse. Eventually, as we have found, they changed their tune. They have changed their tactics. There was no dividend and no payment.


Victor Quelch: The people have not changed. They still vote Social Credit.


John Decore: Because the people of Alberta thought they were getting a good conservative government. I want to say this. I do not want to compare Conservatives and Social Crediters. I do not want to be disrespectful to the Conservatives because I have a great deal of respect for them, although I disagree with some of their policies. As I say, the Conservative party is one that has had the confidence of the people throughout our


history in Canada, and I hope they continue to have the confidence of the people in the future.


Victor Quelch: As we have in Alberta.


John Decore: Just the other day the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) made this statement.


An hon. Member:: Where is it to be found?


John Decore: It is reported in Hansard. He made a great many statements, but here is one he made as reported at page 550 of Hansard of December 11:
Social Credit would, through the monetary commission, issue to consumers consumer purchasing power in such forms and in such amounts as might be found needful to equate consumption with production in the nation's economy. That sounds sensible, does it not?
I wonder. To continue:
It cannot be done without debt-free money. Such issues of consumer purchasing power might fittingly be called national dividends.
In other words we are again going back to that same -theory that was propagated in the province of Alberta in 1935. I might point out that since that time some financial experts have come into Alberta. One of them was Mr. Powell. I believe he was sent down by Mr. Douglas, and Mr. Manning was there, too. After he spent some time in Alberta he had to spend the rest of the time in the Alberta jail. After he spent the time in jail he was deported to the old country where he came from. There was still another financial expert who came into Alberta from the old country, Mr. Byrne; and he was fired. The only financial expert I know of right now is the hon. member for Lethbridge. I do not know what will happen to him.


Mr. Blackmore:: That is about all you need.


John Decore: I agree with the hon. member. There have been some other new theories developed in Social Credit. The hon. member for Peace River was talking about oil. He said it was fortunate that oil came into the province of Alberta at the time it did. I wonder if he knows how oil did come into the province of Alberta.


Charles Edward Johnston: Did the Liberals bring it in?


John Decore: I am sorry I have not the date of this newspaper clipping, but the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) will recall the date. It was when he spoke at the Calgary Social Credit constituency association, at the bible institute, and this is what he had to say:
Mr. Hansell concluded wtih a reference to the Alberta government's financial position, saying other parties claimed that the province was prosperous because of oil having been discovered.

But, said Mr. Hansell, oil was always there. It was discovered under Social Credit and there might be a reason for that. "Perhaps," he said, "even Providence might have said, 'we are not going to place this wealth into the hands of just anybody'."
References have been made to the Social Credit claiming a monopoly on religion. That is not only a monopoly on religion, but the above statement claims a monopoly on the favours which Providence bestows on a government. We have listened to the hon. member for Lethbridge and the hon. member for Peace River telling us what Social Credit is. I say that if you took all these words used by the hon. member for Peace River such as bandit leader, stinkers in high places, cesspool methods, gutter politics, master of smear technique, master of evasion, tommyrot, and put them together, then, Mr. Speaker, you have Social Credit.
The Address-Mr. Decore


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Speaker, since we have had quite a long and hectic day, may I be permitted to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Roberge the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister what we shall do tomorrow after this debate is finished.


Alphonse Fournier: We are in the hands of the opposition.
On motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
*


Wednesday. December 17, 1952