1952-04-28

RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Halion) presented the *first report of the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the oral notice given by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) last Thursday at the close of the sitting, and as published in Votes and Proceedings for Friday, I move:
That on Monday, April 28. 1952, and every Monday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except the introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
I would hope, however, that it might be understood that there would be allotted today as much time to private members' business as was taken last Monday to deal with the motion to set up the committee on the readjustment of representation.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if there were any reason before us why the motion should be adopted at this time, I would be prepared to support it, as I think many other members would. On other occasions in the past similar motions have received assent from members at a time when it was clearly demonstrated that urgent matters required consideration. But no urgency-and I submit this to hon. members-has been demonstrated, and no such case has been presented to us. On the contrary there are many reasons why the rights of private members should be preserved, in this as in other sessions.
This session has followed a pattern which surely calls for the attention of all members. Tomorrow we will be into the third calendar month of the session. Outside of the strictly formal bills which were called for following the approval of the supplementary estimates,
the only measure placed before the house for consideration by way of legislation is a bill that was introduced at the very outset to deal with an emergent situation which had arisen because of the outbreak of the foot-and-mouth disease.
It is not necessary to say that there was an extended debate on the speech from the throne, or that there has been already a debate for some days on the budget. Those debates of necessity were more extended, and doubtless the discussion was more discursive, because no direction has been given to the business of this house since the session began on February 28. There has been no pattern, there has been no lead, there has been no indication to hon. members of the things they would really be called upon to discuss except for those private measures, either by way of bill or by way of motion, brought forward by private members.
It is true that we had a discussion on external affairs and national defence. It is true that after repeated requests the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) indicated the concurrence of the government in the suggestion that had been made that there should be separate debates on external affairs and national defence. But the effectiveness of those debates was to a great extent stultified by the fact that, for whatever reasons may have been put forward, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) saw fit to address a club in New York just a few days before that debate when every subject that could be brought forward was brought forward there. Then a few days later he went on the radio over a national network and devoted his attention largely to one party in this house in a manner which introduced a spirited debate on what the motives of that party really were.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: It is interesting to notice the measure of impatience that is displayed by members of this house the moment any suggestion is made that they should follow the rules which have been established for some time.


Mr. Cleaver:: Speak to the motion.


Mr. Mutch:: Right now you are out of order.


Mr. Howe:: What motion are we speaking to?
1636	HOUSE OF
Business of the House


George Alexander Drew: I propose to follow the course of my remarks until such time as Your Honour indicates that in your opinion they are not in accordance with the motion before us. There is only one Speaker in this house, and I do not intend to accept direction from cabinet ministers or other members as to the subjects I shall debate in this house.


An hon. Member:: Usually out of order anyway.


An hon. Member:: Blue Monday.


An hon. Member:: Blue for you fellows, all right.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


George Alexander Drew: Fortunately I am in no hurry, and I intend to wait until Your Honour at any rate has the opportunity to hear what I am saying.
This house then heard a discussion of external affairs and later it heard a discussion of national defence. The minister for external affairs showed scant regard for the members of the house in the course he followed; moreover, when defence was being discussed the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) showed even less courtesy toward the house when he absented himself during a substantial part of that debate.


An hon. Member:: So were you.


George Alexander Drew: The chairman of the committee on defence expenditures is obviously under the impression that he is sitting as chairman of this house. We shall await with considerable interest his decisions tomorrow as chairman of that committee.


Mr. Chevrier:: We are waiting for your bright arguments.


George Alexander Drew: We in this house have now before us for debate the budget, which provides the whole financial authority of parliament and the government for the coming year. The attitude of the government toward the budget debate is displayed by the fact that having brought in the budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) sat here for one day on Tuesday, then dropped the whole thing and left to engage in other activities not in any way related to his responsibilities in this house. The budget debate should not proceed until it is convenient for the Minister of Finance to return to this house.


An hon. Member:: Is that a ruling?


George Alexander Drew: I heard an interjection, "Is that a ruling?". No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a ruling. If the hon. member had been listening he would have heard that I said that the time has come, that the time is long


overdue, when some hon. members of this house on the other side and to my right should listen to suggestions as to what they should do instead of just being rubber stamps for the government.


Mr. Sinnott:: Dictatorship.


George Alexander Drew: I find some interjections most interesting because they are illuminating. I heard from one brilliant member opposite the word "dictatorship".


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Recognizing the brilliance of the hon. member who made the interjection, I feel that I should not let the remark pass unchallenged, because it is obvious that, in the mind of the hon. member it is dictatorship if any member of this house should even question the propriety of everything done by the government and supported by those who support it so regularly, including the hon. member who has just interjected the remark.


Mr. Harkness:: He used the word in the Russian sense.


George Alexander Drew: It is in the mind of at least one brilliant member of this house that it is dictatorship if anyone raises any question about the course followed by the government. If there is any danger of dictatorship-and of course obviously there is none while hon. members and others are free to express their opinions-it is the danger that we let the majority of this house deprive the members of their ordinary rights without just argument and excuse.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Let us get down to business.


An hon. Member:: You are no ordinary member.


George Alexander Drew: I recognize that the hon. member who has just interjected is no ordinary member of this house. We are dealing with members of this house generally and their rights. I have referred to the fact that without explanation or justification of any kind we are proceeding at this time with the budget debate in the absence of the Minister of Finance. That very fact is an affront not only to members of this house but to all Canadians at a time when we are considering a budget that will be the basis of the enormous taxation to be imposed in Canada this year. It is directly relevant to the motion before us.
There can be only one suggested argument in support of such a debate proceeding in the absence of the Minister of Finance. That would be that no matter what argument is put forward, the ears of the government will be deaf in any event. If we have reached

that point, then it would be wise for the government to go one step farther and end the farce by introducing a motion that all debate should come to an end, and let any member who has anything to put forward simply file a written argument and have it appear in the record, because the government does not intend to listen to it in any event.
The reason for the arguments that are put forward is that the government may hear these arguments. We are now dealing with a pattern which has been established, namely, that ministers primarily concerned first make their arguments outside of the house. Then when these matters come up in the house they give scant attention to the members, and, having presented their case do not even bother to listen to the arguments that are put forward. Do not let any hon. member say that the arguments that have been put forward have not been arguments worth listening to. Speeches have been made in the house that should have been listened to by every member of the house and many more members of the government than have ever been here at any time since the budget debate started. Speeches of vital importance have been presented.
There have been speeches made with respect to the deplorable situation in the farming industry, including dairying, and the textile and other industries across the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Yet on many occasions not more than two ministers of the crown have even thought it worth while to listen to these arguments, even though the responsible minister, the Minister of Finance, is not here and apparently has no immediate intention of returning, so far as one can see at the moment.


Mr, Sinnott:: A good by-election speech.


George Alexander Drew: The motion now before us would end the normal rights of private members who have bills and motions on the order paper. Where is there before the house at the moment a suggestion of any measure presented by the government calling for such urgent attention that the rights of private members should be done away with in this manner?


Mr. George:: What about last Friday night?


George Alexander Drew: I am sorry; I did not hear the hon. member.


Edmund William George: What about last Friday night?


George Alexander Drew: May I ask what the hon. member said?
Business of the House


Edmund William George: Last Friday night we ran out of private members' bills and motions. There were not enough sponsors in the house.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Even public bills.


George Alexander Drew: It is perfectly true that last Friday nigat certain measures were not dealt with. The hon. member and I both know that, but the fact remains that there is a great deal of business before the house, and most certainly the hon. member has no right to complain if a further opportunity is provided to certain hon. members associated with him to discuss subjects which they regard as so important.
But there are private members' motions and other measures before the house that are of very great importance. I suggest that up to the present time during this session the debates that have taken place on private bills and private members' motions have had a far greater sense of reality than the debates that have taken place on government motions or government bills that have been brought forward.
So far as the house is concerned, legislation could have been brought forward. It could have been sent to committees and dealt with in committees. In spite of that, the committees are really only getting under way at this stage of the session. I must say I have been much interested in the suggestion made that members of the Conservative party-


An hon. Member:: Progressive.


George Alexander Drew: -were not displaying very great interest in the affairs of the committee on defence expenditures because at one meeting only one of their members was present.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Sinclair:: You know the rules.


An hon. Member:: He makes them as he goes along.


George Alexander Drew: Recognizing the supreme brilliance of the source of the last remark, I will not even make a comment. Doubtless, the hon. member will give us the benefit of his great wisdom.


James Sinclair: It is a very simple rule known to most parliamentarians.


George Alexander Drew: Doubtless we will hear more from the hon. member on a number of occasions. The question that I raise concerns defence expenditures and related subjects. I might point out that at the meeting of the committee of last Tuesday, to which reference has been made-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -the committee had no opportunity whatever to deal with-

Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Order.	Mr. Drew: -and that the delay-


George Alexander Drew: -the Petawawa situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the leader of the opposition not to discuss at this time what took place at the meeting of the committee.


James Sinclair: That is the rule I was talking about.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am so glad you have such excellent advice. According to the hon. member, apparently you follow that advice whenever you hear it. I know-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -it has been indicated on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the house have confidence in your judgment, and I might say they have no confidence at all in the judgment or otherwise of the hon. member who has been interrupting.


An hon. Member:: Oh yes, we have.


James Sinclair: Temper, temper, temper.


George Alexander Drew: As Hansard does not record all this constant interruption, I wish to make it quite clear that when an argument is being presented with respect to the rights of private members there is nothing but a continuous uproar from members who apparently do not believe that private members should have any further rights in the house.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: That is not the cause of the uproar.


George Alexander Drew: I should also like to indicate for the record that the noise has come exclusively from members who are supporters of the government.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: Dispense.


George Alexander Drew: The house will proceed with the debates under way and will proceed with the business-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Is that an order?


George Alexander Drew: -if there is some direction and guidance given by the government as to what business is going to come before the house. I wish to ask at -this time for an assurance from the Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: You will get it.


George Alexander Drew: I hope I shall get it. May I say in response to the most recent interruption that I hope there will be an undertaking from the Prime Minister that no second session this year will be contemplated-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McCann:: We do not want it.


George Alexander Drew: -and carefully planned frustration that has rendered so much of the debate ineffective-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Sounds like a confession.


George Alexander Drew: The time of confession for the hon. member will come later in this discussion, provided he feels himself free to take advantage of that opportunity. The subject now before the house does relate to the point I have raised. There can be no excuse for a second session this year-


George James McIlraith: No one suggested it.


Some hon. Members:: Who suggested it?


George Alexander Drew: -and I repeat that I hope the Prime Minister will give the unqualified assurance that there will be no second session this year, always subject to those emergencies which have no relation to the ordinary business of this house. I am raising this question now because last year we did have a wholly unnecessary second session-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At the present time there is nothing before the house in regard to a second session. I think the hon. member might reserve his remarks on that subject until it is before the house.


George Alexander Drew: I am pointing out why the business of the house should be expedited;-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: -and why it would be wholly unnecessary to adopt this motion if the government really wanted to get ahead with the business. If the government does want to get ahead with its business, then let it introduce the bills it has under consideration. It is not reasonable to believe that at this stage of the session the government has not ready all the legislation it intends to introduce. Let it bring forward that legislation and move it into committee so it can be given consideration, instead of holding it back until the end of the session when there will not be adequate opportunity to examine it, as has happened so often in the past.
I iam raising these points because we have urged over and over again that the rules of the house do make it possible to deal with the bills and resolutions of private members as well as the regular business of the house, as long as the members have some idea when that business is going to be dealt with. Let no one make the suggestion by way of reply that the government has sought to expedite proceedings and that

long debates have taken place on every motion it has introduced. There have been debates, but those debates have taken place because hon. members have no way of knowing whether or not they are going to have an opportunity of raising the questions they want to raise. They do not know whether this session the government is going to change its habits and let debate follow an orderly pattern, or whether it is going to follow the practice of the last several sessions and leave the important things until the last, when the heat of the summer and the desire to get home will make it very difficult to discuss adequately the measures brought before the house.
This motion will have the effect of further limiting the rights of private members, which already have been limited greatly. During the years of war and immediately after, the habit grew of setting aside the rules; but surely now we have reached a time when we can abide by the rules. If those rules need amendment, let the amendments be introduced in the ordinary way. Instead of motions to suspend rules, let us have motions to change the rules if in fact isuch changes should be made. But at a time when we have so little before us, at a time when the Minister of Finance does not think the budget debate is sufficiently important to be here for it, let us not adopt a motion of this kind which deprives private members of the opportunity to have real debates on subjects that are of real concern to the people of Canada.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: On
various occasions when motions of this kind have been presented to the house I have protested on behalf of the private members who are associated with me. To a very large extent I agree with what has been said by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in regard to the necessity of members of this house safeguarding in every particular the rights of private members. I am not suggesting for one moment that the government with its large majority wishes to exercise some kind of dictatorship over all of us to override the House of Commons, but I do support what was said by the leader of the opposition in his concluding remarks. Bit by bit the rights of private members have been restricted, largely because of the necessities of war. Prior to the war private members' days were looked upon as being embedded in the rules of the house and were not interfered with without very good reason; and always, may I say, after there had been some discussion and consultation with the whips or leaders of the opposition parties.
Business of the House
Having watched the loss of the rights of private members in this house over a period of years-and rights have been lost-it is good that once in a while private members should assert themselves and demand that their rights be retained in every particular. Under wartime conditions private members were willing at all times to forgo many of their rights. I remember one or two regular sessions when there were no private members' days at all. That was because of the emergencies then existing, and was by agreement.
I believe those of us who from time to time criticize the conduct of the business of the house should take some responsibility for endeavouring to provide the better organization of that business. There is no question but that the manner in which we conduct the business of this parliament does not reflect much credit upon the House of Commons. The rules which have been provided very largely for the protection of those of us who are private members from time to time need to be reconsidered and revised.
I agree with the criticism of the leader of the opposition in regard to statements made outside this house and the absence of ministers when such important matters as the budget are under consideration. I think that does show a lack of regard for this parliament.
Coming now to the private members' resolutions, a number of those resolutions on the order paper are of very great importance, not so much to the private members themselves as to their constituents and to members of all parties from one end of this country to the other. These resolutions can only be moved in the form in which they are brought before the house, namely "that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given."
I have felt that from time to time the government has paid no attention to the expressed will of this parliament.
I am not going to discuss the income tax exemption for medical expenses, the milk subsidy, and so on, but resolutions concerning these matters were approved by this house, in one case unanimously, for the consideration of the government. I do say this: The only opportunity, other than by moving an amendment to the budget or the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Excellency at the opening of the session-the only opportunity a private member has to bring before this house matters of importance not only to their constituents but to the whole of Canada, is by the filing of private members' resolutions. They do perform a useful function in this parliament. Consequently I do not like to see any attempt made to restrict the

Business of the House
rights of private members. If this privilege is to be circumscribed in any way, or dispensed with for the moment, it should be done by agreement rather than by the adoption of a motion.
I am quite sure the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would find that most hon. members would be willing to accede to the request of the government, if the government were in a position of some difficulty regarding the business of the house. As has been said this afternoon, we do not know as yet what legislation is coming before us, and we are therefore in an extremely difficult position in attempting to make a judgment. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the organization of the business of this house must be reconsidered. I suggest that private members' days be continued until at least we have complete knowledge of the legislation that is coming before us, and until we are sure that the committees of the house are going to be at work. I am extremely anxious that the committee on agriculture should go into the matter of the foot-and-mouth disease. I cannot see any reason why the government has delayed consideration of that matter. I am sure that all members are willing to cooperate to facilitate the business of the house, provided that we know what the business of the house is, and can form a mature judgment as to the need for forgoing some rights of private members.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should like to take a moment to say that we are anxious to do what we can to help the government get its program before the house and have the business completed. But at the same time we do feel we should not take any action, except after careful consideration and by agreement, that would further abridge the rights of private members. For this reason I find myself very largely in agreement with the other two party leaders on this side of the floor.
I would suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) give careful consideration to frequent conferences between the party whips to see if it would not be possible to organize the business of the house in such a manner as to speed things along. If we were given some idea of what is coming up, we could be prepared when that item of business came before the house and would thus facilitate the dispatch of business. On this matter I must stand with the other party leaders.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few words with reference to a matter which has a bearing on the motion that is now

before us. On Tuesday, April 1, when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) moved a motion to take away Wednesdays as private members' days, a request was made by the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to which the Prime Minister made a conditional reply. I feel that the substance of that reply should even yet be implemented.
It is for that reason I rise to ask the Prime Minister to give further consideration to what was asked for on that occasion.
As the Prime Minister and the house will remember, Monday, March 31, was to have been a private members' day. By unanimous consent we gave it up as a private members' day so that the government might have it for the consideration of supplementary estimates. Accordingly the next day, when the Prime Minister moved that Wednesdays be taken away, the member for Rosetown-Biggar requested that the loss of the day before might be made up in some way. In his reply the Prime Minister indicated that there were certain difficulties, but he did say this, as recorded at page 999 of Hansard for April 1, 1952:
Perhaps we might consider suspending this order a week from Wednesday, or try to make it up in some other way that would satisfy hon. members.
I would point out that the Wednesday referred to was Wednesday, April 9, but the order was not suspended on that day. Instead, we considered the Japanese peace treaty, which was government business. Thus, so far as the private members are concerned there has been no compensation as yet for the loss of that full Monday, March 31. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that whatever may be the disposition of the motion now before us, which is designed to take away Mondays as private members' days, the Prime Minister should still consider the point which he said he would consider on April 1, and arrange with the various groups in the house for the provision of at least one more Wednesday for private members' motions.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I must confess I was very much surprised, though I do not suppose I should be, at the performance of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) this afternoon. I should not have been surprised. It was merely reminiscent of many such performances and outbursts before the election of 1949. In thinking it over I recalled a number of occasions when it was the privilege of the hon. gentleman to lecture the members of this house on the way in which the proceedings of this house should, in his opinion, be

carried on, instead of being carried on as they have been in the long and somewhat fruitful years of the life of this house when the hon. gentleman was not a member of it.
It has been suggested that there should be frequent conferences between the whips of the groups. I think that is a very good suggestion, but it would be necessary for the whips of the groups to report to the leaders of the groups they represent that there had been such conferences so that those leaders of the groups might not be taking attitudes differing from the understandings that seemed to have been reached between the whips.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that there has been no understanding by the whips in regard to this matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I was unaware that the hon. gentleman was one of the whips.


George Alexander Drew: Cheap; very cheap.


Mr. Casselman:: I happen to be one of the whips, and there was no understanding with respect to this.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am informed, and I believe it, that on Wednesday last-and that was not the first time it was discussed- before the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) announced in the house that there was going to be a motion, he discussed it with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat.


Arza Clair Casselman: The leader of the house is not-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister has said that he believed that one whip discussed this matter with another whip.


George Alexander Drew: That is not what the Prime Minister said.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I said that my information is-and I believe it to be accurate-that the Minister of Public Works mentioned to the hon. gentleman who sits behind the leader of the opposition his intention of giving that notice, and was told by the hon. gentleman that he thought it was quite all right.


George Alexander Drew: I repeat that there was no undertaking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: There may have been no undertaking, but there has been an attempt here this afternoon-
Business of the House


An hon. Member:: Don't lose your temper.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: -to put before the public as facts something which does not represent the facts, and I am attempting to re-establish the facts. Even before Easter there had been discussion as to the making of this motion to take away the Monday, and it was1 suggested

I believe by the hon. gentleman who represents Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-that there should be at least one Monday for private members after we came back after Easter. I thought that was a reasonable suggestion to make, and instead of giving the notice immediately,-because last Monday it was the unanimous wish of the house to take part of the time to deal with the motion to set up a committee on the readjustment of the representation of the house, inasmuch as that committee is apt to have quite a long job before it-the giving of the notice was postponed until after the Minister of Public Works had mentioned it orally in the house on Wednesday night.
I was under the impression-and I think there were some reasons for my being under such impression-that the private members had had the time they wished to have to deal with the various matters they had put on the order paper. Some minutes after nine o'clock last Monday we reverted to private members' business-and I was here-and every one of the resolutions was called. That of the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote) was, I think, the last on the list, and that was the only one that anyone was ready to proceed with. All the others were allowed to stand. Again on Friday night private bills and public bills and orders were called and disposed of in twenty-two minutes of the hour that was available for the discussion of those subjects, and the matters which hon. members had expressed a desire to have votes upon had received votes, and had been disposed of by divisions of the house.
From the very beginning of the session I have endeavoured to meet the wishes of hon. gentlemen opposite and to arrange the debates in the manner in which they have suggested they would like to have them arranged. I was under the impression that this motion was not going to raise any storm today, even though there might be six by-elections in the offing. The leader of the opposition suggests that a great deal of time has been taken, to the point of creating a feeling of frustration because of the fact that the government was not bringing forward any of its business. Will the hon. gentleman give himself the trouble to look at the Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day, pages 15, 16 and 17? Will he note the dates on which the notices were put on
1642

Business of the House
the order paper to be dealt with just as soon as they could be reached without taking away from the private members of the house the opportunity to debate the matters they were debating?
On March 7 there was put on the order paper notice of a resolution to introduce a measure to extend the application of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. On March 11 there was another for the introduction of a measure to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947. Then, on March 14, a resolution that it was expedient to introduce a bill conferring authority upon the governor in council to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to construct a certain railway line; on March 28, that it was expedient to introduce a measure to amend the war veterans' allowance legislation, for increasing allowances and permissible income, etc. On the same day there was another, that it was expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951; on the same day, that it was expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Insurance Act; on April 1, that it was expedient to introduce a bill to amend the National Defence Act; and there follows a long series of amendments to which the notice refers. On the same day there was a resolution that it was expedient to introduce a measure respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners; on April 8, that it was expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Aeronautics Act; on April 23, that it was expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the governor in council may do such things as were required in order to implement the Japanese peace treaty which came into effect this morning. On April 24 there was another, that it was expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Pension Act.
These matters, especially those which concern the veterans, have come to the point where it is urgent that they be dealt with as soon as possible, because it is my understanding that the representatives of the Canadian Legion are .to be here on May 6 and that they expect to have the bills which concern the veterans in such shape that they can make representations to the committee to be set up-of which notice is now on the order paper-to consider this veterans legislation. Any suggestion that there has been delay in bringing forward the measures that the government wishes to have dealt with is quite contrary to the facts. These measures cannot be introduced without the adoption of the resolutions of which the notices are on the order paper. The committee set up at the last session to consider the rules of the house has not been able to get agreement on the proposal that there shall not be both a

debate with the Speaker in the chair and a debate in the committee of the whole on each of these resolutions which must be adopted before the legislation can be introduced.


George Alexander Drew: And they could have been called at any time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Had they been called at any time, we would have had the assertion by the hon. gentleman and by others that we were curtailing the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne,-


George Alexander Drew: Nonsense.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -the debate on external affairs, the debate on defence, the debate on the budget.


An hon. Member:: Don't get angry.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have been trying to act in such a manner as to have the agreement or at least the acquiescence of the hon. gentleman opposite. It may be that we shall have to take another attitude, that we shall have to say that the business of the house has to be considered and will simply give notice in the house of the time when it will be considered and take whatever consequences may result from assertions of the hon. gentleman opposite that our huge majority is being used to muzzle parliament, to establish government dictatorship or government by orders in council, and that there is a disregard of the democratic rights of the people represented, as the hon. gentleman would seek to imply, only by those who sit on the opposition benches.
Here the understanding has been that there would be allotted to the business of private members as much time as had been taken last Monday to deal with business of a public character on a day when the private members' motions should have had priority. This motion was put on for today merely for the purpose of having today used in that manner and not carry over the undertaking to have another private members' day, in addition to today, used to replace last Monday.
There is no desire to prevent any debate on any matter that is on the order paper. If hon. gentlemen will bring to our attention any specific matter that-though it has been called, and has been stood over-should still in their opinion have priority over the public business of the country, their representations will get consideration.
So far as the present session is concerned, which, as has been pointed out by the leader of the opposition, is now in its third month, I think it is time to do what in my experience has always been done at about this stage in the session. I can assure hon. members

that there is no desire to cut off or to prevent debate or divisions. The house has had proof during this session that there has been no desire to dispose of these matters by talking them out. They have been brought to a conclusion, and they have been disposed of bv dividing the house upon them. I think that is what hon. gentlemen wish to have done, and there is no desire to have the business of the house carried on in any other way. On the other hand there is no desire just to take without comment the lectures that it pleases the leader of the opposition to give us from time to time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Prime Minister in his remarks has referred to me and part of what he said is correct, but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member should have raised his question of privilege during the Prime Minister's remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of courtesy I let the Prime Minister finish. I think I should be permitted to state my question of privilege. My point is this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the house wants a revival of the question of what took place between the whips, I will allow it to be done. However, I think it was discussed fully.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All I wish to say is that when this proposal was presented to me by way of my being informed of what was to be done, I complained every time about our not getting that day that we lost and which the Prime Minister had promised to give us as I indicated in my remarks this afternoon.


Alphonse Fournier: On a question of privilege, the hon. member admits, I think, that I did mention this matter to him before it was brought up in the house on Wednesday evening. I told him we intended to put that notice of motion on Votes and Proceedings the next day. I did not ask his agreement, but he was informed about the matter. The same thing applies to my hon. friends opposite.


Arza Clair Casselman: No agreement at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We were merely informed; we were not consulted.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion of the Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Alexander Drew: Lost.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.


George Alexander Drew: Lost.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour will please
say aye.


Some hon. Members:: Aye.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Calherwood:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.



REFERENCE TO AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE OF ANNUAL REPORTS OF WHEAT BOARD AND GRAIN COMMISSIONERS

Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the annual report of the board of grain commissioners for the year 1951, and I now move:
That the report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1950-51, tabled on March 18, together with the report of the board of grain commissioners Just tabled, be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the house may be interested to learn at this time that General Matthew Ridgway, United States army, was today appointed by the North Atlantic council to succeed General Dwight D. Eisenhower as supreme allied commander for Europe. This announcement was made this afternoon in Paris by Lord Ismay who had presided over the first meeting of the reorganized council as vice-chairman. At that first meeting this morning the President of the United States was requested to put forward the name of an American to succeed General Eisenhower. He put forward General Ridg-way's name, and General Ridgway was appointed by the council this afternoon.
The general feeling which has been held towards General Eisenhower for his services to NATO was, I think, very well expressed by Lord Ismay this morning when he said:
Our hearts are filled with pride and gratitude for what General Eisenhower has done since he was appointed supreme commander in Europe. It may well be that when history comes to be written the contributions which he has made towards saving peace will be acclaimed as no less worthy of renown than his contributions towards winning the second world war.
IMr. Speaker.]
General Ridgway's distinguished military career and, in particular, his recent post of commander of United Nations forces in Korea, show him to be well qualified for the important duties of supreme commander of the forces of North Atlantic countries in Europe. It is also gratifying to learn that President Truman has expressed his agreement that General Gruenther should remain as chief of staff to the new supreme commander, a post where he has been so successful and effective under General Eisenhower.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	How many bankruptcies occurred in each province of Canada during (a) each of the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951; (b) the first three months of 1952?
He said: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw this question for the purpose of redrafting it.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Johnston:: 1.	How much money has been paid to the province of Ontario by the federal government for the construction of Ontario's share of the trans-Canada highway?
2.	What are the contractual requirements before the federal government pays any money to a province for the construction of the trans-Canada highway?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Payments made to the Ontario provincial government by the federal government as Canada's share of the cost of construction of the trans-Canada highway in Ontario as at April 26, 1952, amount to $7,772,835.41.
2.	Before money can be paid by the federal government to a provincial government for the construction of the trans-Canada highway, there must be a signed agreement between the two governments under the terms of the Trans-Canada Highway Act, chapter 40, of the Statutes of Canada, 1949, and the terms of the agreement must have been carried out, with respect to the work for which payment is claimed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: 1.	What type of railway snow removal equipment is on hand between Levis, Quebec, and Campbell-ton. New Brunswick?
2.	How many of each type of equipment were available for use (a) during the period of January 1 to February 28, 1952; (b) for the dates February 13, 18 and 22, 1952?

3.	What type of railway snow removal equipment is on hand between Moncton, New Brunswick, and Campbellton, New Brunswick?
4.	How many of each type of equipment were available for use (a) during the period January 1, to February 28, 1952; (b) for the dates February 13, 18 and 22, 1952?
5.	What was the cost to the Canadian National
Railways for removal of snow following storms in
(a)	the Levis, Quebec and Campbellton, New Brunswick area on (i) January 23, 1952; (ii) February 13, 1952; (iii) February 18, 1952;	(b) the
Moncton, New Brunswick and Campbellton, New Brunswick area on (i) January 23, 1952; (ii) February 13, 1952; (iii) February 18, 1952?
6.	What was the delay, in hours, of each of the trains running into Halifax on the dates (i) January 23; (ii) February 13; (iii) February 18, 1952?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1. Wing plows, rotary plows, spreaders and dangers.
6.
No. 2 Maritime Express No. 4 Ocean Limited . .
No. 60 Scotian	
No. 6 from Sydney .. . . No. 8 from Sydney . . . . No. 10 from Sydney . . . No. 88 from Yarmouth
Questions
2.	Ca) 20 wing plows, 3 rotary plows, 6 spreaders and 9 dangers (maximum number available during the period in question).
(b) February 13:16 wing plows, 3 rotary plows, 4 spreaders and 9 dangers; February 18:19 wing plows, 3 rotary plows, 6 spreaders and 9 dangers; February 22:20 wing plows, 3 rotary plows, 6 spreaders and 9 dangers.
3.	Wing plows, rotary plow, spreaders and dangers.
4.	(a) 11 wing plows and 7 dangers; (b) same as (a) on each of dates.
5.	(a) (i) January 23, $88,925. (ii) February 13, $91,592. (iii) February 18, $210,511.
(b) (i) January 23, $6,351. (ii) February 13, $11,406. (iii) February 18, $127,267.
Jan. 23	Feb. 13	Feb. 183' 10"	late	2' 25" late	1' 25" late8' 55"	late	4' 20" late	5' 15" late9' 25"	late	4' 55" late	9' 25" lateOn time	On time	On time10"	late	10" late	On timeOn time	15" late	On timeOn time	On time	55" late



PENSIONS FOR PERSONS PHYSICALLY INCAPACITATED

Mr. E. A. McCusker (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a supplementary answer to a question of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) which was drst answered on March 12, 1952, as found at page 352 of Hansard. The question is as follows:
1.	Did the various provincial governments undertake a survey to find out, among other things, the number of physically incapacitated persons in Canada?
2.	If so, has the survey been completed?
3.	What are the particulars disclosed regarding the number, age, and financial standing of those disabled persons?
4.	Will a pension scheme be introduced at the present session to relieve the distress of those persons?
The answer is as follows:
1,	2 and 3. See reply tabled on March 12, 1952, Hansard, page 352.
4. The experience of foreign countries suggests that disability pensions should be closely associated with rehabilitation services which are designed to restore the disabled person to productive employment. Without remedial health, vocational guidance and training services, the cost of disability pensions may run unnecessarily high, without achieving this goal. On February 20, 21, and 22 the national advisory committee on rehabilitation of disabled persons set up as a result of last year's conference
in Toronto, held its first meeting. It will review all aspects of the needs of disabled persons, and make recommendations from time to time.
Our new old age assistance and old age security programs will between them provide pensions for an estimated 45,000 totally and permanently handicapped persons. Allowances for blind persons will provide financial aid for approximately 8,500 more this year. Approximately 160,000 disabled veterans are receiving pensions and an additional number are being looked after under war veterans allowances.
Through the national health grants program substantial assistance is available to the disabled as follows:
(a)	The government has provided for a sum of more than $4 million for a tuberculosis control grant part of which is available for "the provision of free treatment including rehabilitation".
(b)	There is provision for a crippled children's grant of over $500,000 "to assist the provinces in an intensive program for the prevention and correction of crippling conditions in children, rehabilitation and training".
(c)	Under the general public health grant very substantial sums are available to extend diagnostic and treatment services for those afflicted by arthritis and rheumatism or polio.
(d)	The government has provided for a sum of more than $5 million, part of which is available for the rehabilitation of backward children and of mentally ill patients, under the mental health grant.
The provinces, under well-established workmen's compensation plans, provide pensions for the victims of industrial accidents. Approximately one-third of the cases in receipt of mothers' allowances are the result of disabilities which impair earnings. Some provinces offer special allowances for persons

Orders for Returns
suffering from tuberculosis, and Newfoundland and Ontario have in recent years provided incapacitation allowances.
The province of Ontario has at its 1952 session just passed legislation providing for disability pensions. There is no indication at the present time that other provinces intend to follow this example.
It is the intention of the federal government to work in close co-operation with the provinces and interested organizations in a constructive approach to the complex problems involved in the various types of disabilities which impair the ability of individuals to work.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Noseworlhy:: 1.	How many persons of British West Indies origin are at present living in Canada?
2.	How many persons have entered Canada from the British West Indies during each of the five years 1947-1951, inclusive?
3.	How many applicants for entry to Canada from the. British West Indies have been refused entry during each of the five years 1947-1951, inclusive?
4.	For what reasons were these applicants rejected and how many were rejected for each of these reasons?
5.	How many students were admitted to Canada from the British West Indies for the purpose of studying in Canada during each of the years 19471951, inclusive?
6.	How many of those students applied for permanent residence in Canada?
7.	How many of these student applicants were granted permanent residence in Canada?
8.	Are any statistics available to show how immigrants to Canada from the British West Indies, compare with immigrants from other warm climate countries in the following respects (a) health records; (b) wages or salaries earned; (c) unemployment records; (d) profession and occupation followed; (e) public liabilities?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.


FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many herds of cattle have been destroyed in Saskatchewan as a result of foot-and-mouth disease?
2.	How many animals were in each herd?
3.	When was disease first reported in each herd, and how many animals were suffering from disease?
4.	What are the names of all veterinarians who inspected these herds, and on what dates did each veterinarian make his inspection?
5.	What animal inoculation tests were made on each herd and on what dates?
6.	What was the result of each test?


PURCHASE OF BUILDING SITE IN SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Gillis:: 1.	Did any federal government department purchase a building site in Sydney, Nova Scotia, in the years 1951 or 1952?
2.	If so, for whom was it purchased?
3.	How much was paid for it and for what purpose does the government intend to use it?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Major James William Coldwell: For a copy of a report made by "F" division, C.I.B., Regina town station, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, dated March 20, 1952, with respect to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the report to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar refers as having been made by "F" division, C.I.B., Regina town station, R.C.M.P., dated March 20, 1952, with respect to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, is a report made to his superior officers by a constable of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police acting as an investigator in this matter. The Department of Justice and the government have consistently taken the position that reports made to their superior officers by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police concerning investigations which they have been instructed to conduct have always been withheld from production in the House of Commons upon the ground that it is not in the public interest to produce them.
The reasons for the taking of this position will be obvious to anyone who gives the matter thought. Not only are the police investigators instructed to ascertain all the relevant facts, but they are encouraged to submit to their superior officers their own theories and their own hypotheses as to what interpretations might be drawn from these facts in further investigation into the matter. They are encouraged to suggest further lines of inquiry. They are encouraged, and indeed instructed, in the case of an investigation into a crime, to suggest in strictest confidence all those whom they regard as possible suspects, however slight may be their own reasons for suspecting these other persons, in order that their superior officers to whom these confidential reports are made may, by considering these confidential reports along with other confidential reports received from other investigating officers, draw conclusions as to what further investigations may be necessary, or even ultimate conclusions as to guilt and the identity of the guilty party or parties.
If the investigating officer does not know at the time he makes his report that it will be privileged from publication he, I suggest, will be hesitant about suggesting hypotheses, particularly in scientific and other fields in which, if he is not qualified as an expert witness, his oral evidence would not even be received. He will be most hesitant about naming suspects if he knows that the names of such suspects are to be published and their reputations prejudiced or ruined when in fact

they may be completely guiltless. Therefore the production of these confidential reports would destroy much of their value. For these reasons the Department of Justice and the government feel that in the present instance we must follow our uniform and invariable practice of refusing to table the confidential report referred to in the hon. member's motion. Without arguing the matter unless it becomes necessary, I would submit the following citations: 1943, Hansard, volume 1, page 202; 1943, Hansard, volume 4, page 4193; 1945, Hansard, volume 2, page 1929.


Major James William Coldwell: In view of the minister's statement, may I say that I understand there is nothing in the report which would indicate that anyone had been guilty of criminal action of any sort, and that the material therein with respect to the matter of foot-and-mouth disease is of vital interest to the house and the standing committee on agriculture. I do not propose to press the motion to a vote because I do not want to prejudice the members of the committee when they demand production of the report before the committee. From my knowledge of what the report may contain, I think it is a most important document. I am not going to press the motion but I want to protest against the statement made by the minister because I do not believe that the guilt of persons is involved in this particular report, but merely an outline of the investigations that have been conducted by the mounted police concerning the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I clear up a point? I was not suggesting any guilt was necessarily involved in this particular report. My point was that when in the preparation of police reports they have to make suggestions, express their own ideas and name suspects, the whole system of obtaining such reports would be invalidated if at the time they were prepared it was known they were going to be published.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, at this time I rise on a question of privilege which relates to the subject just dealt with. On March 12, at page 354 of Hansard, a motion was passed by this house under motions for papers, which reads:
For a copy of all communications that passed between veterinary officials either provincial or federal and the federal Department of Agriculture, together with all records since the 17th day of November, 1951, relative to the cattle epidemic of
28, 1952
Foot-and-mouth disease-Documents vesicular stomatitis or foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan, also all certificates or statements of analysis showing the results of the chemical examination of suspected specimens of either of said cattle diseases.
At that time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said:
With the same reservation as stated by the Prime Minister.
Then the motion was agreed to. The statement by the Prime Minister was in reference to the first motion for papers before the house that day, and was in these words:


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Subject to the usual reservation that the consent of the other governments concerned be obtained.
Now I rise to ask why there has been such delay in complying with a motion for papers passed by this house, the papers being and always having been available. The matter was brought up on April 7 at page 1163 of Hansard by the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton), who inquired as to the production of these papers. At that time the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin) said:
I will look into the matter and see what can be done.
I rise merely for the purpose of asking the minister the reason for the rather unnecessary delay in the production of papers which are neither involved nor difficult to procure.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I have been over the records that would be covered by the motion. I must say the wording of the motion itself is not such as to get some of the information my hon. friend has discussed with me, apart altogether from what is taking place at the moment. The motion was passed by the house, and I presume if the house insisted all the information that might be available would eventually have to be brought down during this session. On the other hand it has been agreed already that all the facts having to do with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease will be submitted to the agriculture committee and subject to discussion there. Any matters which of necessity must be privileged in connection with a matter of this kind can be settled when that committee meets, and we can pretty well determine what should be brought down in the house this session. If there is anything that must be brought down while the committee is sitting in order to clear up the situation, there is no difficulty about getting that information. But I think it would be improper to bring down in this house under this or any other order discussions that took place between officials of a department. Such discussions
1648	HOUSE OF
Foot-and-mouth disease-Documents with regard to certain matters have always been considered privileged. If it is the desire of the committee and later of the house that even those privileged matters should be brought before the committee in a case of this kind, I do not think there would be any question about it; but I do not think it is necessary to bring down this information at this stage.


John George Diefenbaker: The answer by the minister is exactly the kind of thing that was objected to here this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Contempt of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says he can stand before this house and determine whether a document or a series of documents ordered to be produced shall or shall not be produced.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might say a word-


John George Diefenbaker: I did not interrupt my hon. friend. The order was passed, and that order is final. I point out that under citation 329-
When a motion is adopted, it becomes the resolution, vote or order of the house.
That resolution has become an order of the house. No minister of the crown has any right to say we will wait until a committee of parliament meets and if that committee considers that the order is improper it can so determine. If the minister had any objection, on confidential or any other grounds, he should have raised it on March 12; but he did not do so. He said the order might be passed by the house subject to the same veto or reservation that had been properly imposed by the Prime Minister in reference to the first motion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of parliament I am asking you to rule that the minister shall not have the right to determine whether on his ipse dixit documents shall not be produced which may be inconvenient to his department. Such an attitude deserves your attention, as custodian of the prerogatives of parliament, to see that these orders are not circumvented at the wish of any department. On the basis of the order that was passed by the house I ask Your Honour to direct that the documents be produced. The minister has been fair enough to admit that the reason they have not been produced is not that they are not available, but that in his opinion it would be improper to do so. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the rights and prerogatives of parliament and order that these documents be produced not at the convenience of the minister or at the whim of a committee about


to be set up, but because parliament has been directed and ordered that they be produced.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry that, since this matter came up just before I came into the house, I have not had an opportunity to search the rules and determine on what rule I might base my contention-


John George Diefenbaker: Why did the minister not make that reservation when the motion was passed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Nevertheless, it has been the practice during the time I have been in parliament that discussions between individuals in departments in arriving at conclusions have been privileged. Now, the conclusions themselves that happen to be reached in that matter may not be privileged, but the discussions that have taken place back and forth in the reaching of those conclusions have been privileged. Order after order has been brought down here in which that kind of thing has not been presented. My understanding is that it is some of that which is required at this particular time. I may say that I can bring down a return which does not contain that kind of thing, but I do not think that would satisfy the hon. member. I want him to know beforehand that if it is brought down, and if any of this other information is required and if it can be obtained properly in the committee, all well and good. If it cannot be obtained then because it is privileged, that is another matter. I am quite prepared to bring down to the house what I think is not privileged and might be brought down, but I am afraid it would not get the results the hon. member wants. I do not want him to feel that there is any misrepresentation in connection with it. Later on if he says he has not got what he wants, he will have to get it in the committee rather than through this method.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that illustrates an attitude that borders closely on contempt of parliament, when a minister says "I shall produce whatever documents I choose to excise from the record, regardless of the order of the house." When the order was passed there were no reservations such as the minister now makes. After discovery, I assume, that there are some documents he does not desire to produce, the minister has no authority to determine what documents shall be produced. An order has been made, and at this point I am going to leave it to Your Honour to make a direction to the minister, after having looked into the authorities, that parliament shall not be treated with contempt, regardless of how inconvenient some of the documents may turn out to

be. I am not going to allow an order of the house to be pigeon-holed, and have the rights of the house determined by some committee set up by the house. At this time I simply ask for a determination of this matter, and that the minister be directed to produce the records that I want, particularly the records as set out in the order and not the minister's interpretation of confidentiality which would deny the production of documents that parliament has ordered.
If the minister can get by with this, then any minister can simply say, "We shall give you whatever documents we think will not do any harm but the rest of the record will remain hidden because we determine confidentiality." I simply let the matter rest there, so that after consideration Your Honour may determine whether or not we on this side of the house are to be placed in the position where ministers of the crown determine how orders of parliament are to be interpreted, and what documents they will deliver in accordance with the orders made.


James Garfield Gardiner: One more word on this, Mr. Speaker; I happen to know what the hon. gentleman wants. He came over to my desk and asked for it.


John George Diefenbaker: I mentioned one document.


James Garfield Gardiner: One document, that is the one you want. At the time I stated to him, "Well, you know that is privileged." He agreed that is was privileged.


John George Diefenbaker: When was that statement made-today?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, about two weeks ago.


John George Diefenbaker: There was no such agreement.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are some documents- as a matter of fact, I did not know this one was in existence and I do not know how the hon. member found out about it. The only document that was mentioned is the one which I think the government official who sent the message should be in a position to deal with. This government official can be brought before the committee and asked to deal with it. I do not think I should be asked to put it on the table, and I do not think I should be asked to determine that it should not be put on the table. As a matter of fact, I am not suggesting that I should not bring down all these documents before the end of this session; that is what this order calls for. But the official of the department who is concerned with this document ought to be in a position to explain this message, why it was sent, and so on.
Foot-and-mouth disease-Documents He will be before the committee, and he can be there next week if the hon. member wants it.


Mr. Argue:: After the Saskatchewan election.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nothing in connection with it that we have to hide. This committee can be got under way next Monday if hon. members so desire. This official could be before the committee as soon as it meets. I do not think it is fair to this official, and that is why this privilege is there, to simply parade this message before the public and say this is what he meant by it. The official should have the right to go before this committee and indicate why he sent such a message. I am not suggesting that you could not have it next Monday if you wanted it. You can have this man here that day or the next day if you want him here, but I do not think this house should order that discussions which took place between two officials of the department be produced and spread over the country as political propaganda.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I just rise to say one
thing. However inconvenient politically it may be, an order has been made. No minister dares stand up in this house and say, "I shall give you what is politically convenient but I shall deny the documents that are a detriment to me politically."


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not said that. I have said that I will give you all the documents which you are entitled to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In support of the point of order that has been pressed by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) I believe Your Honour should consider, in addition to the other citation, citation 389 of Beauchesne's third edition. Before I read that citation I should point out that there are citations which permit opposition to a motion for the production of papers at the time the motion is before the house. That time has long since passed. I submit that a good deal of what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has said today was entirely out of order. If he wanted to oppose the motion of the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) he had the right to do so but he did not oppose it. He indicated one condition, namely, the consent of the provinces concerned, but otherwise the motion passed and became an order of this house. If the Minister of Agriculture even implied that to any extent at all he may not carry out the order of the house, it would bring him under the citation to which I called your attention, citation 389.

Foot-and-mouth disease-Documents


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot allow a debate on this matter. The hon. member for Lake Centre has brought this matter to the attention of the house. He has asked the Minister of Agriculture that the documents be tabled. Whether they should be tabled today or tomorrow, it is not for me to say. It is not for the Speaker to say when they should be tabled. The house is the master of its own proceedings. I preside over the proceedings of the house to see that the proceedings are carried on according to the rules and standing orders of the house.
I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for bringing to my attention the citation he mentioned and I also thank the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) for bringing to my attention the citation he mentioned. As for endeavouring to enforce any order that is passed by this house for the production of papers especially during the session in which the order is passed, I must say that it is not within my power to do so, and I rule accordingly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to read citation 389-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have given my ruling, and I rule accordingly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker,-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully appeal against your ruling.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
A question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that, an order of the house having been passed this session requiring the production of certain papers and the papers having not yet been produced, Mr. Speaker should order that production should be made. Mr. Speaker ruled that it was not within his power to do so. The hon. member for Lake Centre and others have appealed the Speaker's ruling. Those in favour of the Speaker's ruling will please rise.


John George Diefenbaker: '	Now, Mr. Speaker, on
a question of privilege: the procedure is	
not clear, but I now give notice that I intend	
to ask that the house shall direct the pro-	
duction of these documents, and that orders	
of parliament shall	not be flouted at the
ministerial whim of	any minister of the
government. I do so under citation 389-

United Nations


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear; I hope you get the chance to read it.


John George Diefenbaker: -which reads:
Ii parties neglect to make returns in reasonable time, they are ordered to make them forthwith; or so much of returns as has not been made. If they continue to withhold them, they are ordered to attend at the bar of the house; and unless they satisfactorily explain the causes of their neglect, and comply with the order of the house, they will be censured or punished according to the circumstances of the case.
I give that notice, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to ask that the rights of parliament be upheld and, without prejudice to those rights, give that notice now; for unless the rights of parliament, and the orders, are to be upheld, then parliament has ceased to exist.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that it is within the rules to give oral notice, nor am I sure when the notice will be debated.


John George Diefenbaker: It is just to preserve my rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, may I have the privilege myself of saying that I think what has been said just now proves to the house that my ruling was correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It proves the very opposite.


An hon. Member:: Shut up over there.


Mr. Speaker:: The ground for my ruling was that it was not within my power. It may be within the power of the house.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: Lest there be any misunderstanding, anything I have said in no way derogates from your authority.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not intimidated by those interruptions. I am not in any way challenging your order that the ruling is final, but I assert once again as a member of parliament my right in the House of Commons to have full information.


Mr. Speaker:: Next order of business is notices of motions.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, if an invitation is received by the parliament of Canada to appoint delegates to meet with delegates from the legislatures of the sponsor nations of NATO, with a view to discussing their closer co-operation within the framework of the United Nations Organization, the government should give consideration to the acceptance of the invitation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, obviously the motion in my name which you have just read will not be as controversial as some of the other matters which have come up for discussion today, and that perhaps is fortunate. I hope that there will be support for this motion from members of the various parties throughout the house. As a motion it is not entirely satisfactory to myself because it is a compromise designed to get as much support as possible and, also, of course, a motion to ensure a debate in the house on NATO and the necessity for making it into an adequate and effective instrument for our purposes.
I am asking that, if an invitation is extended to the parliament of Canada to send delegates to meet with members from the legislatures of the sponsor nations of NATO, we accept it. The question arises: Who is going to bell the cat, who is going to issue this invitation? Speaking for myself, I should like to see Canada issue the invitation. I can see no reason indeed why we should not take such a lead for we have nothing to lose but our own fears. On the other hand we have everything to gain.
The more I consider the international situation and the way in which in certain aspects it is deteriorating the more convinced I become that members of parliament throughout the western democracies and all citizens will be terribly negligent in their responsibilities if they do not explore every avenue which can lead to a greater security for our people. It is possible that such a conference as I have in mind might be a failure, although I do not think it would be. I am prepared to take that chance. Some may argue that if it is a failure it will set back the cause which we have supported for an indeterminate number of years. I doubt it. What I am concerned about is finding out whether or not those ideas which many of us hold, ideas designed to make NATO stronger, have validity. The only way we can do that is by holding such a conference.
I am a believer in Atlantic union as the best way of strengthening the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I wish to make it abundantly clear that as a supporter of Atlantic union I am in no way in the slightest opposed or hostile to the United Nations or to what the United Nations is trying to do. What I am trying to do is to make the United Nations stronger by trying to make NATO stronger.
I have no intention of going over the basic arguments for union which I adduced last year in the house. The sponsor nations which I have in mind, apart from ourselves, are the United Kingdom, the United States,

United Nations
France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. What I would like to see, and here I speak personally, is a union among those countries, so that we might have a common foreign policy, a common defence policy, a common currency, a common citizenship and of course a common policy along lines of trade.
Some will say today that that is visionary. It may well be. Others will say that it is revolutionary, but that it certainly is not for what we are doing is proceeding along the lines of the precedents which we have established in the past. What strikes me most forcibly is that if war comes and we are to wage it successfully and efficiently that sort of union must come about for our own preservation. Therefore it would be so much better were we to try to achieve it, to lay the foundation for it now when we are at peace even if it is a somewhat uncertain and unsettled peace.
Those who believe in union of the North Atlantic democracies have in mind a triple goal, a threefold objective. We wish to achieve freedom, security and prosperity for our peoples. It is lamentable to think that within seven years of the conclusion of a war which shook the world we are spending more than 50 per cent of our national budget on defence. We are not spending it willingly, we are doing it because we are compelled to by extraneous forces but we have to do it. We are going to spend this year on defence five times the amount of the entire budget of Canada twenty years ago and yet we are no nearer peace today than we were in 1945. Perhaps we are a little nearer than we were in 1948, but that is the best that can be said.
That being so, it is time to re-examine and re-assess the security system which we have had in the past and to some extent to which we still cling. I maintain that the needs of today demand that that security system be rebuilt. This does not mean that we scrap the instruments which we have at hand, but rather that we use them in a way which will give us the security which we crave. The only chance of safety for the nations of this world, perhaps the only possibility for many people to live in this world, is to make war impossible. The question is: How do we go about it?
One of the best ways of going about it is to make the Atlantic community a reality. The Atlantic community has come far within the last few years but still we are talking rather than doing. I have inveighed frequently in the past against the policy of the western powers as being almost entirely a

negative policy, a policy designed to stop communism rather than a positive policy designed to promote the concept of democracy and freedom throughout the world. We are not going to inflame the minds of men by kindling enthusiasm for something which is entirely negative, but on the other hand if we make our policies positive, if we make policies for something instead of against something, then we shall get the support of peoples who are still unhappily somewhat hesitant.
I believe that under Atlantic union the freedom of all the individuals who were members of it would be enhanced. After all, the stress in a union such as I envisage is on the individual citizen and not upon the national governments. It is the individual citizen who is all-important. My suggestion is that we ask the citizen to transfer some of his personal sovereignty to a still greater international organization. Those of us who have only a smattering of history remember what happened in the United States before union was formed and in Canada before the dominion was formed. At that time the citizens were asked to transfer their sovereignty beyond the state and the province, to the union as it was in the United States and to the Dominion of Canada as it was here. I am suggesting that we have to extend and transfer that sovereignty even further today if we are going to be safe in the years to come. By so widening our individual sovereignty we shall automatically increase our individual security.
I have enumerated the seven nations with which I should like to enter into such an agreement. I mention them because we have a common heritage of culture, we are steeped in the same concepts of democracy. We cherish the liberties which we have in common and we have the same devotion to freedom. Above all, in such a union I am convinced that the rights of the minorities throughout these countries would be protected even more adequately than is the case just now. Today the rights of minorities are protected sometimes by a written constitution, sometimes by an unwritten constitution. Under union not only would the national constitution be operative to protect minorities, there would be legislation based upon the union which would give still greater protection.
I submit that this policy of co-operation among these nations will give still greater security in the world. If we have greater security it follows that we shall thereby enlarge our freedom. That security which we desire is growing, slowly it is true, and we welcome that growth.

The situation which exists in NATO today is indeed a far cry from that which existed a year ago when I spoke in a similar debate. I said then that the machinery whereby the supreme commander could get directives was slow and cumbersome and, indeed, dangerous in the sense -that it might lull us into a false sense of security. Now the machinery is being streamlined, and we welcome it. General Ridgway will have the opportunity, denied to his predecessor for obvious reasons, of getting decisions much more quickly by the council.
Yet the faot remains that in NATO we are still putting the cart before the horse. We are still insistent on building up a military machine without as yet creating the civilian control which is so desirable. I cannot think offhand of another example in history where that has been done. Usually nations have collaborated and co-operated on a political basis first, and from that co-operation the military machine has come. Such, for understandable reasons, has not been the situation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It was essential that we build up our defences as rapidly as possible. We are doing that; we are achieving the defences which we need.
The next step to be taken, and the most important one, is that we create some form of democratic control of the armed forces that are being built up in Europe. It causes one to think seriously when we realize that within two or three years General Ridgway may have under him in Europe as many as a million men and under my concept of what is an appropriate state of combat readiness, ready to defend immediately against any attack. A force of a million men is an extraordinary force to control, and in my opinion the only way it could be done adequately would be through some form of Atlantic union. But if we cannot achieve that just now-and I am afraid that we cannot

there is an alternative by which we can create some form of accountability. That is by forming a North Atlantic assembly. I shall mention that later at greater length.
What is important, and what I am sure the ministers who have attended North Atlantic Treaty Organization meetings realize as fully as anybody else, is that we cannot have security by military means alone but that we have to have economic co-operation and support in a far greater way than has been the case in the past. In other words, we have to make article 2 of NATO work. It is in our interests in Canada to make Europe prosperous. The more prosperous Europeans are the greater is the market for those things which we produce and sell. But unhappily, with certain exceptions, on this continent our history has been for the last
United Nations
six years that, while we were willing to help Europe with arms, we were equally willing to hinder Europe with tariffs. We are prepared to give with the one hand and to take away with the other.
I of course believe that with the creation of a free trade area among these nations we should achieve a prosperity unparalleled in history and even yet undreamed of. It may be that in so far as the general reduction of tariffs is concerned the United States is the principal culprit, but at the moment it is not my intention to allot blame. Rather I wish to further my thesis. Whether the United States became industrially the most powerful nation in the world through tariffs is questionable. I do not think so. Nor do I think the United' States1 became such a powerful nation entirely owing to the ability and drive of its people. The real reason for the United States being so strong today is that the industrialists of that country had a tremendous area in which to sell their wares. They had a great population for whom they could manufacture and sell on a mass production basis. So the people of the United States, because of the great area in which they live and their great population, are able to get cheap production and mass production as a result of the size of the market, and accordingly their standard of living is high.
But what would happen if a market of that size were doubled within a short time? If I were an American my instinctive reaction would be that one effect of a free trade area in this group would be that there would be no more economic aid required for Europe, and that as a United States citizen I would not have to tax myself to provide this assistance to my allies. The credit needs of Europe could then be satisfied by public as well as by private investment. In Europe we should find that capital would no longer be frozen by controls necessitated of course by the chronic shortage of dollars, while the Americans and we in Canada might conceivably be willing to risk our capital in Europe because of the lack of controls. I am certain that were this free trade area to emerge there would be millions, and indeed tens of millions, of dollars available for investment on both sides of the Atlantic. There would be great prosperity.
Coming as I do from western Canada, I can see the great advantages which would accrue to that part of the country if the European nations who are our allies today had the dollars they require to buy the raw products we produce. I can see the great advantage which would accrue to farmers, fishermen, fruit growers, lumber producers, and indeed to all our raw material producers. It would be in our economic interest to do that, but

United Nations
the majority have not yet realized just where our economic interest lies. This aspiration will undoubtedly be classified as visionary, no matter how essential it is to our common welfare.
The all-important fact is that the situation in Europe today is probably as precarious as it has been since the war ended. The nations of Europe who are our allies are steadily losing their markets in Asia. The market in China is lost. The market in Indonesia has been partially lost. War has disrupted Indochina. The pattern of trade in India and Pakistan is not yet clear. Australia has decided to cut its imports by some 50 per cent, and the nations that are going to be most severely hurt and most badly affected are the nations in Europe. Where then are they going to find markets for their exports? The only area I can think of that is readily available is on the North American continent, and there is no sign yet that we are willing to take European goods. There is no sign yet that we are agreeable to implementing to the fullest article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Therefore we are left with the very simple fact that we shall be compelled, if we want to keep our allies strong, to pour out economic aid to Europe. If we continue to do so we are justified in asking- to what sort of allies? They will be allies, they will be governments, they will be nations which will be very much under the gun. They will be governments under pressure of events at home, and the most serious pressure of all will be that of a falling and constantly reduced standard of living with its inevitable concomitant that the lower standard of living will give encouragement to the communist parties within those countries. By our default the men of Moscow may win.
After all, with the standards of living of their people falling, and with no market in which they can sell their goods, the governments of these countries will be compelled to cut their expenditures on defence, and that is the simple fact of the situation. Therefore by default we in North America will have weakened our allies, and of course disastrously weakened ourselves. The picture I draw is pessimistic, and yet I believe it is an accurate blueprint of the future. What we have not yet realized is that the Achilles heel of the west is the tariff structure of the western nations. Some may say: Why do the Europeans not enter into a union of their own? The answer is that a European union would solve none of the problems of Europe.
European union would not solve the perpetual dollar imbalance which perplexes Europe today. European union would not

give our European allies more dollars. European union would not give Europe the security it wants, because Europe cannot be secure without the assistance of North America, and we in North America must realize that we can have no security without the assistance of Europe. The other day I had the opportunity of chatting with the foreign minister of one of the NATO countries, who happened to be in Ottawa. He was quite outspoken and told me that in his opinion the only salvation of Europe lay not in European union but in Atlantic union, and that his country had gone so far as to amend its constitution to make entry into such a federation a possibility.
Here I repeat words which I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will remember: if the North Atlantic community is to endure it must rest on something broader and deeper than military co-operation alone. In other words we come back to article 2 of the treaty. There are some in the various countries belonging to NATO who regard article 2 somewhat in the form of holy water to be sprinkled upon an instrument of power politics. That is a cynical outlook; it is a defeatist attitude, which may yet cost us dear. If any holding these views should be appointed to any national delegation to Paris we might find them not at all prepared to carry out to the uttermost the policies of their home governments, and this is something which must be guarded against. Those officials who go to Paris to attend NATO must be men who are convinced that arising from defence needs will come collaboration in other fields. We have gone a long way in military co-operation. We will need to go just as far and even further in economic co-operation, and it is essential that all the officials sent to Paris should be, so far as is humanly possible, men who are convinced that article 2 can be the reality for which we hope.
In my own mind I am convinced that the surest way to make article 2 a reality is through Atlantic union; but in the absence of such a union I am content to advocate the creation of a North American assembly. Great benefit may be derived from parliamentarians in various countries meeting each other, discussing their problems and becoming more and more conscious of mutual needs. Unquestionably there will be clashes of opinion and conflicts of ideas, which we should welcome; but I am convinced that if such an assembly were attended by men of good will and integrity, great good could come out of it.
Let us admit also that we are making progress in NATO in ways other than defence.

Once we get rid of the froth and spume of what happened at Lisbon we can see that certain real achievements have been made. For instance, two or three years ago it would have been fantastic to suppose that three individual men, not representatives of governments, would be asked and even encouraged to examine national budgets and advise sovereign nations as to how they should order their finances for the common good. That is really extraordinary; yet what is extraordinary today will be commonplace tomorrow.
Equally interesting is the fact that the decisions of the NATO council are being accepted by the member governments, by and large. I say "by and large" because owing to its constitutional structure the United States does not find itself in the same position as, let us say, the United Kingdom or Canada. In our case the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with the approval of the government, can embark upon or support a certain policy in the NATO council knowing he will be supported when he comes back to parliament. The Secretary of State of the United States can also support a policy in the NATO council, but he has no guarantee that he will have the approval of congress or the senate when he returns to Washington. Nevertheless, even admitting that, governments today are accepting the decisions of the council. As time goes on and NATO develops, more and more its decisions will be accepted by national governments.
That being so, what is NATO today, apart from being an alliance of some fourteen nations? NATO is a loosely knit assembly of diplomats, senior civil servants, admirals, generals, air marshals and all the necessary and requisite camp followers. Only occasionally do ministers who are elected representatives sit in on the councils of NATO, though undoubtedly they will have the last word. But as long as that is the case; as long as the elected representatives of the people are divorced from what NATO is actually doing, so long will there be no real sense of community developed. I am convinced that one of the urgent requirements of the day is that elected representatives of the people should help more directly in framing the policy of NATO.
That brings me back to the concept of the North Atlantic assembly. In a couple of days we are going to have the privilege of a visit from a distinguished United States delegation, which is coming to Ottawa to discuss with Canadian parliamentarians the possibility of setting up a North Atlantic assembly. Its members will include Senator Gillette of Iowa, Senator Sparkman of Alabama, Congressman Leroy Johnson of
United Nations
California and the Hon. Owen Roberts, formerly a justice of the United States supreme court. I have no idea what conclusions will be arrived at as a result of these meetings, but we can be certain they will be stimulating and I hope the first of many of a like nature. We shall be discussing the possibility of creating a North Atlantic assembly. Again I have no idea what shape such an assembly would take. Possibly it might be along the lines of the assembly of Europe, with the council of NATO acting as a sort of interim cabinet until we can get something much closer to the European idea.


Mr. Blackmore:: If the hon. member will permit a question, has he any information as to who is appointing these men from the United States? How are they being appointed to come here to Canada?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: These men are not being appointed by anybody. They are coming up here at the invitation of Canadian members of parliament, coming on their initiative and paying their own expenses, though I hope we personally may be courteous enough to pay whatever expenses they incur while in this city. It is purely an unofficial delegation, and I think something very much worth while.
To revert to this North Atlantic assembly for a moment, the objection has been made that you could not have discussions in such an assembly without contravening security, without discussing matters which are classified. I do not hold that view. I think that in such an assembly there would be quite sufficient to discuss without getting into classified matters. The most important thing to be discussed, of course, would be the broad outlines and objectives of policy of the North Atlantic organization. If I were to put my aims and hopes into four short, succinct sentences I could do no better than quote these four points coming from a group of people in the United Kingdom who believe much as I do. They are:
1.	To secure peace we need a global defence policy for the western and Atlantic community acting in partnership.
2.	To carry out a common defence policy we need a common foreign policy.
3.	To maintain and improve the standard and quality of living we need a partnership in economic policy.
4.	To achieve this partnership in defence, foreign and economic affairs, we need regular meetings of a council of ministers, served by a common secretariat and guided by a common assembly.
When we arrive at that partnership, Mr. Speaker, when we arrive at that assembly, then the bones of NATO will become clothed in flesh and blood; then, indeed, the North Atlantic community of which we have heard so much will have become a reality.

United, Nations


Lester Bowles Pearson: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that possibly I ought to say a word or two on this resolution, although its terms are not, as I understand them, such as to require any statement of policy on behalf of the government. The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, if an invitation is received by the parliament of Canada to appoint delegates to meet with delegates from the legislatures of the sponsor nations of NATO, with a view to discussing their closer co-operation within the framework of the United Nations organization, the government should give consideration to the acceptance of the invitation.
It will be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the invitation referred to in the resolution would be one that would be addressed to the parliament of Canada, It would not, I suppose, be appropriate for the government, as such, to reply to an invitation of that kind which would be addressed to parliament. In fact, if we did so we might very well be accused of some of these undesirable attitudes in relation to parliament which were thrown at us today by the official opposition, the leader of which is not at present in the house. Nor I believe is the external affairs spokesman of the opposition who would normally be interested in a resolution of this kind. They are no doubt engaged elsewhere on business of vital public importance. I would not for a moment accuse them of being "rude" to the house because they are not here at this time.
I believe it is quite proper, however, that someone in the government should say a few words about a resolution of this kind which deals with such a vitally important matter, even though the invitation referred to in the resolution would be one addressed to parliament. As a matter of fact, an invitation similar to that which has been suggested in the resolution was, I believe, addressed to parliament not so long ago in respect of a meeting of the Council of Europe at Strasbourg. The parliament, not the government, through the Speaker decided to send representatives to that meeting. I believe that was done, and quite properly. As a member of the government who would normally be particularly interested in a matter of this kind, I would think it would be impossible however to state in advance that the members of the government, as such, in discussion with members of their own party, would pledge themselves to the acceptance of any such invitation. I am sure the hon. member who proposed the resolution would agree that we would want to know the source of the invitation, and we would want to know something about the form in which it was couched.
This resolution does not give-I am not complaining about it because it would

probably be impossible to produce a resolution which would do so-any details about the kind of invitation, whether it would be from a government or from an unofficial organization. Nor does it indicate the nature of the invitation. If, however, an invitation came from a responsible governmental source, and the hon. member who moved the resolution has suggested that possibly that responsible source might be the government of Canada, and was couched in proper terms which did not commit those who accepted it to a course of action that might be undesirable, I would think very serious consideration should be given to it, not only by the members of the government but by all the members of the house to whom it would be properly addressed as the parliament of Canada. I do not think I could or should go further than that at this time. I know that any serious proposal which would increase the co-operation of the members of NATO within the framework of the United Nations, as this resolution suggests, and which would thereby strengthen NATO, is one which should commend itself to all the members of this house as I am sure it would commend itself to the members of the government.
From that point of view, it is very easy for me to support the idea behind this resolution. I would not, however, wish that support to be interpreted later on as meaning that an invitation of any kind to the parliament of Canada to participate in a meeting of this kind would, normally and naturally, be approved by the government as such. I have had something to do with the development of NATO, and anyone who has had anything to do with that development cannot help but support any move which would strengthen co-operation between the members of NATO, and by "co-operation" within the meaning of this resolution I am not thinking so much of military co-operation as of co-operation in other fields. There is no member of NATO who is more interested in that kind of co-operation than Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean by that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Co-operation in the field of foreign policy; I mean co-operation in the field of economic policy; I mean, as this resolution would seem to indicate, co-operation which would bring NATO and its policies into closer contact with the legislatures of the other countries. That is one of the things most on the mind of the hon. gentleman who has moved this resolution, and that is a question which has already been

discussed by NATO, ways and means by which the organization could be brought closer to parliament.
Hon. members will recall a committee which has been referred to in this house before, the committee of five on non-military co-operation. This committee made a report to the council at Rome and the council at Lisbon. This report was the result of a good deal of examination by a working group presided over by a Canadian official who will shortly be a member of our permanent delegation to NATO. In that report to the council of NATO at Rome, these words were included in the section on possible relations between parliamentary representatives and NATO:
The suggestion that some form of association of parliamentary representatives with certain phases of NATO activity would be desirable was put forward in the committee chiefly with a view to developing an adequate understanding in parliaments and among the general public of NATO and its objectives, and of the role which parliamentary representatives might play in strengthening and developing the North Atlantic community.
No definite proposals were put forward as to how such an association might be developed. It was noted that the Council of Europe includes parliamentary representatives of most North Atlantic countries, but that it also includes certain other countries. It was suggested that some form of closer association of parliamentarians from North Atlantic countries might be developed within the framework of the North Atlantic community, and that possibly parliamentary advisers might be attached to the North Atlantic council delegations.
On the other hand, it was generally recognized by the committee that the problems which have arisen in the relationships between the ministerial and parliamentary organs, for example, in the Council of Europe, would apply equally to any similar arrangements in the NATO context . . . Difficulties might also arise in certain countries whose constitutional arrangements were based upon the principle of the separation of powers, and in countries in whose parliaments there were communist elements of substantial importance. The opinion was also expressed that the establishment of a council of governments in itself provides for the participation of cabinet ministers in various fields who take the responsibility of presenting NATO programs and objectives to their respective parliaments, although it was noted that in the case of at least one North Atlantic country, cabinet ministers were not directly in contact with the legislature and could not assume this responsibility.
Then the report goes on:
It is the opinion of the committee that this is a subject-
That is, closer parliamentary association with NATO.
-which can best be dealt with on the basis of experience and that no general recommendations can be made at this time. It should be examined further at a later date, in the light of the constitutional and political problems involved for each of the North Atlantic governments and the experience of other international bodies.
At our Lisbon meeting, in our report we included a recommendation that that subject
United Nations
should be one of the matters to be gone into by the permanent council, the council which is now sitting in permanent session.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister permit a question before he gets further away from the idea of economic co-operation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the minister intend to enlarge upon or to elaborate on the meaning of economic co-operation before he finishes? If not, does he care to do so now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not want to get into a long and detailed discussion of the various forms of non-military co-operation in connection with a resolution of this kind which is primarily concerned with ways and means of bringing NATO into closer association with parliaments and the elected representatives of the people. The whole question of economic co-operation within NATO was touched on in previous statements I have made and is now the subject of examination by the NATO agencies concerned. I pointed out previously, and I do not think it would be inappropriate to mention it again now, that in dealing with economic co-operation within NATO we, as members of that organization, have to be careful not to introduce arrangements which would cut across arrangements already made between the members of larger organizations. After all, there are some of the members of NATO who belong to other associations, and all of them belong to the United Nations. We have to be quite certain that, in attempting to reduce the barriers to trade within the NATO group, we shall not be confusing and making more complex arrangements in the larger groups. However, that is all I should like to say about that particular subject at this moment.
On the question of closer parliamentary association, I myself think this is a most desirable objective to be achieved, but it is not always easy to see how it can be done. I am not sure that the procedure of parliamentary advisers which has worked well, I think, with regard to the United Nations, would be equally satisfactory with regard to the NATO council. Certainly in the NATO council meetings I have attended, a good many of the discussions have been in military committee, and a great deal of the information given there was highly secret. Although that fact would not necessarily make the attendance of any member of parliament inadvisable or undesirable-in fact it might make it more desirable-nevertheless there are represented in NATO some governments who would be highly embarrassed indeed if parliamentary representatives of larger

United Nations
groups were invited to be parliamentary-advisers at NATO council meetings.
I am not going to say much more about the resolution now. I do not wish at this time to get into a discussion of how far we should go, not in giving up our sovereignty but in pooling our sovereignty and making it work for us. I have stated in this house and outside of it that, in this day of complicated international relationships, it is obviously desirable, as I see it, to pool our sovereignty with other friendly states in the interests not only of our security but possibly of our survival. Every time we make a mutual aid treaty with any other country we are, in a technical sense, giving up some of our sovereignty, some control over our own affairs, but we are doing that of our own free will in the interests of our own security and of our own prosperity.


Solon Earl Low: And we can contract out if we wish to do so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We can always contract out of any arrangement that we can contract into, and which has in its terms an arrangement for withdrawal. There are such terms in nearly all international agreements. We make these decisions of our own free will. We make them first as governmental decisions. We bring them to parliament for parliamentary approval; and only after parliamentary approval are they ratified by the government. I suggest that that procedure constitutes a safeguard to make sure that the government does not make any unnecessary surrender of national rights for international security.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow a question? It is a matter of interest, having regard to his experience. Is Canada bound by any decision made by the government without ratification by parliament? I am asking that question for information. I am greatly interested in what the minister is saying.	[DOT]


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not believe that Canada is politically bound by any decision made by the government, or legally bound by any decision made by the government-


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I mean- legally bound.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -when it is a decision in respect of an international agreement which requires ratification. The government is not bound by the signature of any such agreement before ratification. It is now well-established constitutional practice that, before such ratification should be given, parliamentary approval should be sought and obtained.

In that respect I do not think we need to fear very much about the effect on our national sovereignty of international agreements into which we enter of our free will, because they represent the will of parliament and parliament represents the will of the people.
In conclusion I would merely express, as a member of the government, my own agreement with the underlying purpose of this resolution, namely that we should encourage every method of co-operation within NATO which would strengthen that body. If a meeting of the kind that has been suggested could be held, if the invitation came from a responsible government source, and if the invitation were couched in terms which promised some desirable results, I should think that to such an invitation addressed to this parliament, the members of parliament would wish to give extremely serious consideration indeed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to apologize to the house because I am afraid I am forced to take part in a debate tonight for which I am not quite ready. I just returned to the city late this afternoon, after some days' absence, and found this resolution was to be debated. So I am afraid my remarks may, to some extent, be disjointed and not well arranged. However, I shall try to place before the house the position I take, personally, with respect to the resolution now before us. I hope I shall be able to make my position lucid and clear, because I would not want any of the hon. members to be under any misapprehension as to where I stand.
The resolution we are debating was introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), and reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, if an invitation is received by the parliament of Canada to appoint delegates to meet with delegates from the legislatures of the sponsor nations of NATO, with a view to discussing their closer co-operation within the framework of the United Nations Organization, the government should give consideration to the acceptance of the invitation.
Before proceeding further may I congratulate the hon. member upon his introductory speech. I thought it was lucid and eloquent, and that it set before the house this afternoon in clear terms exactly what is in the hon. member's mind with respect to future developments on a world scale. In

anything I have to say tonight I wish to assure hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North, that I do not intend to descend into the use of any personalities, or to place my presentation on anything but the highest possible level, because I think the hon. member's resolution is worthy of consideration by all thinking men.
However, the hon. member did admit that his resolution, as it appears at page 9 of today's order paper, is a compromise resolution. Hon. members will recall that on February 26, 1951, the same hon. member moved a resolution in these terms:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of supporting the calling of a convention of delegates from the democracies which sponsored the North Atlantic treaty and representing the principal political parties of such democracies, for the purpose of exploring how far their peoples, and the peoples of such other democracies as the convention may invite to send delegates, can apply among them, within the framework of the United Nations, the principles of federal union.
Hon. members will notice that in the resolution now before the house no mention whatever is made of federal union; but in the mover's address this afternoon I thought he made it clear that, actually, what he seeks is at least a first step toward, if not merely an Atlantic federal union, then perhaps a world federal union.
Hon. members will also be aware of the fact that it was not just on February 26, 1951, that this idea was presented in this parliament. We go back to June 28, 1950, and if we will look at the report of the debates of the Senate, at pages 600 and 601, we will see that the Hon. W. D. Euler moved a resolution similar in terms to that moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North on February 26, 1951.
I was not so much concerned about the wording of the resolution in the other place, because the hon. senator suggested three alternative wordings. But it was what he said in support of his resolution that intrigued me. I shall quote from page 601 of the debates of the Senate for June 28, 1950, second column, where he says-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I understand the hon. member is quoting from a quite recent debate in the Senate?


Solon Earl Low: No; it was on June 28, 1950.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not customary to quote from debates so recent. I think perhaps it would be better if the hon. member did not do so. It is difficult for me to determine what is recent.
United Nations


Solon Earl Low: Very well, I shall not quote it, but shall be content to paraphrase it, if that is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances, yes.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you, sir; I certainly would want always to be in order. But, to paraphrase what was said on that occasion, the chief reason for raising the resolution in the other place on the day it was raised, and for not adjourning the debate to some future date, was given as this:	That on that date
Mr. Clarence K. Streit called the hon. senator from New York and suggested that the other place discuss and adopt the resolution on that date because, he went on to say, it might be of sufficient importance that the Canadian Senate had passed it to introduce it into the Senate of the United States and perhaps some leverage could be gained for its passage through the Senate down in Washington. Some other remarks were made in connection with it which I would not be permitted to read into the record, but the important thing, which I again stress, is that the resolution considered and passed in the other place on that date was promulgated and introduced by the outstanding advocate in America of federal union.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member thinks that he cannot quote the resolution which was passed in the other place. He would be perfectly in order to do so as it is the debates in the other place which must not be referred to. The record of what has been done can be referred to.


Solon Earl Low: I think I have accomplished the purpose I had in mind. What I wanted to do was to relate the resolution which we are now dealing with to a world movement which is headed by one Clarence K. Streit who is the editor of a magazine called Freedom and Union. I have a definite and straightforward purpose in doing that, to show that today what we are actually debating is not whether we shall just call a meeting to discuss how far it is possible for the member nations of NATO to co-operate more fully under article 2 of the treaty but to see how far it would be possible for us to arrange to take the first step toward a fully integrated federal union of the NATO nations and, secondly, to use that as the ramp to catapult us into a wider federal world union. To substantiate that I turn to page 2 of the issue of December 1951 of Freedom and Union. The policy advocated by Mr. Streit and his organization is as follows:
To educate the public, in the U.S. and abroad, in the principles of individual freedom and federal union, and their importance to peace, production, higher living standards and greater spiritual development and happiness.

United Nations
To this end, to support the convocation now of a federal constitutional convention representing all the experienced civil liberty democracies, with a view to their forming a federal union of the free, or Atlantic union, which would guarantee their bill of rights, govern them in those fields where they agree that a common government, federally proportionate to the people, and directly elected by and responsible to them, would best advance their individual freedom, and uphold the right of each nation in the union to continue to govern all its other national affairs in complete independence.
This is the part which is quite enlightening to most of us:
To make sure that such a union shall be formed as the nucleus-the first step toward a universal free federal world government-and shall meanwhile be a loyal member of the United Nations and seek to extend the union's free federal institutions to other nations peacefully and as rapidly as practicable.
To provide a magazine forum for the presentation of all views on the whole problem of freedom and federalism.
It is quite clear that what we are dealing with is not a minor proposition put before us in this resolution. I believe that all of us could quite easily agree that it would be desirable for the free nations of the world and more particularly, now that reference has been made to them, for the NATO nations to convocate at some date representatives of their people to discuss how far it might be possible for them to more fully co-operate for the general good of those nations, for the general good of the world, for the keeping of the peace and that sort of thing. Those are noble ideals and I subscribe to them. I have no objection to going as far as the minister of external affairs suggested this afternoon namely, pooling our sovereignties, using that pool for the common good, especially in times of difficulty such as we are facing today, or in times of crisis.
But I want it understood, as I tried to make it understood by a little interjection this afternoon, that in any pooling of sovereignties that we might arrange, even to meet crises such as we now face, I think it is desirable and in the interests of the liberties of the people to make sure that when they contract in they can also contract out. That is the principle by which I stand, the right to contract out of any international obligation if conditions become intolerable for us in that international arrangement. Otherwise there is no guarantee that we shall ever be able to maintain and preserve our liberties.
So I am quite in accord with the minister and I think with the wording of the resolution, but I believe that everyone who followed the hon. member's introductory speech this afternoon saw that it really was not that that he was debating. As he went along he made such statements as that he hoped that a debate would take place on the question of

how to make NATO an effective instrument for our purposes. I then asked myself, "whose purposes"?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Canada's.


Solon Earl Low: That is fine. If it is Canada's, that is good and I would subscribe to it; but if "our purposes" means the purposes of a group of internationalists who are determined to use NATO as a means of catapulting us into a world state, then I think we need to be mighty careful about that part of it.
The hon. member also referred to some fears that had been expressed that the discussion of a resolution of the sort he had introduced might "set back the cause which many of us have". I wonder what that cause is? Is that the real purpose behind the resolution? Then the hon. member went on to say, I think without any equivocation, that what he sought was a political union of the Atlantic states in which there would be a surrender by each component part of its sovereignty in the field of finance, in the field of foreign affairs, in the field of defence, and if I remember correctly in one other field.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Trade and currency.


Solon Earl Low: Trade and currency. I think I have sufficient to envisage that what was behind the hon. member's good intentions was an impelling desire to go further and see that eventually we take another step, which of course would be the establishment of what he was pleased to call a world free state. He said as a matter of fact that he deplored the huge sums that were being spent in preparation for war, and cited the fact that today 50 per cent of the budgets of the nations who are subscribers to the Atlantic treaty are being spent for war purposes. Well, Mr. Speaker, I deplore that too, and I suppose every member of the house deplores it. I should like to see it possible to reduce our defence expenditures to $1 if it were practicable. But the question I have to ask myself is this: Is it possible that the formation of an Atlantic federation, in which we as individual nations surrender our sovereignty, could bring peace? That is a question we have to ask ourselves. What evidence have we that it would bring peace?
Let us go one step further and look at the end which the world federal unionists have in their minds, the achievement of a world federated state. Let us take that proposition first and look at it. Is it possible that the achievement of a world federated state, with world citizenship and all these glorious things that its advocates envision attached to such a state, will ensure peace to the world? The first thing I have-

to ask myself is whether it would be possible in the first place to achieve a world state. Let us debate that proposition for a minute. What does history tell us? I think history shows that the nearest thing we have ever had to a world state was the holy Roman empire which in my judgment was neither holy, Roman nor an empire, though that is what they called it. There were three things that struck me about the holy Homan empire and that I have always remembered. The first thing is that it was created as a consequence of a long drawn out series of military conquests, and in no other way. That tells me something. Second, the holy Roman empire maintained itself only by further continuous military expeditions that had to be undertaken to put down revolutions and enforce peace. It was never at peace. The third thing that I learned from history was that in the end the holy Roman empire, so-called, broke up with a crash that plunged the whole world into darkness, and not only that, but into a perpetual succession of bandit wars that lasted for many, many years.
What kind of price was paid for that form of world government? I think that the objective that the federal unionists say they want to achieve, world peace, is a worthy objective. I should like to see that world peace established, but I believe we must all be fully aware of the price we shall have to pay for it if we seek it through federal union.
I am wondering if it will be worth the price we shall have to pay for it. There is no guarantee in the world that, even if we pay the terrible price we may have to pay to set up a world federated state, it would bring peace. My judgment tells me it would not.


John Horne Blackmore: Or happiness.


Solon Earl Low: Or happiness. What the world government advocates refuse to see, as far as I have been able to make out in my study of their proposals, is that no federal union or world state is ever likely to be created, or maintained after it is created, except by force, the force of one very powerful state imposing its will upon the others or the force of a group of states attempting to impose their will upon the others. Is that what my hon. friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, would call peace? That is not my definition of peace. Let us never forget that the international communist party and the bolshevik leaders of Soviet Russia are determined to create a world state on the model of the Soviet union. No one who knows anything about history can deny
United Nations
that. Lenin held, and he handed down to his successors in the politburo, the conviction that the Marxist state never could live side by side and in peace with the capitalist state. They believe that and they conduct themselves as if they believe it.
At the same time the Russian communist imperialists are logical enough to know that the world state which they promote can never be achieved, can never come into existence, through universal voluntary agreement. That is why they keep huge standing armies and are hastening to build navies and air forces. They know it will have to be imposed by subversion first, undermining the existing order by subversive action in all countries, and then through the use of external armed forces after the subversive activity has done its deadly work. They know that, and that is why they are making preparations as they have been for the time when they will have to resort to all-out armed conflict in order to impose their form of social, legal and economic organization upon the world. I am convinced that no world state could possibly be created before the United States of America and the Soviet union have slugged it out and one of them emerged as the victor and the other as the vanquished; until the victor of that mammoth struggle has imposed his particular social order on the other.
These two are acknowledged to be the powerful world forces, and everybody recognizes that they stand irreconcilable with respect to what kind of social, legal and economic order the world state should have when it is finally achieved. Is it possible, therefore, I ask, to achieve a world government or a federated world state without armed conflict? If not, why is there all this foolish talk about the aim of federal union being the maintenance of peace? If a conflict should occur with these mastodons I have mentioned as the main contenders, would it be possible to get along and have any peace without having the resulting world state policed constantly and perpetually by millions of armed men? That is a question we have got to answer.
What would happen to individual freedom in such a contingency? Can anyone imagine that he would be more free than now? Yet we hear the advocates of federal union say: Surrender some of your freedom now and get bigger freedom later. Before I consent to surrender any sovereignty and freedom I am going to know to whom it is going and what they are going to use it for. Human freedom in a world state today would be suppressed just as surely as darkness follows day. Not only that, I have asked myself
1SS2

United Nations
what would happen to world culture. It is a good thing to have different cultures and traditions. Those are the things that make for variety and spice in life. Under a world state brought about as it would have to be today, or perhaps for that matter at any time, I am satisfied the result would be a levelling down of human cultures, because a culture is a mark of differentiation. In the conflict that inevitably would result from the drive to establish a world union or world state today, I cannot imagine that state tolerating too many differences among the people. The idea would be to level down those cultures and make them one. That is not my idea of abundant living and freedom. Any really serious effort to establish a world state today would undoubtedly destroy a good many of the cultures of the world, and any marked differentiation would not be tolerated in such a state. I recall something written by a great writer whose name escapes me for the moment, and I quote it because I agree so much with what he had to say:
The plain reality is that the world, in terms of culture, civilization and consciousness is not and cannot be one world. And to try to make it one, against all the realities of life and nature, is far more likely to awake a spirit of rebellion than the spirit of harmony.
In my opinion the surest way to bring open world conflict is to launch a serious, determined all-out drive for a federated world state. When I say that I also want to ask this question. I do so seriously, without any attempt to throw a cloud over anybody and certainly no one in this house. If it is a fact that -a serious attempt to establish a world state today would plunge us into world conflict, is it not possible that evil forces who know this may try to use a drive for world union to plunge us into a world war? That is one of the things I have to ask myself and which every responsible member of this house will have to ask. No one can deny that there are evil forces who are determined to bring open conflict because they benefit from it. Certainly they will make use of any possible spark to ignite the conflagration.
I think that is all I wish to say about the major proposition. In my judgment it will only be possible for peace to exist in this world under the rule of the divine Son of God, certainly not under the rule of an international junta of power maniacs; and I am not prepared to surrender my sovereignty to such a junta. I am concerned in the main, Mr. Speaker, about preserving the freedoms and liberties that have been won over the centuries at such cost in blood and life. The further you remove from the sovereign individual his controlling government, the more difficult it will be for him to preserve his

freedoms. I am jealous of those freedoms, as I think every red-blooded Canadian must be. Under a world federation what would happen to the liberty to take part in our own government; what would happen to our liberty to worship Almighty God in our own way in our own churches, unmolested? Who is going to say my right will be preserved inviolate? The hon. member for Winnipeg North says the Atlantic union parliament will make laws. Certainly they will; but the mere making of laws is not going to secure to me in perpetuity the right to those freedoms I now hold dear.
When I speak of the freedom to worship Almighty God without molestation in my own way and in my own church, my mind goes to some other people in the world who were convinced that if they surrendered a little of their sovereignty their freedom would be enlarged. I am thinking, for example, of the people of Hungary, who at one time valued very highly their religious liberty. I wonder if their freedom was enlarged when they became a member of the ring of iron states? Ask them today. Think about Cardinal Mina-szenty and some of the others. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when we think in terms of world government we have to think of those things we hold most dear. In any government, no matter what it is, we have to see that checks and balances are established which will preserve our freedoms inviolate.
Well, if world government cannot guarantee us peace, how in the world can, anyone by any stretch of the imagination say that the complete integration of the economies and politics of the governments of the NATO nations can guarantee us peace? I should say one of the surest ways to guarantee war today would be to go all-out in the formation of an Atlantic federation with the idea of building up terrific strength to match that of the people in the other half of the world. It means that we are getting ready for the conflict, that we really believe it is coming. I have never seen any evidence that you cannot achieve by a treaty of co-operation as much as you could possibly achieve towards establishing peace in the world by a complete political and economic integration of the NATO countries.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North mentioned what I have heard so many people mention when trying to defend their views with respect to federal union. He mentioned that the United States had achieved a very workable form of government by federal union. He further said the Atlantic federal union would be exactly similar. I do not think he went quite as far as some others have gone, but I just want to point out something that a lot of people conveniently do not

remember. I have in my hand a clipping from the New York American of February 28, 1951. The writer unfortunately did not append his name to the article, but it hits the nail so much on the head that I want to put small parts of it on the record. This contains a comparison of the so-called NATO federal union or Atlantic union with what happened in the United States of America. The heading of this article is, "A dishonest parallel." The article reads:
George Washington, who held as one of his deepest convictions that the United States could survive only by avoiding foreign entanglements, is now quoted by advocates of world government in support of their strange proposal.
In the course of the constitutional convention, in 1787, General Washington wrote to a friend complaining that the reluctance of the individual states to surrender their sovereignty to a federal government was keeping the nation "weak, inefficient and disgraceful."
The letter has been cited by Lawrence Dawson, executive director of the United World Federalists of Illinois, as an argument in favour of his organization's proposal that this nation yield its sovereignty to a world government.
"Although General Washington was referring to the states which became the United States of America," said Mr. Dawson, "the principle of delegating sovereignty to which he referred is precisely the same principle which the United World Federalists hope to see applied through the United Nations to the entire world.
"In that limited field necessary to abolish war, we federalists believe that the world should be governed by the same system of carefully delineated and delegated central authority which has worked so magnificently ... in our country."
Now, the writer says this, and it is very much to the point.
This is a monstrous argument. It rests on the pretense that the United States would have no more to lose in yielding its sovereignty to a world government than had each of the states in yielding to a central government created by themselves.
But the utter dishonesty of that pretense is evident at a glance.
The inhabitants of the thirteen states were all Americans.
They had local differences but they shared, all of them, the basic idea that individual liberty was the most important thing on earth, and that the only way it could be preserved was through self-government by the people.
Only if that same ideal were passionately shared by all the peoples of the world would the parallel which one-world advocates try to draw between the thirteen American states of 1787 and the nations of the earth today be accurate or honest.
I agree.
The greater part of the earth is inhabited by backward masses who have no understanding of liberty, or so much as even a dream of liberty.
And among many of the more advanced peoples the ideal of freedom, where if it survives at all, is greatly diluted.
Some have permitted themselves to be enslaved to dictatorships; others have traded off their liberties for socialism's false promises of security.
When the Messiahs of the one-world daydream suggest that America could submit to the control of nations that do not know freedom without sacrificing its own freedom, they are saying, therefore, something that simply is not true.
United Nations
There is no parallel, Mr. Speaker, between what happened in the United States or what happened in Canada and what would happen in the attempt to set up Atlantic federal union or world federal union.
I think one valid argument that was used by the hon. member was that some form of Atlantic union is necessary to ensure control of the military by civil government. I believe that. I agree that his argument there was valid. Certainly, we must never allow ourselves to become in any way subject to the rule of a military junta. For that reason I am sympathetic to the idea of some kind of very close co-operation, but on a basis that would allow every nation to contract out if the conditions under which they have to work become intolerable, to see to it that a civil administration that could control the military is set up.
I agree further with my hon. friend when he says that we must do everything we can to make article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty work. Surely, his argument is sound on that. I must say, and I say this in conclusion because I know my time is running out, that the general assumption that communism spreads only throughout countries or amongst peoples who are hungry and have a lower standard of living, cannot be substantiated.


Mr. Noseworthy:: What about China and Russia?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, I shall take China and
Russia. Communism did not spread through China and Russia, but in each case it was imposed upon those countries by a very small group of communists. So it was with every other country where communism got its hold. I agree that there were intolerable conditions in the countries and there were protests against those conditions. The protests gave a small group of iron-fisted imperialists the opportunity to exploit the situation, and they used it to full advantage. Just the same every effort ought to be made to bring about co-operation amongst the Atlantic countries so that article 2 of NATO could really be made to work in the interests of peace and for the welfare of humanity.
I could subscribe to the resolution as it stands. I am prepared to go and listen to the proposition that is put forward, and to study this matter very fully. I want it clearly understood, however, that my organization is not prepared to agree to any surrender of sovereignty of the Canadian people without first letting the people know exactly what it is that is going to be surrendered, what the price is going to be; and without obtaining from the people direction in a mandate for

United Nations
that surrender. Consequently, when the people indicate in no uncertain terms that they want to surrender their sovereignty, then I shall be quite ready to listen.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: 1 have listened with a great deal of interest, Mr. Speaker, to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) on this resolution. It is an interesting resolution and reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, if an invitation is received by the parliament of Canada to appoint delegates to meet with delegates from the legislatures of the sponsor nations of NATO, with a view to discussing their closer co-operation within the framework of the United Nations Organization, the government should give consideration to the acceptance of the invitation.
In my humble view, sir, this resolution is uncalled for, untimely, frivolous and dangerous. I shall explain that. It is based on the one-world theory of Wendell Willkie. We had some delegates who came to Canada, and when questions were put to them they could not answer them.
One bright question that was put to the delegates was this: If you have one world government, will you have any more tariff barriers? And, sir, not a word. At the same time they were asked if they would be interested in having some citizens from Alabama running in Huron, Winnipeg or in Ottawa, and if Canadians could run for election in the United States-no answer. And they were asked what they would do with the sovereignty of Canada and of the provinces; what they would do with the constitution of Canada; what they would do with the Bill of Rights and the constitution of the United States-no answer.
What surprises me very much is that they continue to speak and to elaborate their view that nobody understands. If somebody has money to waste they have only to pay $2 for a ticket for the dinner tomorrow night and to waste some time at the meeting that is going to take place in one of the rooms of the building. For me, I will not insist upon it; for I find this idea of a world government absurd in itself; it cannot work; we cannot destroy the sovereignty of all countries.
I knew it was coming to that a long time ago when patriotism was declared out of fashion, and those who are thinking of Canada as Canadians were called isolationists. We were isolationists because we were thinking of Canada before thinking of any other country. I have no objection to alliances with other countries.


Solon Earl Low: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Union makes strength; I am for it, provided that we keep our sovereignty and that we keep the right to decide everything right here in Ottawa, and that the provinces have the right to decide what pertains to them in their capital cities.


Solon Earl Low: Unions for righteous purposes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly. And what is coming with that suggestion of world government? It is world irresponsibility.


Solon Earl Low: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: We will have Brock Chisholm in every field of activity, men who are responsible to no one. I remember that one day when $500,000 was voted by this parliament to send to the world health organization. A few weeks afterwards Brock Chisholm was elected the big boss of that organization. I will not say that he used that money for political purposes but we never knew what was done with it. It is not only that, sir. What particular benefit would Canada get from world government? At the present time we have treaties that bind us to the nations that have signed the NATO agreement. That is all right. It is a good thing to have allies, although I believe bilateral pacts would be much better than unilateral pacts; but on account of the difficulty in dealing in diplomatic matters with the United States and having our views accepted by the United States government, perhaps it was the only way to have an organization like the North Atlantic pact. But if you remember, sir-probably you have forgotten it-some years ago I suggested that the United States should enter into the British commonwealth as a dominion. A few days later I met some prominent Americans who were greatly scandalized, and who could not agree that the United States could be a dominion similar to Canada in such a commonwealth of nations. But now, if we have that theory of world government put in practice, the United States will not exist any longer; Canada will not exist; Great Britain will not exist; France will not exist. We will have one world; citizens of all countries and of none. How can we subscribe to that?
I give credit to the hon. gentleman who sponsors the resolution that he may be an idealist. It would be his only excuse to bring that kind of resolution here. But not only that; what I want him and the others who subscribe to his motion to understand fairly well is the consequence of creating an irresponsible organization of that kind. It is abuse; it is disaster; it is anarchy; it is complete loss of all our traditions. The world will be a big melting pot.


Mr, Low:: It is.

United Nations


Jean-François Pouliot: Not as it is in. the United States, to make good patriots of the American citizens. Patriotism will be banned; patriotism will be forbidden; patriotism will be equivalent to what treason is now according to the Criminal Code.
Well, sir, I am not to speak any longer about it. I do not think we shall take seriously the ambassadors of good will who are coming here to preach nonsense. If some people have some money to waste they can spend $2 each to go to the dinner tomorrow night, and if they have time to waste they can go to their meeting. Probably I shall go there at some time to realize once more that they cannot answer any questions that are put to them.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last year, as has been mentioned, a somewhat similar resolution was presented here in the House of Commons. At that time I was not present. I was a member of a group in Winnipeg that was watching for that debate with considerable interest, as were several other groups in all the major cities across Canada. To our disappointment the debate collapsed with only the mover of the resolution, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) taking part.
The subject matter of this particular resolution is of very considerable interest and importance to many people in Canada, and it is desirable that several members participate in the debate, as has happened on this occasion, because there are various points of view to be set forward. I do not propose advocating world government; for my thinking has not carried me that far. I propose, however, supporting the resolution for reasons that follow.
We face two great problems which overshadow all our internal troubles and disputes: The problem of defence preparedness so that we may not lose our freedom, and the problem of finding a way towards enduring peace.
The energy that we devote to strengthening our defences must be matched by the energy we display in exploring every road, every path or even faintly marked trail, that leads toward peace. General Eisenhower has expressed the thoughts of millions in some of his remarks which John Gunther quoted in the Ottawa Citizen of April 25. These are General Eisenhower's words:
Total war would be the suicide of our generation.
We must train the youth of America to avert world war III, and not to refight world war II.
There is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs.
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can.
Weakness cannot co-operate with anything. We have got to be strong.
I hold that a resolute, intelligent, and frankly displayed determination to live up to our present position in the world is vital to our current and future welfare.
It is with those thoughts in mind that I approach the present subject. The importance of this motion before us is that it concentrates attention upon the problem that should be uppermost in the minds of all people, namely, can democracy survive in this era of world revolution? For we are living in a period of revolution just as important as any revolutionary period in history.
The threat of the present crisis is towards the liberty and freedom of the citizens of the democracies. I think that it is wise sometimes to look back into history, and my excursion shall be very brief. I was reading just the other day some debates of the House of Commons at Westminster dealing with army estimates. One of the hon. members there was stressing the development of weapons from the earliest times, and had reached the middle ages when he was interrupted by an hon. member on the opposite side who said: "On a point of order; are we discussing the war estimates of William the Conqueror, or what?" The Speaker intervened and said, in a kindly fashion, "I think the honourable and learned member was advancing cautiously but steadily towards the present age." I will advance a little more speedily in my review of some earlier history.
I think we should remember that democracy, as a form of government, has a very short history, when compared with other forms of government. The history of the world has shown that political power has been longer in the hands of autocrats and oligarchs than in the hands of the people. In the ancient world democratic government arose in the states of Greece, and persisted for about four hundred years. It flourished in the fifth century B.C., declined in the fourth under the Macedonian conquest, revived in feebler form after the death of Alexander the Great, and perished under the weight of the Roman empire.
Centuries elapsed before democracy was re-established. The last three hundred years have witnessed the modern flowering of democratic government. But the threat of Russian imperialism is as grave now for the democracies of today as were the threats of Sparta and of the autocrat Philip of Macedon to the democracies of Ancient Greece. They perished for the same reasons that threaten us now-lack of cohesion and of political unity. Their military alliances proved unstable. Their preparations for war were

United Nations
delayed. Their policies were as well known to the enemy as to themselves, for they were debated in public. Their ranks were infiltrated by enemy sympathizers. They lacked unity of purpose. They fell, one by one, to the aggressor, although their combined strength effectively asserted would have saved them.
War may not be inevitable, but the history of the world discloses very few periods when it has not been afflicting mankind. The only long period of peace enjoyed by western Europe occurred in the first and second centuries A.D. when the Roman empire was supreme and the legions kept the barbarians in check beyond the frontiers. Several generations of men in Europe lived in freedom from the fear of war.
Their successors have not been so fortunate. No similar peaceful period was seen again until the nineteenth century, when the British fleet and the Monroe doctrine effectively discouraged any maritime adventures. The twentieth century has experienced the most devastating wars in the long and troubled history of mankind with destruction and atrocities reminiscent of Genghis Khan or of the thirty years' war.
The one compelling desire of twentieth century man is for relief from this recurring disaster. With the rapid development of the means of destruction the need for a solution to the problem of world war preoccupies our thoughts and calls for the most earnest and active measures, if civilization is not to receive a mortal blow.
Arnold Toynbee in his book "Civilization on Trial" shows clearly that we have no grounds for belief that our civilization will endure forever. During the last five or six thousand years many civilizations, he points out, have risen, have declined and have fallen. In that period of six thousand years, democracy, which gives the greatest freedom to the individual, is a form of government that has had much the briefest history. We consider it man's highest achievement in government. Can it be maintained unimpaired, safe from the foes without and the perils within?
Toynbee suggests that we are not doomed to make history repeat itself; that it is open to us through our own efforts to give history a new and unprecedented turn. He considers that we have three tasks-in politics, to establish a constitutional co-operative system of world government; in economics, to find working compromises between free enterprise and socialism; and in the life of the spirit, to put the secular superstructure back on to religious foundations. Of these three tasks the political task is the most urgent. The

world is on the eve of being unified politically by one means or another. Can we stave off unification by force?
Efforts towards peace have been very great. During the nineteenth century over 400 peace organizations were formed, distributed among 15 countries, and more than a hundred international peace congresses were held. In the twentieth century we have seen many alliances formed, many peace treaties signed. We had a league of nations for twenty years, attempting to obtain security for the nations of the world by means of conference. A similar attempt has been made through the United Nations. A successful solution still seems far distant. Precarious peace is being maintained in some areas of the world now by the age-old methods of treaties, alliances and collective security measures. None of these methods in the past has prevented the outbreak of war.
Before attempting to make plans for the prevention of world war it would seem necessary to determine the causes of war. That is no easy task, for there are as many opinions as there are men who have discussed the matter. I attempted a few years ago to summarize the causes that have been advanced by leading individuals to account for the outbreak of the wars which the common people do not want. They are as follows: The natural pugnacity of mankind; economic conditions, the revolt of the have-nots against the haves; the special wickedness of a people; the imperialistic ambitions of nations; revenge for earlier defeats or for unredressed grievances; fear of encirclement; the conscious wickedness of governments, rulers, diplomats, capitalists and imperialists; the selfishness of men; the struggle of oppressed subject peoples; the activities of armament manufacturers; the breakdown of international trade; the battle for oil, raw materials and markets, and the international financiers.
Another cause was given by the late Lord Lothian, who was British ambassador to the United States in 1939, who said:
The fundamental cause of war Is neither unjust treaties, nor racial or religious or cultural differences, nor maltreatment of minorities, nor need for raw materials and markets, nor imperialist ambitions, nor strategic considerations, nor capitalism or nationalism. The cause of war is the anarchy of sovereign states. The end of war can come only through world federation.
There are others who consider that despite all our efforts the only hope for the future lies in a change in the minds and hearts of men such as Christianity can bring about through its emphasis on love and brotherhood. Lord Lothian suggested that although that is true in so far as the final abolition of war is concerned, nevertheless it is the function of politics and government to create the practical

conditions in which resort to violence will be forbidden and prevented between nations, as it is now between individuals and groups within national states.
These views give some idea of the diversity of opinion concerning the cause of war and the complexity of the problem. Unless agreement can be reached as to the cause of war it will be difficult to formulate measures to prevent war. If Lord Lothian's view be accepted that the root cause of war is anarchy, what steps are necessary to replace the present anarchy with the rule of international law? There are sixty sovereign states within the world, each a law unto itself. Because each nation is a law unto itself the secondary causes of war frequently prevail to disturb the peace of the world-the ambition of rulers, fear of encirclement and so forth.
It is obvious that sovereignty might be maintained unimpaired if the nations would of their own accord accept arbitration for the settlement of their disputes. That method is well known to Canada, the United States and Great Britain for it was thus that our boundary disputes were settled. Among the great nations of the world arbitration has been resorted to on more than two hundred occasions in the period from 1794 to 1914. It has never been accepted as a compulsory method of settling differences.
The league of nations offered a method for solving international disputes but it soon became clear that some states were not disposed to abide by the decisions of the league and preferred to withdraw from that organization. The present United Nations has disappointed in part the hopes of its founders.
Within the last thirty-seven years we have had two world wars, a league of nations and a United Nations and are now -back to the old and oft-tried plan of alliance and coalition. Now it is the United States and her allies against Russia and her allies and satellites. Earlier it was Athens against Sparta, Rome against Carthage, Marlborough, Eugene and Holland against Louis XIV, the *Grand Alliance against Napoleon, the Triple Entente against the Triple Alliance. Thus does history repeat itself and the prevention of world war seems as distant as ever.
As Sebastian Haffner puts it in the London Observer and as repeated in the Globe and Mail of November 26, 1951:
In our historical experience, coalitions are shortlived and ephemeral structures. They are knocked together for the purpose of war against a common enemy, and they regularly fall apart as soon as the war and the common danger are over; or, if the expected war does not materialize, they disintegrate quietly.
The great coalition, which is embodied in the North Atlantic treaty, has from its inception been
United Nations
meant to defy this historical law. Whatever Russian propaganda may say, it never was an alliance for war; its purpose was and is to prevent war and to enforce and maintain peace. This is a long-term aim and it means that the coalition must hold together as a working organization over a long term of years and maintain joint policies in spite of the many disruptive factors which are bound to arise between sovereign allies in the course of time.
Maintaining a coalition during the course of a war is difficult enough. A military disaster, a change of government, internal troubles

any one of these or other causes may result in the loss of an ally. Recall the difficulties that faced the allies in 1917-a military reverse in Italy, disaffection and mutiny in the French army, revolution in Russia. Only the aid and steadfastness of Britain and the United States saved the situation on the western front. In a protracted cold war period which is the endless vista before us there is the gravest danger that some of the partners might become weary of the struggle and withdraw into isolation or be weakened economically and become an easy prey to a fifth column.
Even the strongest member of the present coalition presents a problem. Bruce Hutchison writing in Maclean's, April 1 of this year, has this to say:
The United States is trying to erect and lead, in a fashion never known on earth before, a worldwide coalition of free peoples whom it does not understand and frequently antagonizes through its lack of understanding.
The biggest question of all-
He quotes a leading United States government figure as saying:
-is whether a democracy under our system, and with our anti-military tradition, can build up enough power for the job, and, if it does so, whether it can maintain that power for years, maybe decades, without either using it recklessly or getting tired of the load and dissolving it, just as the Russians hope. It'll be the toughest thing we ever tackled and remember, if you foreigners need our understanding, we'll need yours.
Is the answer to this and to other problems that face the North Atlantic Treaty Organization a form of political union among the various members? The objective before us seems to have two features, one the maintenance of peace if possible by such preparations that any aggressor will be restrained from running the risk of war and, secondly, if war does occur, that the western democracies will be so strong and so united that victory in the struggle will be assured.
Some form of political union between the members of the great coalition seems essential. The differences of race do not constitute an insuperable barrier. North American man is merely western European man transplanted across the Atlantic. There are thousands and hundreds of thousands of North Americans

United Nations
whose birthplace was in western Europe and millions who are descendants of western Europeans. An Atlantic community of democratic peoples numbering over 300 millions needs only the closer bonds of political union to form a unity that would be proof against the ambition of any foreign power. In that Atlantic community is contained the industrial might and power of western civilization. In that Atlantic community, united and strong and free, would be preserved the great spiritual heritage of western civilization and of Christianity.
The motion for consideration before us does not commit either the government or Canada in any way. It merely suggests that the way be kept open for consultation and investigation. Our goal is peace with honour. Our hope is for freedom and for security from the scourge of war. Closer co-operation between the sponsor nations of NATO may be the road to enduring peace. We should explore that road or any other so that we may satisfy ourselves that no effort has been spared. Vision and faith are needed in this hour if our civilization is to survive.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the house that if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: There are a few words I should like to say in closing the debate. First of all, I am glad that at least three other members partook in it this year. Perhaps we shall have even more next year when some similar motion again comes before the house. What I should now like to do, however, is to clarify some of the matters which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) raised this afternoon. AS' he pointed out, and as is of course the case, one cannot include every possible aspect of the situation within a resolution such as this without making it most cumbersome. The points he raised were valid and I find myself in complete agreement with them. Indeed, were I to rewrite the resolution with all points in it I would be perfectly willing to state that we should not accept an invitation to such a conference unless it came from one of the governments of the seven sponsor nations of NATO.
Second, I would assume that such an invitation would imply that there was a responsible purpose behind the invitation. Third, the whole purpose of my concept of union would be destroyed were members of parliament to go to such a conference with power to pledge the Canadian government to a certain course of action. Those whom I should like to see

go to such a conference are parliamentarians on their own as parliamentarians and therefore in no way able to commit the government.
Perhaps with these matters cleared up the Secretary of State for External Affairs might feel able to accept the resolution, weak in some ways though I think it is. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) has just told me that he hopes to be able to say a few words on his resolution. Therefore I shall be very brief in what I have to say. I should like to comment much more fully upon the interesting and informative speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) but time precludes. As for the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), I listened to him with interest but he always seems to me to have an infinite capacity for reducing his own views to absurdity.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) gave us a very interesting contribution but I thought he was chasing intellectual hares. He quoted the New York American with some relish but I assume he has not seen recent copies of the Chicago Tribune which really outdo the American considerably. In fact the resident Ottawa correspondent of the Chicago Tribune recently wrote to his paper implying that certain United States senators were coming to Ottawa to sell out their country. I assure the hon. member for Peace River that if he follows the Tribune closely he will find a great deal of ammunition against us Atlantic unionists but of course most of it would be completely erroneous. I think the hon. member for Peace River was arguing against something for which I was not arguing. I was discussing the proposition of federal union throughout the world. I do not think world government is a practical proposition today but I do think by some form of union we could appreciably strengthen NATO. The hon. member for Peace River asks for an alliance into which we can contract and out of which we can contract. Per contra, our allies could contract out of that alliance just as rapidly as we could, and there would simply be no security of any sort whatsoever with such a loose conglomeration of nations ready to get out when the going got tough.
I am an Atlantic unionist. I should like to see these seven nations brought together very closely, and I should like to see it done without benefit of war. As I said this afternoon, if war comes, survival will demand that we enter into that form of union. But I was only arguing for Atlantic union. Obviously we are not going to get it within the predictable future. Therefore I am prepared to compromise to a substantial extent on my

views in the hope of creating something stronger than we have now. I believe Atlantic union amongst these seven nations would give us power so great that any potential aggressor would think several times before he attacked us. After all, wars today are not only won on the field of battle. They are won principally in the factories. They are won by industrial potential, and these seven countries together would control almost 70 per cent of the world's industrial potential. With that behind us we should be in an extraordinarily strong position, strong enough, I suggest, to offer the best hope for escape from the scourge of war.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hazen Robert Argue: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation increasing the amounts paid under the Family Allowances Act to the extent necessary to compensate for the increase in the cost of living since the said act was first enacted.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure this evening to move the foregoing resolution.
As hon. members will recall, the Family Allowances Act was enacted on August 5, 1944. It came into operation when the first payments were made in July, 1945. The prime minister of that day, the Right Hon, W. L. Mackenzie King, in introducing the family allowances motion and bill, stated that it was one of the important measures the government was going to take towards post-war reconstruction and the introduction of a new era. I believe the Family Allowances Act has been of great value especially to families in the low income groups. Because of the improvements that have resulted from family allowances by way of better clothing, food and medical care, and improved educational opportunity, all citizens of Canada stand to gain. Benefit has resulted mainly to the children of low income families, but I welcome the fact that family allowances are paid without a means test.
The government can and does recover from those in the higher income brackets a large part of what they receive in family allowances, if not perhaps even more. Family allowances have made an important contribution in improving health standards among
Family Allowances Act our children. I believe they have resulted in children being able to obtain a better education. If young Canadians grow up in better health and receive a better education they will be in a better position to help produce the wealth of this country. If they have been reared in good health and given a more adequate education, in their adult life they will be more productive and consequently the net result to Canada will be a betterment in our standards for generations to come. I believe the family allowance is a good investment in the future, and will pay the nation enormous dividends.
When introducing the legislation the late prime minister, Mr. King, pointed out that in the first six months of 1944 some 39-3 per cent of all those presenting themselves for enlistment for active service were rejected. It was Mr. King's opinion that if the Family Allowances Act had been in operation in the days of the great depression that rejection rate would have been much lower. Family allowance is a good investment if peace is maintained in the years to come. It is an equally good investment if our nation should once more face an emergency such as prevailed in 1944.
I think hon. members will agree that if the Family Allowances Act was good in August, 1944, and if the payments of those days were the payments that should be made under such legislation, those payments do not represent the same purchasing power today. In other words, as the years have gone by the value of the family allowance has been reduced. So I present this motion in the hope that the house may support not a real increase in the value of the family allowance cheque but a restoration of the family allowance to the same purchasing power it possessed in August, 1944. It may be said, as is true, that if this resolution were adopted it would add a substantial sum to our expenditure, and it may be argued we are not in a position to meet such additional payments. I think hon. members should remember that the payment of family allowances is not at all in the same position as, for example, an increased vote for national defence or rearmament. When we spend money on arms we spend it on something that does not go into consumption in Canada and does not improve our standard of living. On the other hand an increase in the family allowance is merely a redistribution of purchasing power among Canadians, and1 I believe it is time low income families were

Family Allowances Act given family allowance cheques which would purchase a great deal more than is the case today.
Then I believe an increase in the family allowance would mean a definite improvement in our home market. Canada is facing a real emergency, not because we cannot produce enough food but because agriculture surpluses are piling up. I do not suppose the Canadian market could absorb all those surpluses, but I am sure that if the government increased family allowances there would be a greater consumption of such food as meat, milk, butter and eggs. People enjoying a high standard of living consume a high protein diet, and it is those very protein foods that are in surplus in Canada today. I believe that by increasing the family allowance we would provide an increased Canadian market for agricultural products.
The government has tried various fiscal measures to control inflation. Apparently inflation has been brought under control, at least temporarily, but inflation in the last few years has been terrific. The price level is up; the cost of living is up. Because of that increase in the cost of living, because inflation has resulted from the failure of the government to take adequate measures, I say there is a responsibility on the government to do what it can to alleviate the inflation that exists today and therefore should restore the value of the family allowance. There has been a small decrease in the cost of living in recent months. There has been a somewhat larger decrease in the wholesale index. Agricultural products are in surplus supply. There is substantial unemployment. Everyone knows that inflation is usually followed by deflation and often by depression. I believe the payment of the family allowance together with the other social security measures we now have in effect, such as the old age pension, in themselves provide a cushion against possible depression. In other words, whether inflation or deflation should come, it is in our best interests to increase the value of the family allowance.
There has been a terrific increase in the cost of living since August, 1944, when this legislation was enacted. At that time the cost of living index stood at 118-9. In March, 1952, it stood at 189-1. There had been an increase in the cost-of-living index within that period of 59 per cent. I am suggesting that the government should increase family allowances to the extent of approximately 60 per cent. I should like to see the minimum monthly payment per child increased from $5 to $8. I should like to see the maximum monthly payment per child increased from $8 to $13, with the other payments varying

accordingly. I say I propose that family allowances should be increased by 60 per cent in order to compensate for the general increase in the cost-of-living index.
I believe that family allowances are spent by the mothers of Canada mainly on clothing and food for the children. The clothing index has increased more than the general cost-of-living index. In August, 1944, the clothing index was 121-5; in March of this year that index was 211-2, an increase of 74 per cent. I say, therefore, that a suggested increase in the family allowance of 60 per cent is a moderate one and is 14 per cent less than the increase in the clothing index since August, 1944. The increase in the food index has been even more substantial. In August, 1944, the food index was 131-5; in March of this year that index was 241-7, an increase in that period of 84 per cent. Surely, a suggested increase of 60 per cent in the family allowance is most moderate, as it is actually 24 per cent less than the increase in the food index.
As I have already stated I suggest a 60 per cent increase in the family allowance because, since 1944, the general cost of living has increased by approximately that amount.
1	believe if the family allowance were increased that increase would be used by the mothers of Canada, almost without exception, to improve the health and nutritional standards of their families. One of the most important commodities for the growing child to receive is milk. Canada can produce lots of milk. We have a surplus of cheese in Ontario now, which is just another form of milk. Our dairy surpluses are threatening the dairy industry, yet statistics show that from 1946 to 1951 there has been a decrease in the consumption of milk in Canada. In 1946 Canadians consumed almost 6,000,000,000 pounds of milk; in 1951 it was 5,865,000,000 or a decrease within that five-year period of
2	per cent. But that does not tell the whole story. From 1941 to 1951 there was an increase in the population of Canada of 18-6 per cent, apart from the population of Newfoundland. A 2 per cent decrease in the actual consumption of milk between 1946 and 1951, therefore, because of the increase in population becomes a greater per capita percentage decrease. I estimate in those five years from 1946 to 1951, because of inflation, because of the high cost of living and the fact that low income groups could not afford to buy all the milk their families needed, milk consumption per capita in Canada dropped by approximately 10 per cent.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the consumption of milk in Canada would increase substantially with an increase in the family

allowance. We have milk in surplus supply. The only thing standing in the way of many thousands of Canadian children receiving more milk is the fact that their parents have not got the money to buy it at present high prices. I believe that an increase in the family allowance would not only allow mothers to buy necessary increased quantities of milk, but would result in the general nutritional standards being raised. It would result in these children being better clothed, receiving better medical care and being given an opportunity for better education.
At the present time we are engaged in a large rearmament program. Democracy throughout the world is being challenged. But if we are to protect democracy in Canada, I do not think we should allow large defence expenditures to stand in the way of maintaining the value of our social security legislation. Real production in Canada is going up year after year. In his speech the other night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) pointed out that within the last year real production in Canada had increased by more than 5 per cent. I do not believe that this resolution of mine really goes far enough. I should, perhaps, be advocating that the real value of the family allowance should be steadily increased. But in the hope that the government will give my proposition more favourable consideration, I have kept my proposal within what I consider moderate bounds.
All I am saying to the government in this resolution is, do not allow defence expenditures or any other claim on budget revenues to stand in the way of protecting the purchasing power of the family allowance, the old age pension or other social security measures. Can Canada afford such an increase today? The increase would amount to approximately $192 million based on the estimated cost of family allowances during this year of $320-5 million. For this year our gross national product is estimated at $22-5 billion. Surely we can afford something less than one per cent for the welfare of Canadian children. Surely, we can afford something less than one per cent of the gross national product in order to restore the purchasing power of the family allowance.
The sum of $5 a month for a child under 6 years of age, $8 a month for a child of 13, 14 or 15 years of age, is not very much. No one expects the government, or the parliament of Canada, to make provision of family allowances to the point necessary to maintain a child in a home. In other words, the parents must have a continuing responsibility. Is $5 a month now, for an infant child, of sufficient
Family Allowances Act help in relation to the cost of keeping that newborn child in health, in comfort and growing satisfactorily?
Perhaps some hon. members, like myself, have purchased the last issue of Life magazine. In that magazine is set out the cost in New York of a layette. As I understand it, a layette consists of all the provisions and equipment that a mother needs for a newborn child, the first child. She needs these provisions to take care of the child when she brings it home from the hospital. In New York it is estimated that the cost of the average layette is $400. This article goes on to point out that the mother, if she budgets very carefully, may provide all of the things necessary to care for her newborn child for the amount of $275. It takes a lot of family allowance cheques to reach the sum of $275. It takes 55 family allowance cheques; it takes almost five years for the present family allowance cheques to total the smallest sum, according to Life magazine, that it is necessary to spend on provisions to take care of a newborn child.
I use that example, Mr. Speaker, to point out that the present family allowance cheque is wholly inadequate. My resolution, I repeat, asks the house to consider not an increase in the real value of family allowances but merely that this house is of the opinion that the purchasing power of the family allowance cheque should be restored.
When family allowances were mentioned in Canada, before the act was passed, it was stated by a lot of people that the provision of family allowance cheques to a percentage of mothers in Canada would result in the cheques being spent on riotous living, and for things other than the benefit of the children in the home. But the statistics that have come from the experience in the Department of National Health and Welfare show that Canadian mothers, almost without exception, spend the family allowance cheques wisely and to the advantage of their children. Children to the number of 2,956,844 were in receipt of family allowances in 1945-46. There were 1,910,192 families in receipt of family allowances in 1950-51. Of almost 2 million families in receipt of family allowances, only 56 prosecutions were under consideration. In other words, Mr. Speaker, only one mother out of every 33,000 mothers in Canada was even suspected of having spent the family allowance cheque unwisely. Therefore I say that the experience of the family allowance branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare is a real tribute to Canadian mothers. Canadian mothers take the family allowance cheques and almost without exception spend them for the welfare of their own children.

Family Allowances Act
By improving the health standards of our children, and by improving educational standards, on becoming adult citizens they will be, because of family allowance legislation, healthier citizens, better educated citizens and will consequently make a better contribution to the welfare of Canada and of the world.
Once again I say that democracy cannot afford to stand still. Our way of life is on trial. It is not good enough for us to mark time on social security measures. It is not even good enough for us to protect the value of social security measures that have been legislated in the past; rather, because of ever increasing production in Canada, our social security legislation should be improved and expanded. Therefore I say to the government the very least we can do in parliament at this time, if we are to keep faith with Canadian motherhood, is to restore the purchasing power of the family allowances.


Mr. Marlin:: Before we end this debate may I suggest that momentarily we refer to motions and give the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the opportunity to make a brief statement, and after that we shall return to this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LIVESTOCK


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, this morning we had notice that there was another suspected foot-and-mouth disease case reported near Weyburn. We have checked the case today and have confirmed that it is foot-and-mouth disease. The location is section 2, township 9, range 14, west of the 2nd meridian. This location is five miles northeast of Weyburn near a flag station called Mansur. There are 41 cattle involved so far. Source of infection has not been uncovered, but it is believed there are some contacts as well.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Argue:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation increasing the amounts paid under the Family Allowances Act to the extent necessary to compensate for the increase in the cost of living since the said act was first enacted.

(Translation):
Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words only in support of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). On two occasions I suggested to the house that the government could and should increase the amount of family allowances. I have not changed my mind on the matter especially in view of the substantial increase in the cost of living these past few years. It would seem,-and this is fortunate,-that the cost of living is becoming more stable. Nevertheless it is still considerably higher than it was when the government passed this fair family allowances legislation.
The member who preceded me and who moved this resolution stressed the way mothers, in particular, are using the money received in the form of family allowances. I have the privilege of living in the country, while my humble calling puts me, moreover, in daily touch with families of all classes and circumstances.
If I trust my humble experience, I think I may state again, in this house, that our families are putting to excellent use the money these cheques bring them. You can hardly imagine, Mr. Speaker, how happy our mothers are, and how proud even, to use their family allowance cheques in order to furnish their small children with, amongst other things, the medicine and the medical attention they need.
Now, it is possible, and even very probable, that in some cases, though very rarely, there may have been some abuse which only confirms the general rule.
But I repeat that the great majority of our families make proper use of that extra money they receive every month. From the social point of view, I believe nobody can contend that this government investment is not well-advised. Everyone agrees that the family is an essential institution which we must strive to preserve and develop, since the family is still the great reservoir that supplies the nation with its manpower and population increases.
We are counting on immigration to increase the population of Canada. We are not discussing that matter now. May I say though that we should first look to the family to obtain the surplus population needed to develop in our country true Canadian citizens. It is the family that above all will give us true Canadian citizens.

Well, to my mind, family allowances are an excellent means of helping and encouraging our Canadian families. Therefore, it is an excellent piece of legislation both from a social and an economic standpoint.
Once again I say that the increase in the amount of family allowances should not necessarily be of a permanent nature; and so, I would be quite willing to suggest that should the cost of living go down, this increase in the family allowance cheques could be reduced proportionately.
The mover of the resolution has suggested an increase of 60 per cent. That may not be enough. Perhaps we might simply consider doubling the amount of the allowance for the time being, only to reduce it gradually as the cost of living decreases.
In any event, I do not wish to take up too much time. I only wanted to add a few words to those of the mover of the resolution and to say that, in my humble opinion, a splendid opportunity awaits the government of improving an already excellent piece of social legislation which could nevertheless be made even better.
(Text):


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing legislation increasing the amounts paid under the Family Allowances Act to the extent necessary to compensate for the increase in the cost of living since the said act was first enacted.
The hon. member who proposed the resolution, along with the hon. member who has just taken his seat, referred to the soundness of the principle of the family allowances measure first envisaged in the throne speech some eight years ago. Many members will recall the debate that ensued following the introduction of the measure in 1944. That measure was passed, in spite of vigorous opposition in the house from certain quarters, and vigorous opposition outside the house from certain quarters.
The government of that day-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Passed unanimously.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -headed by the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, whose government, and whose succeeding governments, have been responsible for all acts of social legislation on our statute books, indicated at that time that one of the reasons the government was introducing the measure at a time when we were still engaged in spending much of the resources of the nation in the prosecution of a war, was the fact that
Family Allowances Act 84 per cent of the children of Canada depended for their maintenance upon some 19 per cent of the working population. That was a consideration which moved the government of that day to make the proposal which ultimately ensued in the Family Allowances Act as we know it, subject to the amendments introduced in this house two years ago.
The Family Allowances Act on our statute books is not certainly the first family allowances act passed by any country. There were some 30 countries of the world that had family allowances legislation before it was introduced in Canada. But it is safe to say that, with the exception of two countries, no country had a scheme of family allowances based on the same direction as is the statute we are discussing tonight.
In many of the European nations family allowances were opposed by labour, largely because those measures were used as a means to depress the wage levels prevailing in those particular countries. In Canada the labour movement, represented by the three congresses of labour and other corresponding bodies in Canada, gave immediate support to this measure, because it was clearly indicated in the introduction of the measure, and by the very provisions of the act itself, that the introduction of family allowances in Canada was not intended as a means of denying any legitimate wage demand that might be made by any group of employees.
And so our measure was introduced, as the prime minister of that day said, as one further evidence of the capacity of a democratic nation to provide within the responsibility of governmental obligation a measure of social reform for the people subject to its authority.
It is significant that while there was opposition in the house to the family allowances measure, one does not find any political party in Canada today taking issue with it. Indeed some of those who were its opponents, and whose names are recorded in Hansard as expressing at that time,' I am sure, their honest views, are now to be found in the ranks of those who give strong support to the measure. And perhaps that is one of the best evidences of the soundness of the measure as introduced by the government of the day.
The hon. member who has spoken undoubtedly cannot be accused of having offered his resolution at this time in answer to the speech made in this house last week by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). I say that because his resolution has been on the order paper for some time. But it is
1674	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act not without significance that the only strong suggestion made in this house from any quarter for a retrogressive change in the Family Allowances Act has come from the member for Moose Jaw, one of my hon. friend's own colleagues.


An hon. Member:: We disown him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the hon. member for Moose Jaw meant well when he made the suggestion he did, but it is a matter of interest to note that thus far in this house the only real expression of opposition to the family allowances measure as presently drafted came from an hon. member who sits but two places from the hon. gentleman who moved this resolution.


Joseph William Noseworthy: You cannot get any political capital out of that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not trying to make any political capital. The reason I mention that is that in taking the position that I will take tonight I am sure the hon. member who has just interrupted me will be among the first to say that this government has lost interest in social reform because it could not and did not accept this particular motion. That is the reason why I referred to the incident of disagreement between distinguished members of the same political party sitting almost at the end of the gangplank.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will walk it yourself one of these days.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is not the only proposal that has been made for a change in the Family Allowances Act. The correspondence and contact that I have had with those interested in amendments to the Family Allowances Act indicate a stronger attempt to lengthen the eligible age for family allowances than to increase the amount. I think my correspondence has been five to one asking that the age be increased from sixteen to eighteen years. As a matter of fact the suggestion has been made in this house that family allowances should be paid up to twenty-one years and not concluded at age sixteen. One might easily say to the hon. gentleman who has made this proposal tonight that if there was any change to be made in the family allowances measure consideration would have to be given as to the priority of these two suggestions.
My hon. friend might be the first to say: "Let us do both. He is in the happy position of being on the suggesting end. I, along with my colleagues in the government, have to bear in mind the cost that is involved in these measures and their relationship to existing social measures and to the over-all


obligations of the government and the people of Canada at this time. My hon. friend in his peroration-I thought it very good although I am not commenting now on its soundness- suggested that I should not regard the question of cost at all, that I should realize that we are a democracy and that the way a democracy could survive was by the government giving constant and repeated evidence of its interest in the health and social welfare of the people. With that sentiment I of course agree and I think the government has given real evidence of its interest in that regard.
Where I disagree is that we must consider the question of the cost of these measures. We have seen evidence in the past year in some countries where they have had to engage in a policy of retrenchment of social measures. Why? Because they had to consider, as any government or parliament must, the cost of these things.


Mr. Wright:: Or because it was a Conservative government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not catch that interesting interpolation, but I would like to get it.


Percy Ellis Wright: Or because it was a Conservative government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not quite appreciate the significance of my hon. friend's interjection, but it likely has a significance I do not yet see. We are now spending in Canada about $1,500 million on health and social security measures on the account of federal and provincial governments. The old age security measure which was introduced in parliament at the last session raised our expenditures in the field of social security by over $300 million.
The hon. gentleman may think that all that one has to do is to make a proposal and, because it is meritorious, it should be adopted regardless of the cost. I have never lost an opportunity when speaking about these things -I think my record and indeed that of the government in these matters is no less sincere than that of the hon. gentleman who proposed this resolution-to indicate, as I think we should when discussing such measures, the extent to which we can guarantee their continuance. The money for these measures does not come out of our pockets as a government or out of the pockets of any individual member or group of members of parliament. True, we make our contributions to the general tax fund, but the moneys for all of these measures must come from but one source, the hard work of the Canadian people. There is no other source. Consequently when one comes to consider the desirability of any particular proposal one

must relate it to the capacity of the people, in the light of all the obligations of the government, to meet the cost of the proposal if accepted. That is certainly true of this measure.
We are spending, as I say, $1,500 million this year-the federal government, the provincial governments and voluntary organizations-on health and welfare. The federal government is charged with the responsibility of administering substantially 80 per cent of that figure. I submit that that is a significant sum of money which has to be raised by taxation imposed on the people of this country, on those who represent the class of people who are directly represented in the 84 per cent of the population that have to be maintained by roughly 19 per cent of the working population of the country.
One is often charged in the administration of these measures with being profligate and insensible to the relation between the capacity to pay and the benefits obtained. I deny and the government denies that in the administration of these measures or in the adoption of any of these measures we have been profligate. We have sought at all times, from the Old Age Pensions Act of 1926 up to the present time, to relate our expenditures to the national income, to the national product and generally to the capacity of the nation to meet these obligations.
When one thinks that today we are paying slightly less, in terms of the budget of the nation, on health and welfare than we were in 1938 one cannot be accused of engaging in irresponsible administration. Of course it will be argued, as indeed the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) argued the other night, that if that is the case the country can give consideration to increasing its expenditures, particularly in the field of social security. But in making that suggestion I think the hon. member overlooked the fact that $2,000 million is being budgeted this year for national defence.
That does not represent, we hope, a normal expenditure of government but an expenditure of government which we believe to be desirable at this time in the interests of maintaining decency, and civilization, and making our contribution toward peace by supporting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We have paid out in family allowances $1,882 million from the inauguration of family allowance payments up to March 31, 1952. As the hon. gentleman who moved the resolution has said, there can be no doubt about the social benefits of this provision. Family allowances undoubtedly, based not upon emotional anticipation but upon actual continuing checks and surveys, have helped Canadian 55704-I06i
Family Allowances Act parents to provide better food, better shelter, better clothing, improved health care and! education for their children. Generally speaking there can be no doubt about these benefits. Therefore I am in full accord with what the hon. gentleman has had to say in that particular, as indeed I am sure is every hon. member of the house.
On the other hand, it is interesting to note that by the time a child reaches the age of 16 we estimate that on the average that child will have received throughout his or her period of life up to the age of 16 something in the neighbourhood of $1,188. That represents a considerable sum of money, particularly for the low income groups. It does give parents an opportunity of doing something for their children which, but for the existence of this measure, they would not be able to do. I think one of the most salutary results of the family allowances measure is that in every one of our provinces since 1945 when the act became effective school attendance has gone up to its highest point and has not receded except for two cases in one year. That is of course a result of the highest value. It is a result that other countries cannot claim largely because there is not the same strictness of administration in some countries as in our own. The moment a child under 16 years ceases attending school in Canada payment is suspended unless an adequate reason for non-attendance .of the child at school is given by the parent responsible or by the person acting in the status of a parent.
The immensity of our program, which now costs us over $300 million a year, may be seen in the following figure. If the United States, for instance, were to adopt a program such as ours it would cost that country $3,500 million a year. It is not for us of course to comment on the existence of legislation in that country, but I think the immensity of our own program is seen in the fact that it would cost almost $31 billion a year if a family allowance measure were adopted in the United States. Therefore, in suggesting as the hon. member did that there should be an increase in the amount paid under the Family Allowances Act, I am sure he would not want to have us interpret his suggestion as meaning that the present plan does not represent a very substantial social measure involving a very substantial sum of money.
The fact is that it does represent the second most costly social venture that this country has undertaken, a venture which in our case is more expensive and more extensive in its financial benefits than the benefits paid under family allowances measures of any other country in the world but one. It is interesting to compare some of our benefits with those in countries where the family allowances
1676	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act measure is somewhat comparable. It would have been interesting to have the hon. gentleman indicate how our measure compares with other countries such as New Zealand, Australia or Great Britain. Because they are relative comparisons I should like to give comparative figures at this time. First of all with respect to the total amount spent on family allowances in any one year on a per capita basis, as well of course as the total amount spent since the inauguration of family allowances, Canada leads all countries on the basis of payments as they are at present altogether apart from the proposal of my hon. friend which he says would amount to another $192 million a year.
The percentage of net national income spent on family allowances in New Zealand is 2-65 compared with 2-15 in Canada, but the Canadian figure of 2 [DOT] 15, compared with 1-41 for Australia and -57 for Great Britain, indicates that the Family Allowances Act as it stands with relation to existing benefits represents an amount of money which demonstrates the determination of the people of Canada to provide the most satisfactory family allowances program possible. Likewise it would have been interesting if he had compared the relation of family allowance payments to other social security expenditures. In Canada, for instance, for the year 1951 family allowance expenditures represented 27 -7 per cent of all social security expenditures, taking into account the veterans charter, the Old Age Pensions Act of that day, the national health program, the unemployment insurance measure and various other miscellaneous measures that come within this category. Let us compare that with the proportionate expenditure made in Australia and other countries, that is to say, the relation of family allowance expenditures made in Australia and other countries to other social security expenditures'-in those countries. In Australia the percentage is 24-6 per cent, in Great Britain 4-7 per cent and in New Zealand 23 per cent.
Therefore Canada's 27 [DOT] 7 per cent represents the fact that our family allowance program is larger in percentage of relation to social security expenditures than that of any other Of the countries with which- I think comparison is justified. That is significant. What my hon. friend has done tonight is to urge that, although Canada leads in that it is able to say that its family allowance payments represent a greater portion of social security expenditures than in these other countries, we should still increase that -expenditure and bring it, as he conceivably would if he carried his proposal to a logical conclusion, away out of proportion with existing social expenditures or other expenditures that he


and others propose from time to time in the house. He said that at the present time we were paying family allowances to some 2 million children. Well, he has underestimated the extent of this program. I am sure he meant to give the higher figure, which for the sake of accuracy is 4,513,000 children. In other words 4,513,000 children receive every month from the regional offices of the family allowance division moneys contributed by the taxpayers of Canada for the purposes envisaged in the Family Allowances Act. That is a tremendous figure. It represents 1,960,000 families, which is also a significant figure. The total monthly cost of this program to Canada is some $27 million a month. Hon. members have seen the departmental estimates for this year, and they will see that we are budgeting for a total of $332,150,000 for family allowances for this year.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other members of this house, particularly the hon. gentleman in whose name this resolution stands, that this figure of $332,150,000 must be kept in mind in discussing a resolution such as that now offered to the house. In 1946 our total expenditure on family allowances was $240 million. When you realize that we are now spending $332 million on family allowances, altogether apart from the old age security payments which amount to well over $300 million, and which will increase because of our ageing population, while I would not say the hon. gentleman is not responsible, one has to clearly relate these figures to the capacity of this nation to meet these costs, particularly when we are committed to the extent of $2 billion by way of building up our defences. I think nothing would be more regrettable than to give our people the impression that there is no limit to what we can do in these matters. Nothing would be more unfortunate than to convey the impression that nothing is beyond the capacity of this nation which is now so heavily taxed; and I believe that on occasion no hon. gentleman is more vociferous in regard to the level of taxation this government has had to impose than the hon. gentleman who introduced this resolution. I can only say to him that the proposal he makes would only give increasing justification to those who sometimes deplore the extent of taxation.
My hon. friend says we should relate the cost of family allowances to the cost of living. I have had to do with the administration of these measures for six years now, which has given me an opportunity to see what other countries have done and what people who have spent a good bit of time studying these measures think about their relation to the

cost of living. If you want to damn a social security program, just relate it to that aspect of the problem. A social security program must be constant. It must be so arranged as to never encourage retrenchment. It must be so arranged as to be capable of improvement, not diminution. If you relate the cost of living at any one period to the social security benefit you will get the same result they got in France and Switzerland, where the total cost of many of these measures has gone far below the level when they were first introduced. The pretext given in every case I know of was that after the measures were introduced they were related to increases in the cost of living. When the cost of living went down the benefits were reduced, not only proportionately but often well below the original level. So on that ground alone I do not think the proposal of the hon. member is sound.
There is another consideration. My friend argues as though these family allowance payments or any of these social benefits were intended as complete grants to cover the total maintenance of a child or, in the case of the old age pension, an aged person.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said the very opposite.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then that will confirm what I am about to say, and will be an argument in favour of the position I am now taking. These grants, family allowance payments or any others, are only grants toward maintenance. No one suggests that a child can be maintained for sixteen years on some $1,100. What we do argue is that but for the money contributed under this program millions of children in this country since 1945 would have been denied many of the necessities and opportunities which this measure has afforded them. As I have said, without any increase whatever in the payments the family allowance program this year is going to cost $332 million. Compare that with the total figure for the first year the act was in force; look at the figures year after year, and it will be seen that the annual cost of family allowances has increased step by step. In addition we have the increasing cost of old age security and so on, which incidentally in a ten year period is going to increase very materially. While I take second place to no one in my desire to promote these measures, I certainly would not want to recommend to this house a proposal which in all honesty I would feel could not possibly be met at a later date within the financial capacity of this nation as presently known or as far as one can see into the future.
Naturally the government has great sympathy with this resolution. The government was the author of this legislation. This was
Family Allowances Act not a proposal that came from the other side of the house. It was not suggested by the C.C.F. party, though they claim credit for spurring the government on with regard to it. This proposal was first made in this house by the then hon. member for Compton; that is to say, for the first time after the parliament which lasted from 1930 to 1935. About twelve years before that the suggestion had been made by another hon. member, also a supporter of the Liberal party. It is not that I want to say hon. gentlemen have not contributed to this measure-


Mr. Gillis:: We pushed you all the way.


Murdo William Martin: -it is because of that very kind of observation. I am sure the words I have used tonight will not be referred to in the speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite, but the fact is that the C.C.F. party had no contributing initiative whatever in connection with the Family Allowances Act, nor did the party sitting immediately opposite. Indeed the leader of that party in the house at that time, Mr. Bracken, referred to it as a bribe, as an iniquitous measure. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is now coming into the chamber. I am glad, because it gives me the opportunity to say that when he was premier of Ontario he took strong exception to the passage of the Family Allowances Act.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, hon. members may laugh, but the fact remains that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has been repeating the same inaccurate statements over and over again. The minister knows quite well that in the Ontario legislature I stated with the utmost clarity that our government supported-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Go ahead; I have no doubt whatever that no matter what the leader of the house at the moment says, you can count on the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) getting into this so you do not need to encourage him. The fact remains that in so far as family allowances are concerned, the matter was put forward by the Ontario government and the minister knows quite well that we were anxious to discuss it. The criticism was of the method that was followed in dealing with a thing of this kind without consulting the provinces, in the way that they did.


James Sinclair: Since my name has been mentioned, perhaps I should enter this debate, although I did not want to until the member
1678	HOUSE OF
Family Allowances Act mentioned my name. On at least five occasions i have put on the records the actual words used by the then premier of Ontario in a CBC broadcast. The words were to this effect: I shall fight this iniquitous legislation in every court in the land. As usual, he did not. He talked big, but he did nothing.


George Alexander Drew: That is just exactly the sort of statement I would expect from the member.


James Sinclair: Accurate.


George Alexander Drew: It is highly inaccurate, and he has on several occasions given a false impression of what was said at that time by simply taking a truncated section of that speech. The minister knows because the minister sat in the conference we had held just before that. So far as the province of Ontario was concerned we were very anxious to deal with this subject, and that criticism was criticism of the procedure that had been followed. I have just raised this question now because, if the potion is to be discussed, then by all means it should be discussed; but if we are to get further afield I shall have to go further afield and deal with any remarks that are made.


James Sinclair: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. My word in this house has been impugned and I want to ask the leader of the opposition just one question, if the words I used from his CBC broadcast are untrue, because I remember those words. I have studied them. Did he or did he not say, talking about family allowances and as premier of Ontario: "I shall fight this iniquitous legislation in every court in the land."


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member is so inaccurate I am not going to bother answering.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. leader of the opposition was not in the house when I was about to make an observation concerning opposition to family allowances. I was going to refer to his participation in the family allowance measure when he was, I know, unavoidably engaged upstairs. But he has come into the house, and I thought in fairness to the comment I made about the C.C.F. party taking credit for all these measures, certainly without evidence to support their taking credit for one iota of this measure-


Clarence Gillis: Will the minister permit a question?


Murdo William Martin: Just a minute. I thought that in fairness to the leader of the opposition I should wait until he came into the house before referring to him.


Clarence Gillis: Does the minister not recollect that in the C.C.F. program of 1942 there


were family allowances. The members in this group argued with the members on that side of the house for two years striving to prove to them that this was a desirable piece of legislation. After it was popularized and sold to the Canadian people, the government realized that they ought to enact it in 1944 in order to get elected.


Murdo William Martin: I certainly do enjoy the hon. member's questions, which always turn into very effective speeches. I simply want to say to him that I have not the same familiarity with the platform of the C.C.F. that he has. If he is referring to something in the C.C.F. platform of 1942 advocated family allowances, I want to tell him that the hon. member for Compton made his speech urging family allowances in 1935. I suspect the framers of the C.C.F. program-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Health insurance was in the Liberal party platform in 1919.


Murdo William Martin: What I like about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that he never loses an opportunity to tell this house and the country of his interest in social reform, and I do not deny his interest. But the moment anyone else takes any measure of credit, he is up on his feet interrupting the speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just wanted to give the Liberal party credit for the fact they had health insurance in their program in 1919.


Murdo William Martin: I want to leave the member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I want to say that I do not see him too much but there are occasions, if he will not misunderstand me, when I hear him too often. I do not want to be unfair to the leader of the opposition, but I do say to him with all sincerity- if I had known this debate was going to take this constructive turn I would have had the material available-that my recollection, and it is pretty vivid is that the hon. gentleman-I have not any doubt for motives that were sincere-did take the position substantially taken by the leader of the Conservative party in this house at that time. A resolution was introduced-here are the words that I had in my mind. This is an excerpt from a radio address by Mr. Drew appearing in the Toronto Globe and Mail of August 10, 1944.


James Sinclair: He was Premier Drew then.


Murdo William Martin: This excerpt reads:
Warning that Ontario faces "the most alarming constitutional crisis since confederation," and condemnation of the King government for enacting legislation of vast import to the provinces without consulting those provinces, were voiced last night by Ontario Premier George A. Drew in a radio address broadcast over a province-wide network.

Premier Drew also declared that in passing the baby bonus bill Prime Minister King knew "the bill was not worth the paper it is written on."
I must say that I am glad now the leader of the opposition knows that the bill is worth the paper it is written on.


George Alexander Drew: Certainly, because, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it is an entirely different proposition to deal with the minister than to deal with his self-constituted assistant, but I do remind him of this. What he has already read supports exactly what I said that the subject was discussed on the basis of a constitutional issue, and he knows perfectly well-


James Sinclair: Wait until the next paragraph.


George Alexander Drew: -that the province of Ontario, at a time when I was still premier of that province, entered into the proper arrangements to provide facilities needed for the officials of that department to carry this into effect; that is what made it possible to implement the act. If that had not been done, what I said would have been correct.


Murdo William Martin: I should like to read the balance of it:
He said the government of Ontario would do everything in its power to see that "this iniquitous legislation" does not go into effect.


James Sinclair: You heard that before tonight?


Murdo William Martin: I continue the quotation:
He charged that passing the baby bonus bill and similar measures was an "arrogant usurpation" of powers.
"If the Ontario government submitted to this." he said, "then we would be handing over the rights of this province to a government which has shown only too clearly that it submits to the will of Quebec."
"This," he said, "is the simple issue," and demanded: "Are we going to permit one isolationist province to dominate the destiny of a divided Canada? I hope that each one of you will answer that with a resounding no, which will be heard in every part of the province of Quebec."
"I hope," he said, "that the people of every other province will give the same answer to this question which must be answered one way or the other very soon. And I go so far as to hope that the same answer will be given by many people in Quebec who must have felt heartsick and ashamed that their province has been made to appear before the world in such a shameful role."
The past is the past. What I want to emphasize now is that this measure is supported by every hon. member in this house except I take it the C.C.F. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher).


James Sinclair: And George Drew.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Every hon. member now supports this measure. That confirms the wisdom of the measure; that confirms the arguments
Family Allowances Act that were made in this house-and they were strong, stormy arguments, as all of us who were in this house at that time will remember; so much so that one hon. member left this house-


James Sinclair: One honest Tory.


Murdo William Martin: -and came back to it only after several days of absence because of an altercation he had with one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker.


Major James William Coldwell: As I remember it, his was the only voice against it.


James Sinclair: He was a Tory, and then he resigned.


Murdo William Martin: But now, every one supports the measure, a measure that is part of our social security program.
There is another argument that I should like to address to the hon. member who introduced this resolution.


Hazen Robert Argue: Don't talk it out.


Murdo William Martin: If hon. members sometimes would not take so long in proposing things, the government would not have so much difficulty in bringing forward its reply. The hon. member, in proposing this measure, belongs to the party that says we should not have social security legislation by the piecemeal technique. We must bring in the whole social security program in one piece of legislation to cover every conceivable avenue of social reform. What has he done tonight? He has brought in, in an isolated way, a proposal with regard to one measure which he himself said will cost $192 million.


James Sinclair: Page the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We had a parliamentary committee examining a program for old age security that was going to cost over $300 million, and even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was one of those who thought that several months of study should be given before we finally decided on the old age security measure that we now have. And so my hon. friend offers this proposal. I say he does not offer it because he wants to demonstrate that he is against the new political philosophy of the hon. member for Moose Jaw since his resolution, as I said a moment ago, has been on the order paper for some time. But I am sure there was no happier man than the hon. member when he realized in the last hour, yes, the last two or three hours, when private members' resolutions were to be discussed, that he would be able to send out to Saskatchewan and to other parts of the country, his view that there should be no means test applied

Family Allowances Act to family allowances as distinguished from the proposal made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw.
I do not attack in any way the sincerity of the hon. member for Moose Jaw or the sincerity of the hon. member who proposed this resolution; but what I do say is that the speech of the hon. member who proposed this resolution is one that gives evidence of the soundness of the government's approach to this whole business of social reform, introduced by the same administration that gave us old age pensions, with opposition in another place; by the same party that introduced the veterans charter; by the same party that introduced unemployment insurance; by the same party that introduced the national health program and by the same party that accepted the recommendation of an all-party committee to bring in old age security.


James Sinclair: The Liberal party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All of these measures are costing us, as I say, $1,500 million. That represents a sizeable proportion of the resources of this nation, which can be paid for only, as I say, out of one source, namely, the hard work of the people of this country. And if I judge their temper aright, they do want these measures, but they want us to make sure that we give adequate study to each project before we finally adopt it, and put it on the statute books for all time to come.
Dealing finally with my hon. friend's conclusion, when he said that we should demonstrate to the world that a wealthy and powerful nation like Canada should not hesitate to do all that it could to improve the social conditions of our people, I say that our country is doing that. I do not know of any country in the last three years that has adopted as important and as significant a social security program as Canada, at a time when it is calling upon its people to spend so much of its resources to arrest potential aggression in the world. On reflection, I know that my friend will leave this chamber tonight, go down the dignified pavement of parliament and will say: Well, you know, perhaps it was my-inexperience-my youthful impulsiveness-that led me to suggest that Canada was not leading the way at this time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not what he will say, and you know it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -both as to her contribution to national defence and in her contribution to
the building up of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and her support to the United Nations. Also at a time when she is not forgetting to do what she can to improve the standard of life of her people through the veterans charter, through the old age security program, through the national health program, and now through the Family Allowances Act, which we have been discussing, and the amendment which the hon. member has put before us in an interesting way tonight.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is one minute left.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that there is one minute left. That gives me the opportunity of saying this. I agree with my hon. friend that this measure has given the mothers and fathers of this country an opportunity to be really tested. There have been abuses in the Family Allowances Act; there has been fraud. But the number of occasions on which we have had to authorize prosecutions is relatively insignificant in respect of a program that is costing us well over $300 million, but which for the purposes of administration is costing us less than $4 million. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, at eleven o'clock this night that my hon. friend's resolution has served to remind us of the great value of the great social security act which bears the name in this country of family allowances.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister mentioned today that it has become urgent that we deal with legislation concerning the veterans because the delegation of the Legion will be in Ottawa next week and wish to see the legislation before they make their representations before the veterans affairs committee. Therefore tomorrow we will proceed witth the motion setting up the special committee on veterans affairs. Then we shall take up the resolution preceding the bills relating to veterans: first, the motion on legislation respecting the war veterans allowances; second, the motion on the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951; third, the motion on the Veterans Insurance Act; fourth, the motion on the Pension Act, and then we will revert to the debate on the budget.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 29, 1952