1952-12-17

MR. POWER    FELICITATIONS ON ANNIVERSARY OF ELECTION TO PARLIAMENT

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every hon. member of this house would be appreciative if you would allow us to take a few moments at this time to pay a tribute of felicitations and good wishes to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Though to look at him it might be difficult to believe it, it is a fact that today he is starting the 36th year of continuous membership in this house. It is not only because of the length of his membership in the house but much more because of the manner in which he has discharged his responsibilities and duties here that we are all so happy to acclaim him as the dean of this chamber in years and in experience. In paying honour to him, Mr. Speaker, I think that we are honouring ourselves by manifesting our admiration for the manner in which he acts as a member of parliament. We shall also continue to honour ourselves if we walk in his footsteps.
I am not going to attempt this morning even to summarize the hon. gentleman's career, but I wish to say that during the whole decade that preceded his first election to this house on December 17, 1917, he had already won much public acclaim. He was one of that brilliant quartet of Power brothers who spread the fame of the real amateur athletes of Quebec throughout the country by their achievements in the hockey arenas of that time and by their valiant efforts to bring to Quebec as often as possible the great Stanley cup.
We of Quebec were thrilled at his gallant conduct in the armed forces during the first great war and certainly were distressed when we heard that he was wounded overseas twice, once so grievously that he had to be invalided back home. But the admiration in which he was held by his fellow citizens of Quebec soon had an opportunity to manifest itself, because in 1917 there came into being in Quebec city the new constituency of Quebec South of which he has been the distinguished representative here ever since its creation.
There is no doubt, of course, that at that first election he was aided in his campaign
by the high esteem in which his family had been held for many years by the people of the city of Quebec; but it was not long before his own personality affirmed itself not only among his constituents and among his fellow members of parliament but throughout the whole Canadian nation; and it has constantly grown as the years of his service to the Canadian public added themselves to each other.
Among the many great services he has rendered to the Canadian nation, perhaps none has been more important or more permanent in its effect upon the, Canadian people than the fact that the Irish Chubby Power became the idol of the French-speaking electors of the constituency he has represented in this house. I will not advert to his other great public services; but in his person and in his career is found a demonstration that good men and good women of good will, whatever be their origin or their mother tongue, can work together harmoniously in the great task of building a united new nation on this North American continent. That is something towards which the efforts of our distinguished colleague have been highly effective and will prove of long permanent service to this young nation. I was unfortunately prevented, by circumstances over which I could have no control, from attending the dinner that was tendered to him in our home city last Saturday evening. I understand that on that occasion he said that the first political speech St. Laurent had ever made was for a Power and that the last political speech that Chubby is likely to make would be a speech for St. Laurent. We have long been friends, but my years are somewhat longer than his, and though I trust that as long as it is my good fortune to take any part in public affairs my conduct will be such that Chubby Power will be able to carry out that promise, I do hope for him and for the benefit of his fellow citizens that he may be making political speeches long after it has ceased to be possible for me to take part in public affairs.
(Translation) :
While not wanting to repeat what I have already said, I nevertheless wish to say, in the other language used in the election campaigns participated in by my friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) that I believe I am echoing the thoughts of all those who live

Felicitations to Mr. Power in that particular constituency, whatever their political faith, when 1 say that we have the very greatest esteem and affection for him.
(Text):


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the Prime Minister not only in extending the warmest good wishes which can be expressed to the hon. member whose name is before us today, but also in stating that we do honour ourselves in recognizing public service which is marked by an anniversary of this nature.
To hold the continued support, respect and affection of those who have sent him here for half man's allotted span, according to biblical terms, is in itself a very great achievement, and something that should warm the heart and be a source of permanent satisfaction to any human being. I feel sure that today the warmest recollection in the mind of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) is the friendly personal support of those who have said "well done" to the man they chose to represent them for all these years.
As has been said, he is one of those members who came to this house with a family tradition, which undoubtedly was a help to him in placing himself before the people of that constituency; but also undoubtedly it helped him in another way, because it is obvious that from his youth he had been imbued with traditions of public service and of the place of parliament in our free way of life as constantly expressed in what he said in this house in the years that have followed.
It must be a great source of satisfaction to him to know that he holds not only the respect of all hon. members, but also their genuine affection. In the sometimes arduous and sometimes very vigorous exchange of differing opinions as to the way that public affairs can best be conducted, it is significant that the hon. member for Quebec South has been known at all times to those in different parts of the house, whether they shared his political views or not, as Chubby Power, and as a man whom they respected at all times, whether they shared his own particular political interpretation of the best way the country could be served at any time.
This country will always be deeply indebted to Chubby Power for the service he gave as minister of national defence for air during war. Whatever other accomplishments may be recorded beside his name, it will never be forgotten that Canada was in large measure the training pool from which there went out to different parts of the world young men of different nationalities who took their places in what has become the

most critical aspect of military activity in these modern days. His name will always be associated with that great training program under which young men from the whole commonwealth came here to the wide spaces of Canada, trained for battle, and went out and served the common cause of freedom under that imaginative and successful program.
He established his own reputation for service in the field of battle in the first world war, and was decorated with the Military Cross for valour, serving with that branch of the service which has not at all times expressed its utmost respect for that branch of the service to which I have the privilege to belong. But whether the infantry always shared the opinion of the artillery that members of the artillery always noticeably expressed themselves, the fact remains that members of the artillery, of the engineers, of the air force, of the navy or of any other branch of the service always did recognize that the infantry is the queen of battles, and that when a man rises to the command of a company, and acting command of a battalion, and is decorated with the Military Cross, as Chubby Power was during world war I, that indeed is something that commands the respect of every one of us.
He will be remembered in another way. Some members leave an imprint in this and in other parliaments because of an interest in a particular field of public activity. In addition to his administrative responsibility, may I say with the deepest sincerity that, so far as I have been able to ascertain from my own reading, no member in this house has more clearly stated the fundamental principles of parliament than has the hon. member for Quebec South on many occasions. I hope that he may follow a course which can be extremely useful to others and that, in book form, he will accumulate many of his own statements in regard to the traditions of this great institution, and add of course those other comments that he could make with the long knowledge he has gained over these past thirty-five years.
I could not help appreciating the sentiment with which the Prime Minister referred to the words of the hon. member for* Quebec South when he spoke of his first speech, and of his last, prospective, political speech. I have not heard it suggested that this indicated any possibility of a translation to a higher realm, but I would hope that, in whatever capacity his future speeches may be made, all of us may have the pleasure of continuing association with him, whatever field of public service he continues to occupy.

To him, as the dean of the house, young in vigour, young in spirit and with a great accumulated knowledge, we pay our respects. And I know that at the same time he would wish us all to join in our thoughts on this historic occasion the great service of his wife to the common cause in which they have engaged. I am sure that all of us would wish him to convey to his very charming wife, who has been so closely associated with him in all these activities, our best wishes for her happiness in continuing association with a great member of this parliament.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I associate myself and those in this group not only with the words but also with the spirit of what has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew).
This is indeed a great occasion. I would say that, so far as the membership of this House of Commons is concerned, it is unique; because it is not given to very many of us who come here to represent continuously a constituency that has sent a member here for over a third of a century.
The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the service the hon. member for Quebec South rendered to this country when he was minister of defence for air. As one who was a member of the house at that time, and as one who met so many of the men who were in the Canadian air force in those days, I can say that I, too, believe that perhaps that was one of the greatest services he has rendered the people of this country. His presence as minister was surely a comfort to many of the young men who joined the R.C.A.F. I can attest to that from what has been said to me not only by men in the air force but by others who had occasion to know what was being done at that time.
But, after all, I do not believe the character of a man or his work can be measured in terms of the heights he has reached or the posts he has held. The true character of a man is that, after having reached these heights, he is ready to give up everything he has gained, if he finds that there are conditions that he cannot go along with. The hon. member for Quebec South demonstrated that he was able to do that. Whether or not we agree with his reasons for doing it, we must honour the man for what he did.
Again I say it is with the greatest of pleasure that I associate myself with the words and the spirit of what has been said by the two hon. gentlemen who have already spoken.
Felicitations to Mr. Power


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, thirty-five years of continuous service in the House of Commons is indeed a remarkable parliamentary record. To hold the respect and the support of constituents for so long a period of time is a real achievement, especially when, as in this instance, it has had to be done in the thick of political rivalry.
I have tried, since this little ceremony of tributes began this morning, to think of some parallel. The only one that comes to mind is not in the human realm at all. It so happens that I am a great lover of wildlife, particularly birds. Canada geese have always excited my admiration-and I hope the hon. member about whom we are speaking will not think that I am calling him a wild goose. However, there are some characteristics I should like to have in common with the one about which I am going to speak.
Not long ago I visited the Jack Miner foundation at Kingsville, and while I was there those in charge netted about 700 geese, and proceeded to band those that had not been banded. Amongst them they discovered one old fellow they had banded in 1931. It was evident that for twenty-one continuous years that old fellow had flown, perhaps from Louisiana, to the bird sanctuary at Kingsville, and then from there to the James bay area and back again, a distance of perhaps six thousand miles each year. He had been able to avoid accidents and to survive, and to continue to lead the V-shaped formation unerringly to the sanctuary.
That is no mean record; it is a real achievement. It took wisdom, adaptability and a whole lot of common sense to do it. I am quite sure that, in paying respect to the hon. member this morning, no better parallel could be drawn than this, and the statement that he has achieved an even better record than the old goose in the sanctuary who was able to fly so long back and forth across the country, and still remain alive-especially with people shooting at him and trying to destroy him.
All joking aside, I wish to join with all others in honouring the hon. member on this day, and to assure him that he has the undivided good will and sincere wishes, for a long and happy future, of all those for whom I speak in the House of Commons.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouaia):: Mr. Speaker, after the gracious speeches delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leaders of the other groups, will you please listen to the voice of the rank and file.

Felicitations to Mr. Power
I am happy to join the countless friends of Chubby Power in extending to him, to Mrs. Power and their children our warmest congratulations and best wishes on the occasion of this anniversary. I know Chubby Power as a glamorous figure in politics, because he was endowed-and he still is-with a gift that could never be defined by the civil service commission, a pleasing personality. The hon. member has been well known for his good sportsmanship, his humour and his wit. His success in politics may be due to his good judgment, but I think it is mostly due to his remarkable "flair".
All speakers have referred to his brilliant war record and the fact that he was minister of national defence for air for many years. It is to his credit that he has never been considered to be a brass hat.
Thirty-five years in politics is a long time. I remember when the late Ernest Lapointe celebrated a similar anniversary. During these thirty-five years the hon. gentleman has represented in this house the heart of the capital city of the province of Quebec, the part within the old fortifications. This includes the court house and there have been many judges who voted for Chubby. The basilica was in his riding and Chubby has represented three cardinals and two archbishops. The legislative buildings are outside the walls of Quebec city, but he has represented countless lieutenant governors and four premiers of Quebec. Not only that, he represents Laval university with I do not know how many rectors and professors. On an occasion like this would he not be deserving of an honorary degree from Laval university?


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, as an associate of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) during many struggles for the cause of Liberalism in the province of Quebec, I want to join with others, especially with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), in what was said about the hon. member. They have put before us so truly his qualities and outstanding personality. I wish Mrs. Power and him many years together, warmed by the esteem of all the people of Canada.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being in the house during the time when the hon. member who is now being honoured was carrying the exceedingly heavy portfolio which he carried through the war and to which reference has been made. I think there is one thing that should be recorded. When the hon. member was putting his estimates through the house he was always cheerful

and jovial. I think he was the most cheerful and happy member of the cabinet I ever saw in my life when putting through his estimates. He never had any trouble getting his estimates past the house. I am quoting from memory, but there was an item one time about which some hon. members were concerned and they began to probe in an effort to get some information, and the hon. member I believe said, "I don't know a darn thing about it at all." The item passed right there.
There is one other thing that I believe all hon. members would desire to know. This is something which I am sure the children and descendants to the latest generation of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) will be glad to know. I had the fortune and misfortune of having a son in the air force. I was fortunate because of his service and sacrifice for this great nation and empire which we all love. I had the misfortune because of the sorrow caused by his loss.
We lost track of our boy after he got to England and no effort that we could put forward could locate his address. I finally decided that I would ask Chubby Power if he could do anything for me. You can imagine a man as busy as he was-building the commonwealth air training plan and taking care of the thousand and one details that needed to be looked after-being asked by an ordinary member of parliament to locate his son. He said to me, "I will send a signal off at once and locate him right away." Inside of an hour my office was called and the address of my boy was given to me. I was also assured that he was well, sound, and serving in England.
That indicates just one of the qualities of the hon. member for which he was loved by our people. I know that in our home one of the comforting thoughts we have when our minds go back to the terrible loss that we sustained in the death of that boy is the fact that the minister of national defence for air was interested enough in him and his welfare and in us and our welfare to take time from an exceedingly busy life to find out where that boy was located and give us his address.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Quebec South speaks now he will close the debate.


Hon. C. G. Power (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, in the thirty-five years that it has been my privilege to take part in debates and to close one or two, I cannot recall one where the words used by the speakers who went before me were so uniformly kind, tolerant, generous and magnanimous. Even my hon. friend who compared me to a wild goose was

probably unaware of the fact that there are few greater legendary heroes in the history of Ireland than the wild geese who were obliged to flee their country in order to remain faithful to their faith and to their king.
I have other friends outside the house who, having considered the events of the past few days as they concerned me, were somewhat perturbed lest the laudatory remarks and even the adulation which has been showered upon me, as they said, on account of a sort of careless promenade on the fringes of Canadian history during the past third of a century, might affect my better judgment, and they have furnished me with certain quotations which I hope are not too irrelevant but which may perhaps be considered to be salutary. One is from the Hansard of the British House of Commons of March 7, 1945, Mr. Winston Churchill speaking:
I have only two more minutes to speak, and I will devote them to my noble friend, the father of the house. He is a comparatively young father of the house; he has many years of useful life before him. We still hope they may be years of useful life in this house, but unless in the future his sagacity and knowledge of the house are found to be markedly superior to what he has exhibited today, I must warn him that he will run a very grave risk of falling into senility before he is overtaken by old age.
It is perhaps well that I should take note of this warning and that I do not indulge in semi-senile maunderings about the good old days. Perhaps I might quote another little piece, I hope not quite so relevant but still salutary. It is an epitaph on the politician:
Here, richly, with ridiculous display,
The politician's corpse was laid away,
While all of his acquaintances sneered and slanged,
X wept: for I had longed to see him hanged.
These lines are from the writings of Hilaire Belloc who, strangely enough, was a member of parliament in the British House of Commons. I rather suspect that he must have been for long years a member of the opposition faced with a vociferous, turbulent and arrogant majority. I too in the course of my career have been twice on the opposite side. I have had the privilege of sitting in two parliaments as a member of the opposition and can well remember the irritation and the anger which were occasioned by what I then considered to be the arbitrary and dictatorial acts of the members of the government. I am quite sure that my good friend, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll), when he sat in the house as one of the heroes of the Liberal filibuster against the naval bill in 1912-as a humble camp follower I had the privilege of sitting in the gallery at that time -must have had his moments of blind rage when first closure was introduced into this
Private Bills-Divorce
house and his beloved and idolized leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, had to submit to the gag.
But as the years went by those of us who changed our positions in the house were able to look at similar proceedings with a certain degree of calmness and perhaps satisfactory equanimity. Therefore I suppose' the strength of one's emotions and one's feelings is largely to be gauged by the lapse of time and the geographical situation in which we find ourselves. Nevertheless there does develop over the years a feeling of kindly tolerance which grows into comradeship and finally develops into true and strong friendship as between members of this great institution, the House of Commons. Even Belloc himself, whom I have already quoted, must have come to that conclusion, because in his later years he had this to say:
From quiet homes and first beginning Out to the undiscovered ends,
There's nothing worth the wear of winning But laughter and the love of friends.
As for me, to paraphrase the poet, all I can say is:
My thanks, my friends,
My thanks, my foes;
My love to these,
My peace with those.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Mina Eisenthal Hamerman Segal, otherwise known as Mina Eisenthal Segall.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Agnes Charlotte Quamme Higgins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Agnes Mary Perkins Pereira.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Rosalia Marie Sepchuk Maniloff.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Anne Reddie Banks Carruthers Beaudoin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Doris Isabell Dalzell Bennett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Costanza Marzitelli Boisvert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Gladys Emily Miller Young.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Francoise Ernout Fisher.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Margaret Girvan Hill.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Fernand Ratelle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Charles Meela Voyinovitch Seifert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Lily Isenberg Kwavnick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Doreen Mae Walmough dit Watmough C o 1 s o n.-Mr. Winkler.
820	HOUSE OF
Questions


Mr. Balcom:: What is the ground-air ratio of officers and men in the Royal Canadian Air Force?


Mr. Blanchette:: The ratio of qualified aircrew and aircrew under training to non-flying list personnel is 1 to 6-2.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING PROPERTY
Mr. Lennard:: 1.	What was the price paid for the land upon which the head office building of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is being erected?
2.	What is the size of the property?
3.	What acreage will be covered by the building?
4.	What will be the completed cost of the building?
5.	What will the auditorium cost?
6.	What will the dance floor in the auditorium cost?
7.	What will be the completed cost of landscaping the grounds surrounding the building?
8.	What was the complete cost of the house erected for the former owner of the property?


Mr. Winters:: Yesterday the hon. member for Wentworth stated on the orders of the day that, with the exception of one day, this question had been on the order paper since July 2, and expressed the hope that he would get an early answer. Since the hon. member's remarks might give the impression that there had been many previous occasions to answer this question, perhaps I should say that it appeared first in Votes and Proceedings on Wednesday, July 2, 1952 and in Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day on Friday, July 4. It will be recalled that the house adjourned on the same day and that there was no opportunity then to answer the question.
The question reappeared on the order paper on Friday, November 21. Since that time hon. members have been debating the speech from the throne, and there was only one occasion on which questions were answered. That was Wednesday, December 10. On that particular day I was unable to be here because of a business engagement elsewhere, and this, therefore, is the first opportunity I have had to answer the question. The answer is as follows:
1.	An average of $824.30 per acre.
2.	281-5 acres.
3.	The building and its grounds cover 21-3 acres.
4.	The construction contract is not yet closed. Estimated completed cost $2 million.
5.	The auditorium is part of the general contract and is estimated to cost approximately $40,000.


6.	The recreation floor is part of the general contract and the central section which is a spring floor is estimated to have cost about an additional $2,500 more than standard floor construction.
7.	The landscaping is incomplete. The estimated completed cost, $35,000.
8.	Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not erect a house for the former owner nor have they any knowledge of the cost of the house erected by him.


GOVERNMENT-RENTED STORAGE SPACE
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Except for grain, does any department or agency of the government rent storage space in (a) buildings: (b) not under cover?
2.	If so, in each case (a) where are the storage spaces located: (b) of what type are they: (c) what is the size of the space; (d) what is the rental cost?


GOVERNMENT-OWNED STORAGE SPACE
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Except for grain, does any department or agency of the government own storage space in (a) buildings; (b) not under cover?
2.	If so, in each case (a) where are the storage spaces located; (b) of what type are they; (c) what is the size of this space?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I should like to couple these two questions which are asked by the same hon. member. They concern space in public or rented buildings occupied by departments of the government. The first question is easy to answer because the answer is yes. Nearly every department occupies space in publicly owned or rented buildings. Where the trouble starts is that the gentleman wishes to know in each building the number of square feet occupied by each department and the nature of the space. I understand that there is not one building which we occupy, owned or leased, in which there is not some space for storage. Even in this building I would have to find out where we put away cleaning material and what space it occupies in the building.


Mr. Fraser:: That is not what I am asking for.


Alphonse Fournier: May I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he drop these questions but that he can discuss the matter with me or some of the officials and we can give him the information he desires. The way the question is drafted now, even if I took all my Christmas holidays I would not be able to produce the information.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions Nos. 8 and 29 will be dropped.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in regard to questions Nos. 8 and 29, the understanding was that the information concerned space that was rented or owned-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -only for one purpose-for storage; and that is the answer I want.


Alphonse Fournier: Every department has some storage space. While you are speaking on the matter, a year ago 1 was visiting the justice building and I found the corridors on floors 6, 7 and 8, serving as a storage space for their filing cabinets. I would have trouble giving you exactly the space occupied by each department in each building.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it would be better if the question were dropped. The hon. gentlemen can discuss the matter and either have the questions replaced on the order paper or reworded.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Could they not stay on and then I could speak to the minister too?


Mr. Speaker:: It was agreed that they should be dropped and probably the agreement might be carried out.


WHEAT IN STORAGE
Mr. Diefenbaker:: How much of the 1951 wheat crop is still in storage at (a) terminals; (b) local line elevators?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Statistics of stocks of grain in storage, as compiled by the board of grain commissioners for Canada, do not differentiate between grain of various crops.
This also applies in respect to grain received by elevator companies for the account of the Canadian wheat board and, neither in the receiving of grain from producers, the storing of grain in country elevators, nor in the shipping of grain from country elevators is the year of production recorded. As agents of the Canadian wheat board, elevator companies must account to the board for the quantity of grain which they receive from producers in each crop year and for which they issue producers certificates but the year of production is not recorded.


CUBAN REFINED SUGAR IMPORTS
Mr. Coyle:: 1.	How many tons of Cuban refined sugar have been imported, during the years 1950, 1951 and 1952, to date?
2.	Is there any duty on this sugar? If so, how much per ton?
3.	What was the laid-down price of this sugar in each year?
Questions
4.	Has Canada an agreement with Cuba to take this sugar?
5.	If so, what are terms of the agreement?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Refined sugar first classified for statistical purposes January 1, 1952. Therefore, imports for 1950 and 1951 are not available. Imports January 1 to September 30, 1952- 9,900 tons.
2.	Yes. Cuban refined sugar is subject to duty under tariff item 134 at the rate of $1.89 per one hundred pounds or $37.80 per ton of 2,000 pounds.
3.	Information not available.
4.	No, the agreement with Cuba covers raw sugar only.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


CLERK OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
Mr. Lennard:: 1.	Who is clerk of the privy council?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	What are the duties of his office?
5.	What previous positions has he held in the service of the government of Canada, and during what period of time was each such position held?
6.	Since his appointment as clerk of the privy council, what trips has he made out of Ottawa on government business, setting forth places visited, the duration of each such visit and the purpose in detail of each visit?
7.	On any such visits, did he accompany any minister of the crown, and if so what, in detail, were the services performed by him on each such visit for such minister of the crown?
8.	What, in detail, was the purpose of any visits made by any such minister of the crown in which he or they were accompanied by the clerk of the privy council?
9.	What travelling or other expenses were incurred on his behalf on any such visits and to what account were such expenses charged?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	Mr. J. W. Pickersgill.
2.	June 1, 1952.
3.	$15,000 per annum.
4.	The duties were defined in the order in council appointing the clerk of the privy council and secretary to cabinet on March 25, 1940 (P.C. 1121 of 1940).
5.	Mr. Pickersgill was appointed a third secretary in the Department of External Affairs after a competitive examination on October 14, 1937, and was seconded for duty in the office of the Prime Minister in December, 1937. On April 1, 1942, he was appointed private secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On June 9, 1945, he was given leave of absence from the Department of External Affairs and appointed special assistant to the Prime Minister and


CIGARETTES
Mr. Hansell:: 1.	How many cigarettes were manufactured in Canada, during the last year for which total figures are available?
2.	What was the total amount in dollars of sales of these cigarettes?
3.	What was the total amount of revenue collected from the sales of these cigarettes by way of (a) excise tax; (b) sales tax?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	For calendar year 1951, 15,878,521,805.
2.	Estimated retail value of cigarettes manufactured in Canada and released for consumption in 1951, $315,000,000.
3.	(a) Excise tax $79,812,174.65; excise duty $94,193,806.96.
(b)	No separate compilation of sales tax on any commodity.


REPLACEMENT WHEELS FOR TANKS
Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Were tenders called for in the case of replacement wheels for the tank used as a Canadian army training vehicle, as contract No. E. 20-LVIA-129?
2.	If so, in what month of the year 1952 were such tenders called for?
3.	What individuals or firms submitted tenders, and what was the amount of each tender submitted?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded, and in what amount?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	July.
3.	It has been the established policy of this department to disclose only the details of the successful tender.

4.	Levy Auto Parts Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, tor items 1, 3 and 4 of the contract for a total amount of $112,099.50, sales tax included f.o.b. Montreal.
Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada, Ltd., Hamilton, Ontario, for item 2 of the contract for a total amount of $3,327, sales tax included f.o.b. Montreal.


ARMED FORCES MEDICAL OFFICERS
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Have any medical officers in (a) army; (b) navy; (c) air services, been sent to the United States or any other country to take post-graduate study?
Questions
2.	If so, are such officers drawing (a) full pay while away from the service; (b) travelling expenses; (c) living allowances; (d) allowances for wife and family?
3.	Are tuition fees also paid by the government?
4.	If so, what is the amount in each case?
5.	How many months are they out of the Canadian service?


Mr. Blanchette:: 5.	To increase their usefulness to the service, medical officers are normally allowed, in accordance with terms of service, one year post-graduate training after each five year period of active duty. Since all courses of study cannot be embraced within a twelvemonth period, officers are often permitted to extend their period of study beyond twelve months. In such cases, the additional time is deducted from any future periods of time for post-graduate study which the officer may accumulate.


LETHBRIDGE GRAIN ELEVATOR
Mr. Harkness:: 1.	What is the capacity of the dominion government grain elevator at Lethbridge?
2.	What is the total volume of grain, by years, which has been handled by this elevator in the years 1941-1951 inclusive?
3.	What amounts of grain were held in this elevator at the end of March, June, September and December, for the past two years?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	1,250,000 bushels.
2.
Fiscal Years
1941-	42 ..
1942-	43 .
1943-	44 . .
1944-	45 ..
1945-	46 .
1946-	47 ..
1947-	48 ..
1948-	49 ..
1949-	50 ..
1950-	51 ..
1951-	52 ..
Net Bushels .. 285,889 ,.. 25,632 ... 73,192 ... 13,352 ... 6,244
____1,203
.. 139,436 .. . 63,046 ... 12,581 .. . 30,904 1,008,961
3. 1951-March, 5,040 bus.; June, 21 bus.; September, 410 bus.; December, 75,513 bus.
1952-March, 364,422 bus.; June, 66,810 bus.; September, 149,693 bus.; November, 457,161 bus.


GANDER AND TORBAY AIRPORTS
Mr. Higgins:: What runway extensions, if any, are planned for Gander and Torbay airports?


Mr. Chevrier:: For Gander airport, additional facilities are under consideration and when approved will be made known. For Torbay airport, no extension is planned by the department during the next fiscal year.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, NFLD.
Mr. Higgins:: 1.	How many miles of trans-Canada highway have been completed in Newfoundland?
2.	How many miles have still to be completed?
3.	What was the average cost per mile of the highway in Newfoundland?
4.	What was the average cost per mile of the highway in each of the other provinces?
5.	Has an agreement been reached between the government of Newfoundland and the federal government whereby the standards of the highway in Newfoundland will be relaxed?
6.	Is so, what changes in the standards of the highway have been agreed to, and when was such agreement made?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	No mileage has been fully completed.
2.	610 miles.
3.	See answer to No. 1. Records of cost of completed construction are therefore not available.

Questions
4.	Relatively few miles have been fully completed and sufficient information is therefore not yet available to determine accurately the average cost per mile of the completed highway in the other provinces.
5 and 6. No. Section 2 (c) of the agreement empowers the minister to authorize deviations from the specifications in certain instances where adherence to it would entail excessive expenditure, provided the deviations do not prejudice the construction of a highway of high standard. Deviations have been so authorized for Newfoundland as they have been in other provinces.


NEWFOUNDLAND COD FISHING
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	What vessels have been employed by the federal government during 1952, in Newfoundland waters, in experimental methods of catching codfish?
2.	What has been the cost of operation in each case?
3.	What earnings, if any, have been produced In each case?
4.	Where have such vessels been conducting their
experiments?
5.	If vessels are hired, what has been the cost of hire?
6.	If vessels are owned by the federal government what were costs of vessels and equipment?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	(a) Edward Humby; (b) Atlantic Rover;
(c)	Marjory Beryl; (d) Pat and Judy; (e) Gertrude and Ronald.
2.	(a) Included in charter; (b) $600.85 (to Nov. 15); (c) $202.67 (to Nov. 15); (d) $709.46 (to Nov. 15); (e) $352.31 (to Nov. 15).
3.	(a) Under charter catch retained by owner; (b) $1,721.39; (c) $1,757.62; (d) $1,316.84; (e) $1,444.21.
4.	(a) Winter fishing on southwest coast;
(b)	to (e) northeast coast from Bonavista bay to the strait of Belle Isle.
5.	(a) $5,568.15; (b) $12,650.89; (c) $12,240.80;
(d)	$11,999.73; (e) $10,699.51.
6.	All vessels were or are chartered.


DAMAGE TO VESSEL &quot;MISS OSBORNE&quot;
Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	Was any investigation made into the explosion, which took place in Newfoundland waters, on the experimental boat Miss Osborne, in August. 1951?
2.	If so, what was the result?
3.	What was the extent of the damage?


Mr. MacNaught:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The explosion resulted from the accidental ignition of gasoline fumes which developed during refuelling.

3.	The vessel was totally destroyed. However, under the terms of charter the crown was not liable in any manner for loss or damage to the vessel. The incident automatically terminated the charter agreement.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, WINDSOR-PURCHASING TERMS FOR WORKERS* HOMES


Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	Has the government received any requests that workers, employed by the Ford Motor Company at Windsor, be permitted to buy homes in Oakville, on the same terms as defence workers?
2.	If so, what consideration has the government given to these requests?


Robert Henry Winters: 1 and 2. No. The arrangement for defence workers housing is part of the government's effort to encourage defence workers to build houses in those areas where they are needed for Canada's defence production program. The arrangement involves a 10 per cent down payment and is available only to defence workers employed in plants certified by the Minister of Defence Production as defence production plants. I am informed that the Ford Motor Company has not been so certified.


IMPORTS OF TRACTORS
Mr. Murphy:: 1.	How many tractors, farm and garden type, were imported by Canada from the United States in 1951 and 1952?
2.	What was the dollar value?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. Farm and garden type tractors are not separately recorded in trade statistics. The imports of all types of tractors from the United States were as follows:
No. Value
Calendar year 1951 ... 52,571	$83,375,106
January 1 to September
30, 1952	 38,245	63,815,533


IRON ORE
Mr. Laing:: 1.	In the last year for which figures are available, what was the tonnage and value of Canadian iron ores used in Canadian steel mills?
2.	In the same period, what was the tonnage and value of Canadian iron ores exported?
3.	In the same year, what was the tonnage and value of iron ores imported for use in Canadian mills, from (a) the United States (b) all other countries?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Canadian iron ores used in Canadian steel mills, calendar year 1951, quantity 1,476,440 short tons; value (cost at consuming plant) $10,497,268.

2.	Canadian iron ores exported calendar year 1951, quantity 3,225,767 short tons; value $18,596,137.
3.	Iron ores imported for use in Canadian mills, calendar year 1951, from (a) the United States, quantity 3,690,269 short tons; value $21,329,066.
(b) Other countries, quantity 141,149 short tons; value $1,342,199.


FILMS FOR TELEVISION PROGRAMS
Mr. Balcer:: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation awarded a contract to the Famous Players Company of Canada, for the lease or purchase of films for television programs?
2.	If so, when was such contract awarded, for how many films and what was the total amount of the contract?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


TELEVISION PROGRAM &quot;HILDA MORGAN&quot;
Mr. Balcer:: 1.	Who is responsible for the choice of the "Hilda Morgan" program recently telecast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	By whom was it written?
3.	What amount was paid to the author?
4.	By whom was it censored?
5.	Is it intended to play the said program in the province of Quebec?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a whole is responsible for the choice and content of its programs.
2.	Lister Sinclair.
3.	It has not been considered in the interest of the corporation or in the public interest to make known amounts paid by the corporation to individuals in business transactions.
4.	See answer to No. 1.
5.	This matter has not been considered.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Hodgson:: What branches or agencies of government have requested and received the assistance of the organization and methods service of the civil service commission?


Alphonse Fournier: Return tabled.


SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
Mr. Thatcher:: What steps, if any, have been taken by the government to implement recommendation 2 of the Senate standing committee on finance, made last June 23?
Orders for Returns


SABRE JETS
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Was a contract let to Enamel and Heating Products Limited, Sackville, New Brunswick, for production of empennages for F86E Sabre jets?
2.	If so, (a) when was the contract let; (b) for how many units; (c) what was the total contract price?
3.	Have any empennages been produced under this contract?
4.	Is the contract still in effect?
5.	If so, when is delivery expected to start?
6.	How much money has been paid under or by reason of the contract to date?



Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Was a contract let to the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Windsor, Ontario, for production of main wing panels for F86E Sabre jets?
2.	If so, (a) when was the contract let; (b) for how many units; (c) what was the total contract price?
3.	Have any main wing panels been produced under this contract?
4.	Is the contract still in effect?
5.	If so, when is delivery expected to start?
6.	If not, when was it cancelled?
7.	How much money has been paid under or by reason of the contract to date?
8.	Has the contract been let to any other person or corporation for production of main wing panels for Sabre jets?
9.	If so, to whom?


ROWELL-SIROIS AND MASSEY COMMISSIONS   FEES, ETC.,
Mr. Low:: 1.	What amounts of fees, gratuities, allowances and expense moneys were paid by the government of Canada to each member of the Rowell-Sirois royal commission?
2.	What amounts of fees, gratuities, allowances and expense moneys were received from the government of Canada by each member of the Massey royal commission on arts and sciences?


ADVERTISING FIRMS ENGAGED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Murphy:: 1.	What advertising firms or agencies were engaged by any and all departments of government for the year 1952?
2.	What amounts were paid to each firm?


BUCTOUCHE, N.B., POST OFFICE
Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	In what year was the Buctouche, New Brunswick, post office building erected?
2.	What was the cost of this building?
3.	What have been the annual revenues of the Buctouche, New Brunswick, post office during the years (a) 1945; (b) 1946; (e) 1947; (d) 1948; (e) 1949; (f) 1950; (g) 1951?


ROGERSVILLE, N.B., POST OFFICE
Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	In what year was the post office building erected at Rogersville, New Brunswick?
2,	What was the cost of this building?

Motions for Papers
3.	What have been the annual revenues of the Rogersville, New Brunswick, post office during the years (a) 1945; (b) 1946; (c) 1947; (d) 1948; (e) 1949; (f) 1950; (g) 1951?


REXTON, N.B., POST OFFICE
Mr. Hobichaud:: 1.	In what year was the post office building erected at Rexton, New Brunswick?
2.	What was the cost of this building?
3.	What have been the annual revenues of the Rexton, New Brunswick, post office during the years (a) 1945; (b) 1946; (c) 1947; (d) 1948; (e) 1949; (f) 1950; (g) 1951?


UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
Mr. Hansell:: 1.	How many times during the last five years have attorneys at law from the United States or any other country been permitted to plead or advocate cases in Canadian courts?
2.	What are the names of those permitted, and in what cases did they act?


Mr. Garson:: In relation to this matter, I suggest we might bring down in the form of an order for return the information my hon. friend wishes in relation to federal courts. As far as provincial courts are concerned the administration of justice in them comes under the provinces themselves and the information sought would have to be supplied by them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Brooks:: For a copy of all correspondence from January 1, 1951, to date, exchanged between the federal government or any department thereof and the government of the province of New Brunswick or any department thereof, relative to the taking over of an area in Queens and Sunbury counties, New Brunswick, as a military training area.


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and he has kindly agreed to have this motion stand for the time being.


MILITARY TRAINING AREA, N.B.  REPORTS
Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a copy of all reports from January 1, 1951, to date, received by the Department of National Defence, respecting surveys and inspections made by officials of the department and others on Utopia area and the Queens-Sunbury area, in New Brunswick, relative to proposed military training area.


YUKON RIVER PROJECT
Mr. Adamson:: For a copy of any reports submitted by: (a) the international co-ordinating committee on the Yukon river power and storage project, set up in

1950; (b) the joint economic committee under the chairmanship of C. H. Herbert; (c) progress reports of the Canadian section of the above international committees.


Robert Henry Winters: With respect to this order, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that in the fall of 1949 the government of the United States approached the government of Canada with reference to a project intended to develop hydroelectric power in Taiya valley, Alaska, by damming the Yukon river above Whitehorse and diverting the headwaters of the Yukon river into the Taiya river by way of two tunnels through the coast range. In the spring of 1950, the government of Canada agreed that it would co-operate with the United States government by looking into the implications and feasibility of this project in so far as Canada was concerned; and two officials of the Department of Resources and Development were designated to conduct liaison with officials of the United States government. Although no committee was formally constituted, this is doubtless what is referred to in the order as the international co-ordinating committee on the Yukon river power and storage project.
Preliminary surveys and studies on the Canadian side of the border made it progressively clear that these waters can be used in such a way domestically as to be of outstanding value in Canada's economy.
In March, 1951, therefore, the government of Canada informed the government of the United States that it was not prepared to continue with the joint investigation. The liaison arrangement to which I have referred was therefore discontinued and the only report prepared was by officials of the Department of Resources and Development to their superiors. Hon. members will, of course, appreciate that reports of this nature are not produceable.
Under the circumstances, perhaps the hon. member would agree to have the motion dropped.


Agar Rodney Adamson: While the reports in question are no doubt privileged under our rules, nevertheless diversion of the Yukon river over the international boundary is of great importance to the whole economy of the Yukon and for that matter to a large section of British Columbia and Alaska. As it involves four governments, I should like assurance-and I think the minister has given me that assurance-that no commitment will be made to any of the other governments to divert the headwaters of the Yukon at any time, and that no agreement with the Aluminum Company of America will be made unless the fullest discussion is permitted here and in some committee of this

house. From what the minister has said, I think he is agreeable to that.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should say that to date no commitment has been given. It is most unlikely that any commitment of that nature would be given. I would not care to commit the government beyond that at this time, but I can assure the hon. member that no commitment has been given.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.


PURCHASE OF NECKTIES
Mr. Hees:: For a copy of all contracts or agreements to purchase neckties, entered into by any department or branch of the federal government since January 1, 1951.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall how surprised I was on the afternoon of December 15 at the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In the morning, with respect to the Currie report, I had stated, as reported at page 642 of Hansard:
My information is that there was no printed or typewritten copy of the report communicated to anyone in the department before this one. Whether or not drafts were made in Mr. Currie's office before he submitted the report. I do not know, but there was nothing communicated to the department until this report was received. Five copies of it were sent by Mr. Currie in the form in which it is now on the late afternoon of December 8.
That is the information I had at that time. It was information given to me by the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) who is the only person with whom I have communicated, or it was the only communication-with the exception of overseas communications with the minister himself-that I have had with anyone connected with the Department of National Defence. That was the information that the acting minister himself had at that time. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made in the house the announcement that he had in his possession a copy of a draft that had been produced by the same process-he called it a printed copy-which was used for producing the signed report and asked me to make inquiries about it, I hastened to give him the assurance that I would make the fullest possible inquiry, and expressed considerable surprise at the fact that any copy of a draft had found its way into anybody else's hands before the report had been submitted to the department.
National Defence-Currie Report
I have ascertained that the proper designation for the process by which this report has been produced is that of offset reproduction.
I had inquiries made, and those inquiries disclosed that during the whole course of the investigation Mr. Currie and his representatives had been in communication with officers of the Department of National Defence, anc especially the deputy minister, and were concerned as to the means of presenting a description of these irregularities at Peta-wawa in such a way as not to prejudice the rights of individuals in the judicial proceedings under way or intended in relation to the criminal acts at Petawawa. The inquiries also disclosed that Mr. Currie and his representatives discussed this matter with the deputy minister and that the suggestion was made that the deputy minister might go over the draft, when it was ready, and point out any inaccuracies in the facts reported which had been obtained from the department itself. The deputy minister mentioned this suggestion to the minister and the minister authorized him to go over this draft but told him to be extremely careful to make no comment about anything but the facts that had been obtained from the department.
On November 27-Thursday afternoon, I think it was-a representative of Mr. Currie brought a draft produced by this offset reproduction process, had some conversation with the deputy minister about it, and left it with him so that he might go over it and check the reporting of facts that had been obtained through information supplied by the department. After that-I do not know just at what date-the deputy minister mentioned to the minister that he had it and asked him if he wished to see it. The minister said no, that he wished to see nothing except the report when it was signed and produced. The deputy minister went over it during the week end and saw representatives of Mr. Currie on Monday, December 1. It will be remembered that that was the date on which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), as reported at page 203 of Hansard, made in the house the following inquiry of the minister:
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he inform us when he will receive the report which we were assured was being prepared some time ago by Mr. Currie with respect to the administration of the Department of National Defence so far as it affects Petawawa camp?
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) replied as follows:
I have not been in touch with Mr. Currie myself for some time but I am informed by the deputy minister that he has been in touch with members of Mr. Currie's staff, and that it is expected that the report will be available within the next week or two. It has not been made yet.
828	HOUSE OF
National Defence-Currie Report


George Alexander Drew: As a supplementary question, may I ask whether the government has received an interim report?


Mr. Claxton:: No.
That was the situation. The minister knew that there was a draft that had been communicated to the deputy minister and expected that it would be a report within the next week or two, and he gave that information to the house. The deputy minister informs me, through the acting minister, that on December 1 he made to representatives of Mr. Currie representations as to what appeared to be some errors in fact in that document as follows:
(a)	At page 4-The tense used in describing the actions of the chief auditor and the quartermaster general was almost throughout the present tense. It was pointed out that this paragraph apparently had reference to the state of affairs at the time of the irregularities and that the use of the present tense would be wrong. This observation was apparently accepted in the final report as signed and produced.
(b)	At page 7-There was a paragraph stating that an army corporal had had a cottage built valued at $1,700 out of army materials and army labour for which no reimbursement had been received, or words to that effect. It was pointed out to Mr. Currie's representatives that this corporal had been prosecuted in the criminal courts in respect of this incident and had been acquitted. No request was made but this fact was brought to the attention of Mr. Currie's representatives. In the report that was finally signed and produced there is no such paragraph.
At page 7 it is pointed out that the child's rocking horse to which reference was made had been constructed not at Petawawa but elsewhere and that this perhaps did not belong in the recital of irregularities at Petawawa. Mr. Currie's representatives replied that the man who received this rocking horse had been stationed at Petawawa, and that it had been mentioned in the trials. No action was taken on that representation. Then on page 8 in reference to Tucker creek, the investigators were asked whether they had received the official explanation of the army of the purpose of this dam, which they said was for fire fighting purposes. They replied that they had received that explanation but apparently it did not impress them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I want to disclose everything I have been able to ascertain, and I am doing so conscientiously and to the best of my ability.


On page 10 there is reference to an overall shortage of 18,000 bags of cement. It was pointed out by the deputy minister to Mr. Currie's representatives that during the investigation they had mentioned to a number of persons in the department that that investigation had reduced this unexplained disappearance to something like 2,000 to 3,000 bags, which they had stated should not be regarded as unusual. They replied that they had rechecked and that they persisted in their view that there was an unexplained shortage of 18,000 bags, and I think that still remains in the report.
The deputy minister pointed out that on page 13, in listing the unobserved regulations there were two, No. 10 and No. 28, which appeared to be the same thing mentioned twice in somewhat different terms. They took note of that, and in the result there is only the original No. 28 which remains; No. 10 was eliminated.


Mr. Knowles:: Has the Prime Minister these items, and can he put them on the record at this time so that the house will know the terms of the two items to which he makes reference?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am making a statement which will be reproduced in Hansard, and that I think is a sufficient record of what I have been able to ascertain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I merely meant, did the Prime Minister have the former No. 10 and the former No. 28?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I have not; because the draft that had been shown to the deputy minister-and there was only one copy of that draft, to the best of the knowledge of the deputy minister, that went to anyone in the Department of National Defence- remained in the possession of the deputy minister only up to the time that he handed it back when he got the signed report. The information he has given me is information from his recollection of what took place, because he did not have the first draft before him when that information was given for me to the Acting Minister of National Defence. But I understand that the hon. gentleman has the original draft, and he can see just how No. 10 and No. 28 were phrased in the original draft.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will place it on the record later.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: On page 16, in reference to the engineering effort, the draft indicated that expenditures in 1952-53 would aggregate $250 million for construction. The deputy minister pointed out that such an expenditure in 1952-53 was larger than that contemplated

lor all three services, army, navy and air force combined, and that these figures had reference to the construction plan approved in 1952-53 that would take several years to complete. There was some change in the language referring to page 16, but, as I read it, it still gives the impression that $250 million was in the program to be carried out in 1952-53.
On the same page it was pointed out that the departmental estimates of the investment in plant and buildings of the army would more closely approximate $750 million than $950 million, and apparently in the final report as signed it is the figure of $750 million which appears.
The best information the deputy minister has is that there was only one copy of this draft delivered to anyone in the Department of National Defence, and that copy was returned to Mr. Currie's representatives when they delivered the signed report, and had remained in the possession of the deputy minister in the meantime. That would seem to indicate that the copy which is in the possession of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could not have come from the Department of National Defence.
In order that no suspicion may rest of anything underhanded about this having been possible, perhaps the hon. member would enlighten the house as to when and how this copy came into his possession. I can assure him that inquiries are still being made on our behalf, but perhaps the hon. gentleman would have no objection to putting an end to these inquiries by himself giving to the house information in that regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With regard to the request the Prime Minister made at the conclusion of his remarks, may I say that I will consult the leader of this group, who received this document, and if he authorizes me to say anything further in regard to how it came into his possession, I will do so at the first opportunity. But may I now direct two questions to the Prime Minister, arising out of the statement that he has made? Can he say whether the deputy minister showed the draft report to the chief of the general staff or to anyone else in the department or in the service before making these comments to Mr. Currie's representatives? Also, can he say whether there was any discussion of the wording on page 17 of the report?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: My information is there was no discussion on the wording of page 17 of the report, and my information is that the deputy minister did discuss one aspect-I do not know whether he showed him the draft
National Defence-Currie Report or not-with the adjutant general, having to do with his impression at that time that investigations had been started by the adjutant general's department into these irregularities before the receipt of this anonymous letter. The information I got was that the representatives of Mr. Currie were asked to see the adjutant general to ascertain whether or not an investigation by the department had been started before the receipt of the anonymous letter. Whether the draft was discussed with the chief of the general staff or not I am not in a position to say. I can make the inquiry and find out. The hon. member knows that all this difficulty at Petawawa had to do with a period antedating the appointment of the present chief of general staff to that position. It had occurred at a time when General Foulkes was the chief of general staff. I am not suggesting that there should be any responsibility for that situation resting on General Foulkes. I know that since the outbreak of the Korean war, and the coming into force of the North Atlantic treaty, General Foulkes had been obliged to be out of the country conferring with our allies for a large part of the time, and that practically his whole attention had to be given to the making up of the Korean contingents, and to the negotiation with our North Atlantic treaty allies. And it was for that reason that some months ago-and I will find out what date it was-the chief of general staff was appointed who would have more time to devote to the matters that had to be dealt with here at home.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Prime Minister permit me one other question? Is it a general practice to refer reports which are made on a particular administration to the heads of that administration before the report is presented?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I cannot say what is the general practice. I have never been an investigator. I was quite surprised to learn that this investigator had felt that it was the proper thing to be done. But apparently it was a consequence of the fact that very much of the information upon which the report was to be based had been obtained from the department, and that the investigator had received from the department, as the minister had requested, the fullest possible co-operation, as he expressly states on the first page of the report. And, having received that information through departmental sources, it is perhaps not unnatural that he should have wished to have at the last moment the accuracy of figures checked at the source from which those figures had been obtained by his representatives.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, he had, before he
National Defence-Currie Report


Mr. Green:: Does the Prime Minister think it was the proper thing to do?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Now, I would not like to express any opinion as to the propriety or impropriety of the conduct of Mr. Currie. He was appointed because of the reputation he enjoys. He has had in that field much greater experience than the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), or than I have had. And it is the intention to have the report, together with the memorandum of the chief of the general staff, referred to the committee on defence expenditures for such action as the committee may see fit to take. I would be surprised if they did not wish to have Mr. Currie before them; and I think there that question can be gone into.
There are other questions that I would be very curious to have gone into, and that is when this report was actually signed. It bears the date of November 26. The draft that was in the hands of the deputy minister was not a signed draft. There was no signed draft that got to the department until December 8. I would be curious to know when actually the report was completed and signed by Mr. Currie; but I have felt it would be improper for me to communicate with Mr. Currie. I will be very careful not to do anything that any hon. member could look upon as interference.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that in explaining the changes which did take place he has not explained the circumstance under which the words "at or near the top" were replaced by other words.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There I have no explanation to offer, and I am informed that the department has no explanation to offer-that those words were not discussed between Mr. Drury and Mr. Currie's representatives on the 1st of December.


George Alexander Drew: Has the Prime Minister any information as to the first date upon which this document described as the offset reproduction was first discussed with the chief of general staff?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know that it was discussed with the chief of general staff. I do not know. But I do know that the deputy minister had it for his consideration over the last week end of November, and he made his comments to the representatives of Mr. Currie on the Monday, December 1.


George Alexander Drew: And then, do I gather from the Prime Minister's words that he had discussed with the minister the fact that this offset reproduction was being considered at that time before he discussed it with Mr. Currie?

got it, been authorized by the minister to go over it. After he got it, my information is that he told the minister that he had it and asked the minister if he wished to see it. The minister said, "No, I do not want to see anything but the report itself when it is signed and filed with the department."


George Alexander Drew: Then, so that there will be no misunderstanding, the deputy minister at that time explained to Mr. Currie that he had received the offset reproduction of the report, and that it was being considered at that time for the purpose of making any factual corrections that might be considered appropriate; is that correct?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I would not take it that that is actually correct. There had been received an offset reproduction of a draft which appeared to be complete. Now, whether or not that was going to be the report was not stated. What was being done was to consider this, and to check the statements of facts that it contained on information that had been obtained from the departmental officials. It was expected, I have no doubt, that that, with such modifications as the commissioner might find it appropriate to make, before he signed it, would be the report. And that is why the minister said that he was informed by the deputy minister that it should be available within a week or two.


Mr. Pearkes:: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? The Prime Minister intimated that Mr. Currie could be called before the defence expenditures committee, if they wish. Would he also say whether the chief of general staff could be called before that' committee?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, the hon. member has an advantage over me. I must confess that I am quite ignorant about army regulations and army set-up. I am not giving any permission to call Mr. Currie. I am merely stating that I would imagine that the committee would want to call Mr. Currie. And perhaps it will wish to call the chief of general staff-and I would be surprised if the chief of general staff were not anxious to go before the committee.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, so that we will not leave this matter with any uncertainty, as I understand the explanation that the Prime Minister has given, a representative of Mr. Currie's office brought a copy of the report and that was the copy which was under consideration-


An hon. Member:: A draft.


George Alexander Drew: That was the copy that was under consideration during the first week end of November.


An hon. Member:: The last week end.


George Alexander Drew: I am sorry, the last week end in November. Will he indicate which minister authorized the deputy minister to take the steps he described.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out to the Prime Minister that the copy under discussion is not an office copy from Mr. Currie's office, but would appear, from the descriptions that have been given to this house by the hon. member who introduced the subject, to be a similar printing and in fact an exact printing except for those pages where changes have been made.
I would suggest that this would indicate quite clearly that the offset reproduction, to use the term which the Prime Minister has used, was in fact a reproduction by the same printing presses that turned out the final copy and that there had not only been the office copy from Mr. Currie but that somebody had already authorized the printing of that copy prior to the time the deputy minister had examined it and had received permission during the last week end of November to make certain representations to Mr. Currie. I ask the Prime Minister for information on what appears to be a fairly obvious presentation of the situation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not going to make any comments on the implications that the hon. gentleman finds in what I have stated. I have stated as fully and as frankly as I could what are the facts. I do not know whether this offset reproduction process was carried out in Mr. Currie's office. I know that there are many business offices which have this offset reproduction process, just as there are many more which have the multigraphing system. What I do know is that the draft that was brought was something that looked like the document that was finally signed and that has been tabled in this house as the report. Evidently it was something that had been produced by the same process as the thing that became the report and has been tabled. Whether that was produced in Mr. Currie's office or produced outside Mr. Currie's office, I do not know.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to clarify this. As I understand it, then, the only changes that were contemplated and in fact that would be permitted under such an arrangement would be changes of essential facts following a discussion in regard to those in the manner
National Defence-Currie Report described, and that this first draft that was presented was recognized as the report, subject to those corrections that would be made from a factual point of view to the copy.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I did not understand it in that sense at all. Speaking from my own experience with respect to the speech from the throne, we get prints and we consider the speech from the throne as it is in that printed document. Frequently there are two or three of those prints before the speech is submitted to His Excellency as the recommendation for the speech which should be made. Now what was Mr. Currie's intention, what personal work he put on this draft before it got to the deputy minister of national defence, I do not know. What I know is that the suggestion was made that the deputy minister go over it to check the facts and to check that aspect as to whether or not it was going to be embarrassing to the prosecutions or would affect the rights of persons who had been, are being or were going to be prosecuted.
The deputy minister's representations were made to two of Mr. Currie's representatives on the 1st of December. Nothing further was heard until December 8 when a representative of Mr. Currie came forward with five signed copies and delivered them and the deputy minister then returned this offset reproduction draft that he had had in his possession since November 27.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think I should be obliged to precise the hon. gentleman's understanding. I have said everything I can say and he must draw his own conclusions from it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will decide just how much information he will give in regard to a subject about which we know a great deal.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will give all the information I can get. I have said I have done that. I am not going to try to agree or disagree with any paraphrasing the hon. gentleman may choose to make.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, both on a question of privilege and to continue the examination of this, I point out that there has been no paraphrasing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I point out that there has been no paraphrasing and that I have been seeking to obtain information in regard to a most important matter. I point out to the Prime Minister that at the time the Minister of

Inquiries of the Ministry National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said that he had received no recommendations or suggestions, written or oral, he was aware that this actual offset reproduction was in the possession of the department and being discussed.



NEWFOUNDLAND DEFENCE PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Francis Higgins: I wish to direct an inquiry to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence or the acting minister. On Monday I asked the acting minister if any notice was being taken of damage to roads in the municipality of St. John's by national defence projects. The acting minister was going to answer later. Would the parliamentary assistant be able to answer it today?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: Unfortunately, no, but I will take the matter as a further notice.



HOUSING DOWN PAYMENTS ON HOMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Resources and Development. Would he care to comment on a newspaper article stating that the first step has been taken to reduce the down payment on N.H.A. homes to 10 per cent?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. members know, there is a 10 per cent down payment arrangement obtaining now on houses for defence workers.
This applies to defence workers who are employed in plants certified as defence plants by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). The down payment on joint loans was reduced some time ago to 20 per cent of the agreed sale price and the government has no plans now for changing that general arrangement.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the government take steps leading to the appointment by the house of a special committee of the house at an early

date to review the report and operations and policies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the government have no objection to following that course and I will place the matter before my colleagues immediately.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Angus MacInnis: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), but as he is not in his place this morning I would pass the question on to whoever is acting in that capacity. Has the government made any representations to the government of the United States in regard to the new policy adopted in that country of screening of personnel of foreign ships entering the United States ports before they are allowed to land? I am prompted to ask this question because of representations made to me by sailors and others on the Pacific coast.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Acting Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I will take the question as notice and the answer will be given later.



FERRY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport what are the names, addresses and occupations of the members of the special committee, referred to by the minister in his speech of December 15, as reported on page 654 of Hansard of that date, established by-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Albany M. Robichaud: -the hon. minister's department to study the economic and operative features of the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor, Maine, ferry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is the type of question usually put upon the order paper.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the

Minister of Justice. Have any recent representations been made to the federal government asking the government to provide protection for train crews in the Kootenay division of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company? If so, will the minister inform the house what the government's intention is with respect to these representations?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question. The answer is no.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Has the Postmaster General or his department given any consideration to the demands of business and private individuals for the return of two deliveries of mail a day in cities?


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: am glad to refer my hon. friend to the statement I made at the last session on the same subject. This question is still under consideration.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is that as far as you have got?



RURAL MAIL DELIVERY CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron North):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that new legislation is coming forward with respect to rural mail delivery contracts, has any consideration been given to contracts which are now expiring and are up for tender before the new legislation is passed?


Alcide Côté: Mr. Speaker, I hope eventually, and at not too distant a time, that I will be in a position to make a statement which will satisfy my hon. friend.



RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It is based on a tobacco tin which I sent to the minister this morning on which it says: "Suggested price $1.30". Is this legal in view of the legislation passed last Christmas?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question. In reply, it is not an offence for a supplier merely to suggest
Inquiries of the Ministry a resale price so long as he does nothing else which could be construed as intended to require or induce the vendor to maintain such price, or as having that effect.



LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the government considered referring certain acts of the Quebec legislature, particularly one authorizing the seizure of vehicles transporting certain products, to the Supreme Court of Canada in order that that court might decide on the constitutionality of such legislation, having regard to such matters as interprovincial trade? Is so, what is the result of such consideration?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This question in substance, although somewhat different in form, is the same as the question which was asked by the hon. gentleman's leader on December 10, and which I refused to answer at that time upon the grounds that are set out in Hansard. With respect to the question in its present form, I would say that in all matters of this kind the government's decision is announced when it is taken, and in the meantime no member of council, as I understand it, has any right to disclose what is being considered by the government. Indeed, I have sworn not to disclose such information, and I think my hon. friend has no right to ask me to divulge it.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. L. Deslieres for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.
(Translation):
Mr. L. E. Roberge (Siansiead):: Mr. Speaker, although I am not a disciple of Themis, I would like to make my little contribution to the debates of the house. But first, I wish to offer my sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The excellent way in which they fulfilled the duty entrusted to them honours their constituents. That is why I make it a point to congratulate them.
334	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Roberge
Mr. Speaker, in the dark hours in which the people of this country and of other peace-loving nations are living, we are confronted with an atmosphere of tension and suspense, resulting, as we all know, from Russia's subversive activities. It is therefore essential that we consolidate our strength, tighten our ranks, and keep together-and I am thinking more particularly of the democratic nations- if we want to survive.
As for the country in which we are living, its history is one of the most fascinating; it is to the self-denial and hard work of our ancestors that we owe our liberty. This heritage must be preserved by us and handed over, in the years to come, to our children so that they may, in turn, preserve this liberty which is so dear to us.
Some of our sons are now fighting in Korea in the defence of that liberty. We also maintain in Europe another contingent, ready to answer the first call in the defence of our liberty. But when we ask these young men to go and fight for their country, they must be sure that they have a country, a town, or a village where their families are living, to fight for. They must also be convinced that our way of life is worth fighting for, as, in order to make those sacrifices, their morale must be excellent and they must tend towards an ideal which incites them to fight for this liberty.
Listening to the promises which certain members of the opposition are making in order to win public favour, many are under the impression that they have to rely entirely for their subsistence on the planning of social security by the state. This conception of the role of the government, which is shared by a large number of people, goes back to the history of Rome where it was believed that any problem could be solved by saying: "Give them bread and games!" Of course the idea that the government is ready to support the people in every field is quite attractive. On the other hand, such a system is bound to encourage shiftlessness, an unacceptable state of affairs in a democracy such as ours. Bread and games, that is all very well, but how do we go about it when these very people cry out against regimentation whenever the government, for example, decides to control certain aspects of industry? We must not forget either that the establishment of controls throughout the various branches of our social security system would entail the


loss of our freedom, the undoing of the rights of man and of private enterprise. In other words, we would fall victim to a dictatorship.
This liberty which we all cherish cannot, of course, nourish us in the sense that our faith, our honour or our honesty do, since these enable us to hold our heads high and walk proudly everywhere we go. It cannot bring us the advantages or consolation of our religion.
We may experience sublime feelings in believing in the Supreme Being. All these things help us support the trials of life; in fact life would be very monotonous if we did not have these wonderful things to help us live it through.
It is to be noted that a nation living under a great number of government controls feeds itself on a rather bitter bread. In my opinion, democracy should be based on wisdom, moderation and a great charity toward one's neighbour.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer for a moment to the difficulties with which we are faced today. The ship of state, having at its helm such a fine captain as our present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will manage, I am sure, to see its way through.
Several electors have sent me their requests for an increase in family allowances. Owing to the increase in the cost of living and present circumstances, these claims may seem to be justified, but I still rely on the sound leadership given by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and his colleagues.
I noticed yesterday that a number of our opponents seemed somewhat worried, more worried, I would say, than the crew of the ship which has the Prime Minister at its helm. Last night, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), in his capacity as Acting Minister of Finance, gave us such a good account of our taxation system that the members of the opposition were left worried and had to realize that we have men who are able to discharge any responsibility at any time. I am sure that, under the able guidance of the Prime Minister and his cabinet, all social security measures that are conducive to the welfare of our people will be initiated in due course.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to call your attention to a matter of vital importance to our district. Western farmers, through their members of parliament, have managed to get a lot of assistance in order to carry on their farming

activities. I believe the time has come to look after the eastern farmers who, to my mind, are in a far more difficult position. As a matter of fact, mixed farming in eastern Canada is especially difficult as it requires continuous supervision, whereas the western farmers have only one branch of farming to look after and thus can become highly specialized farmers. Conditions are widely different in the province of Quebec, and especially in my own county, where our very active and very industrious farmers have to look after a lot of things.
Nowadays, to be a good farmer, one practically has to be a botanist, enough of a veterinarian to take care of one's cattle, enough of a businessman to sell one's crop. All of those things contribute to make life in the country a very hectic one. If things go well on the one hand, but are pretty bad on the other, the farmer must, in order to succeed, keep on striving to balance the over-all situation.
The embargo our friends to the south have imposed at the news of the outbreak of the famous hoof-and-mouth disease has hit my constituents a very hard blow. My riding being adjacent to the American border, our farmers, like those of most of the eastern townships, were engaged in a fairly remunerative business with the United States. The application of that embargo has forced us to adopt new methods and the prices of our products, including vegetables, have come down, the fall having been extremely great in the case of beef and pork, while the price of feed has, in the meantime, risen sharply. In my opinion, our farmers, though somewhat discouraged by those hardships, have cut a good figure and weathered this magnificently.
By the way, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on the clear-sightedness he has shown in signing with Great Britain and New Zealand agreements which are highly favourable to marketing of our meat in those countries. The market thus open to some of our animal products has been a great help to our farmers but Unfortunately the prices of feeds were so high and the market so low that our farmers have more or less found themselves with their backs to the wall. I call the minister's attention to this anomaly in the hope that he may be able to correct it.
Mr. Speaker, it being one o'clock, I move the adjournment of the debate.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
6S108-53J
The Address-Mr. Roberge
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, just before the recess, I was talking about the agricultural problems of my constituency. I was telling you that the price of farm products was not consistent with that of equipment, machinery, seeds, feed, etc., that our farmers have to buy.
Above all, I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the very sad incidents which took place in my constituency. When the embargo on cattle was put into force, two of our good farmers, conscious of their duty, had some of their cattle grazing along the border. These animals had the misfortune of breaking the fence and of crossing the border. Since the embargo was in force, the American authorities seized them and took them to the slaughterhouse. In one case especially, the animals had gone but a few steps across the border when the U.S. authorities seized them; one of the neighbours of the farmer involved offered to bring his animals back, but unfortunately, the die was cast and the old Latin motto dura lex sed lex was applied.
I would like to ask the government, and especially the Right Hon. the Minister of Agriculture, to take into consideration these two very regrettable cases and to compensate, in some way, these two unfortunate farmers. I am convinced that this problem will be brought to the attention of the minister concerned and, once the embargo has been lifted, in a few months, I hope that some arrangement can be made to the satisfaction of the farmers involved.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, there is one class of people with whom I sympathize greatly; I refer to the blind, those who have lost their sight. It is true that today they have a certain amount of relief in the form of a pension but unfortunately -there is a means test in connection with this pension. I do not quite understand how this means test is applied. The blind person who is in normally good health and can look after himself to a certain extent receives his pension and, because of his ability, undertakes to do some kind of work. When his return from it comes to a certain amount, it is taken from his pension. I do not think that is a desirable state of affairs. On behalf of the blind I wish to place before this house a request that the government reconsider these regulations and amend them in such a way that this means test for the blind will be abolished.
636	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Roberge
Another matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the house is that of exemption on income tax for students. When I spoke in the house last, I mentioned that matter and requested that an exemption on income tax be made for senior students in colleges and universities and that the age limit be increased from 18 to 25 years of age. We all understand the situation. Many of our people have boys and girls who, after attending school for eight or ten years, enter high schools and universities; and that is where expenses accumulate fast. I hope the minister concerned will give consideration to a new ruling that might be put into effect and providing for exemption on income tax for students and that the limit be brought from the present age up to 25 years. Naturally these exemptions would not be given freely but probably under certain regulations prescribed by the department requiring that these students have a certificate or sworn statement from the college they attend, which statement would be taken into account. I hope that suggestion will be given consideration.
In the Massey report we find that a national library has been advocated, and I am pleased to hear that it is taking form. Along with this I should like to suggest to the government another form of scientific institution, namely a kind of national arts and sciences council which would work in co-operation with the national library and with the national research council. The idea of this national arts and sciences council would be to create something of our own- in other words, something really Canadian- which we should have. For centuries we have been copying music from Germany such as the works of Beethoven, Bach and so on and we have been copying paintings from various other countries. I think it is about time that our own country, Canada, stood on its own feet. As we are growing and are becoming, as one might say, of age, we ought to be able to produce something that is really Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to spend too long on this subject, but in order to implement this idea, I might suggest that throughout the country we have many teachers in high schools, universities and so on who are pensioned off. They are still available to do fine work and they could be employed on this national council to the great benefit of the country. They might be engaged in the arts of various kinds such as sculpture or music and in the sciences of various sorts. I .think those teachers would be a great asset


to the country if' they could be permitted to carry on their work. When they reach the age of 55, 60 or 65, many of them could work for at least another ten years, having a small pension. They would be interested in these high sciences and in trying to create something that is really Canadian. I put this suggestion before the house so that it may be kept in mind when the national library comes into being.
In order to follow up this suggestion and to have good understanding throughout the *country, in our schools in Quebec we generally teach two languages. This is done in order to learn the views of our fellow Canadians and to create a better understanding throughout the country. We are now able to telephone from one coast to the other, and in a few years' time we may be able to see each other from coast to coast. Therefore, I should like to suggest that in the Englishspeaking schools where they now teach foreign languages, a preference be given to the teaching of the French language, thereby creating a better understanding of the east and the west. If the English schools in the [DOT]west would do as we do in Quebec, a better spirit would be created in the whole country. We know very well that those of each nationality are proud of their ancestors, and that is as it should be. We who are of French descent are proud of our French ancestors, as the English, the Scots and the Irish, or whatever they may be, are proud of theirs. The mother tongue must be taught first and fully; that is understood. As an alternative, if the students in other parts of the country who are learning some of the foreign languages that they may not use for years and years would give a little preference to the French language it would make for a better understanding and spirit throughout the whole country. I recommend that the schools and universities that are today teaching foreign languages take my suggestion under advisement and implement it in the very near future.
In closing, it is my hope that what we shall read in the newspapers in the next few weeks that peace on earth and good will to men is being meditated upon by all thinking people throughout the democracies and other countries, and that peace will prevail in the world.


Mr. G. R. Me William (Northumberland, N. B.):: Mr. Speaker, it is my wish and desire to follow the time-honoured custom and extend congratulations to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They both did credit to their constituencies and to themselves.

I wish to use the time allotted to me to try to bring to the attention of hon. members certain problems that face the maritime provinces generally, and in particular Northumberland, the constituency that I have the honour to represent.
Much has been said in this house by maritime members about the centralization of industries, and in this regard I also wish to impress upon the government that if the maritimes are to continue as an important part of Canada, the establishment and development of industries must be considered as vital to the economy, yes, vital to the very existence of the maritimes, which have given so much in the past and made so many sacrifices toward the development of central and western Canada.
While it is appreciated that we live in a country of free enterprise, nevertheless it is the government's duty to assist existing industry and to aid in the establishment of new industry and the development of power in sections of Canada where the economy is seriously threatened, as is the case in the maritimes.
The people of the constituency I represent recognize the need for large expenditures of money for national defence both at home and abroad. They are not unmindful of the employment provided by the construction and expansion of the Chatham jet operational and training base, the Renous naval ammunition depot and the St. Margarets radar station. Northumberland is the only constituency in Canada that embraces all three of these major defence installations. However, from a long range economic point of view, industries are needed to secure the future economy of the Miramichi. Hydro power is vitally needed in the province of New Brunswick to supply the requisite to the establishment of industries.
Like many other constituencies, Northumberland has local problems of grave importance which do not receive much attention on a national level. True, these problems to a large extent are left to our free enterprise system, or to provincial and municipal governments. The establishment of industries on the Miramichi to permit the manufacture of wood products such as pulp and paper mills, rayon mills, and other types of plants producing commodities made of wood, is looked upon as the only security of our future.
A former government of the province of New Brunswick was instrumental in having the Fraser companies erect a large pulp mill in this county. The public, the owners of the crown lands, have strong feelings in this matter and consider it only right and just
The Address-Mr. McWilliam that lease holders of large sections of crown woodlands should fully process, locally, the wood taken off the lands under lease.
Canada has had a large immigration increase and I again request the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to place new Canadian farmers on abandoned farms in New Brunswick, in an effort towards increasing farm products. Defence construction has been the largest single factor in the employment situation in Northumberland for the past four years. History has proven that markets for lumber, pitwood and pulpwood can be lost overnight. Now is the time to plan and establish industries and farming on a permanent basis.
Since the first settlers engaged in shipbuilding and the export of squared timber to Great Britain, Northumberland's chief industry has been lumbering. The fishing industry has made great strides in late years in the processing, grading and marketing of its products. It is hoped that further strides will be made with an increase in the number of draggers in the Miramichi fleet and the erection of cold storage plants, together with improved conditions in all phases of the industry. The Miramichi river, which flows for a hundred miles through the centre of the constituency of Northumberland, provides world famous delicacies of fish, among which are lobsters, oysters, salmon, smelts, clams, quahogs, and other species, as well as many standard varieties. Despite the many kinds of fish that live in the waters of the Miramichi river there are seasons when the catch is small owing to conditions beyond control. The maritime fishermen, like the western wheat farmers, run into bad weather, destructive storms, poor harvests and adverse market conditions. However, unlike the wheat farmers, they do not present a sad tale to parliament. They have suffered their losses of nets and gear, to say nothing of their catch of fish, and have relied on their determination to carry on-not on a vote of financial assistance from the government to recoup their losses. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, eastern fishermen work long and hard, year after year, against adverse elements to eke out a livelihood. They, as true Canadians, are worthy of every assistance.
The fishermen of the maritime provinces are entitled to the same degree of protection and assistance that is given to other classes of Canadian producers. With this thought in mind, I supplement my appeal made in the house on June 12, 1951, to the new Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and the government, to take immediate steps to provide protection for the future of the smelt fishing industry of the Miramichi.
833	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McWilliam
Further improvements of wharf and harbour facilities are needed on the Miramichi river for the fishing and wood products trades. I appeal to the government to give further consideration to my requests for improved facilities for certain small groups of fishermen along the shores of the Miramichi bay and Miramichi river.
In this regard I wish to commend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), and their officials, for the improvements already made, and again ask that consideration be given to requests made for further facilities.
While the smelt fishing industry of the Miramichi faces an insecure future unless additional protective measures are taken, the lobster fishing industry of the east coast of New Brunswick faces a more serious threat. Poaching of lobsters on the east coast of New Brunswick, if continued at its present tempo, can only lead to the loss of the industry in the years to come, with subsequent economic disaster.
Undersized and "berried" lobsters are poached by the thousands of pounds every year. The vast majority of the lobster fishermen are law-abiding citizens. Are they to stand by and watch a very small minority destroy their future livelihood? Additional water and land patrols are needed to cope with this situation. A rigid check must be maintained. Destroy the illegal markets and poaching will stop.
Reports are also heard of alleged illegal and wholesale taking of salmon, grilse and trout at the heads of Miramichi rivers and streams during spawning seasons. It is alleged that groups from outside Northumberland county take canning outfits to the spawning grounds, clean out the pools, and can the illegal catch. I urge the Minister of Fisheries to supplement protective measures, and eliminate these grim reapers by providing adequate protection.
A number of fish exporters of the Miramichi have expressed the opinion that Department of Fisheries inspectors of oysters, smelts and alewives make a much more rigid inspection in the Miramichi area than do officials in other parts of the province. The Miramichi fish exporters feel that the crux of the situation lies in the interpretation of the regulations and the individual differences in applying them.
At this time I wish to make a request of the Minister of Fisheries that departmental officials meet with Miramichi fish exporters and members of the Miramichi fisheries advisory council to discuss inspection and grading matters.


Once again I urge the Department of Fisheries and the government to give consideration to the setting up of a form of contributory storm-loss insurance, to protect maritime fishermen against loss of gear and nets by storms that are placed in the category of acts of God.
Direction is needed in setting up a contributory system of insurance; and I feel that this direction and assistance should come from the federal Department of Fisheries, in conjunction with the provincial governments.
Before I leave the important matter of fisheries, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an appeal to the Minister of Fisheries that immediate and full-scale action be taken to rid the Miramichi waters of great destroyers of fish, namely the seals. They not only destroy the fish, they also destroy nets; and their numbers are increasing each year. This is a most serious situation, and adequate measures should be undertaken now to eliminate these marauders.
I wish at this time to congratulate our Minister of Fisheries on his recent appointment. The people of the maritimes know of his many qualifications, his initiative, and his keen desire to bring his department up to the level it should have as an important department of the government. New Bruns-wickers feel that the maritime fishing industry will make many advances under the new minister.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express the thanks of the people of Northumberland, and in particular the thanks of the citizens of Newcastle, to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) for selecting Newcastle as the site of the first post-war armoury in the province. Newcastle is a focal point of military strategic importance. It is surrounded by three major defence installations, among the largest of their kind in Canada. The selection of Newcastle was well warranted, and I am pleased to say that the armoury will be completed very soon.
On a comparison with cities and towns in New Brunswick, the Miramichi area ranks first in military importance in respect to defence installations. In regard to the future program for the erection of armouries I wish to point out that the town of Chatham is in dire need of armoury facilities. With a jet operational and training base located there, its proximity to the St. Margarets radar station should give Chatham top priority when the erection of additional armouries is being considered.
It has long been the maritime cry that we have a deplorable lack of electrical power which would serve as an inducement to bring industries into our provinces. Many hydro

developments have been suggested and it is hoped that surveys will be undertaken without further delay. The joint United States-Canada projects, in conjunction with the state of Maine and New Brunswick, such as the Saint John river power development, and the Quoddy power project as well as the St. Mary's-Shepody bay development are pressing matters. All of these should receive further consideration by the dominion government.
The people of the maritimes, generally, favour the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. They have proven in the past that they support any measure that is to the advantage of Canada as a whole. However, the maritimes should receive the same consideration as other parts of Canada in respect to the development of natural resources. Maritime developments should not be left in the wake of projects in other parts of Canada.
There is a most important matter of vital concern to the constituency I represent, a matter that affects every part and every citizen of the riding, about which I wish to make some remarks. This matter of concern is the 1953 production of pit-props, also called pitwood-a wood that is used in coal and salt mines in many parts of the world. I am glad to notice the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) is in his seat. He represents the riding next to mine, and I think what I have to say will be of interest to him.
The Miramichi area of New Brunswick is the main source of production of pit-props, owing to the fact that there are large stands of jack pine in this area, a kind of tree that is most acceptable as pitwood, and which does not have very much commercial value other than as pit-props. The Miramichi area with its deep-water terminals is a natural outlet. Large amounts of money are derived by woodsmen, truckers and longshoremen from this industry, which plays an important part in the economy of the area.
In 1950 the United Kingdom withdrew completely from the Canadian market, on the basis that they were able to obtain their requirements from European sources at greatly reduced costs. Difficulties were encountered in 1951, and the United Kingdom returned to the Canadian market for some of their 1951 requirements.
Since that time very large purchases have been made from Canada. Up to the end of October of this year 306,719 cords of pitwood valued at $11,749,257 were shipped to the United Kingdom. It is estimated that close to 350,000 cords will be shipped to the United Kingdom by the end of the year.
The Address-Mr. McWilliam
In addition it is expected that exports of pit-props to West Germany will reach some 25,000 cords, and that approximately 20,000 cords will be exported to Turkey by the end of this year.
For the ten-month period of January-October 1952, 13,112 cords at a value of $483,284 were shipped to Turkey and 18,741 cords, at a value of $776,913, were shipped to Germany. The figures just mentioned represent a total of $13,009,454 for the 1952 export of pit-props for the first ten months of the year.
The values of pulpwood exports for the first ten months of 1952 are:
United States	$45,406,987
United Kingdom	 4,299,045
France	 1,953,829
Germany	 762,984
Netherlands	 98,713
Switzerland	 693,905
Italy	 128,233
Turkey	 158,473

The hon. member for Gloucester, speaking in this debate on December 1, said that for the first nine months of 1952 shipments of pit-props amounted to $1,812,902. This figure is for the month of September only.
The actual value of shipments of pit-props for the first nine months was $9,566,687. This amount is the highest value of pit-props that has ever been shipped in any nine-months period to any country; it is greater than the value of the total 1946 shipments, the previous highest year.
The member for Gloucester also erred in stating the value of exports of peeled pulp-wood to the United Kingdom at $152,086. This figure is the value of shipments for the month of September only; the actual. value of shipments of peeled pulpwood to the United Kingdom for the first nine months of 1952 is $2,279,051.
Again his figure of $6,507 as the value of rough pulpwood shipped to the United Kingdom for the nine-months period, January to September, 1952, is incorrect; the correct figure is $1,393,644.
The foregoing correct figures present an entirely different picture from the one the hon. member for Gloucester gave to this house on December 1. It is clear he was confused between the September figures and the total for the nine-months period.
I place the correct figures on the records as I feel that the member for Gloucester, a riding adjacent to the one I represent, must have compiled figures from an unofficial source. I feel sure that he does not wish to place incorrect figures on Hansard, thereby misleading the' members of this house and the public.

The Address-Mr. McWilliam
The hon. member for Gloucester, speaking on the figures he placed on Hansard, said, as reported at page 227 of Hansard of December 1:
These figures, Mr. Speaker, are tragically eloquent in their significance to the pit-prop and pulpwood operators, to the woodsmen and farmers of the northern and eastern part of New Brunswick.
I say, Mr. Speaker, the correct figures are magnificently eloquent. The Miramichi 1952 pit-prop export season is reported as the largest in volume and dollar value in the history of the port. Latest reports for the 1952 season of pitwood exports to the United Kingdom from the Miramichi area show:
Cords	Value
From	Chatham and	Millbank	28,225	$1,139,980From	Newcastle	and	Nelson	77,232	3,248,909From	Richibucto	
9,503	393,820
1952 pitwood exports to European countries, not including the United Kingdom, were valued at:
From Newcastle and Nelson, $227,628; from Chatham and Millbank, $39,527; from Richibucto, $166,337; from Buctouche, $339,15S.
Latest reports for the same area for 1952 exports of peeled and rough pulpwood to the United Kingdom and United States show:
Chatham and Millbank, $380,640; Newcastle and Nelson, $370,833; Richibucto, $643,018; Buctouche, $623,687.
I place these figures on Hansard because I feel there are many people in all parts of the maritimes who would like to see them, particularly in view of the fact that many newspapers have carried different sets of figures which in most cases were incorrect.
I wish to speak now about another industry in Northumberland county, the Christmas tree industry. Christmas trees to the approximate value of $325,000 were shipped to United States by rail and highway from Chatham, Newcastle and adjacent points on the Miramichi. This industry, a seasonal one, operates during the months of October, November and December and plays an important part in the economy of Northumberland. By proper cutting and rotation the small fir trees that grow on the Miramichi can furnish the Christmas tree markets for years to come, from which can be derived substantial revenues.
The year 1952 being the largest export season for pitwood and pulpwood in the life of the Miramichi, together with the long lumber and the fishing industries, the Christmas tree industry and large-scale defence construction programs of millions of dollars, with other phases of industry and business enjoying an accelerated pace, resulted in Northumberland reaching its peak year.

The present outlook for 1953 points to a drop in quantity and per cord price of pitwood for the U.K. market. Scandinavian prices for pit-props have been reduced and at the present time the U.K. inventories are substantial. It is anticipated that the United Kingdom will place a fair volume of pit-prop contracts with eastern Canada for 1953 shipment. Present indications are that quantities will be considerably lower than the 1952 shipments. It is also anticipated that France and Turkey will take a volume of pit-props during 1953. The United Kingdom's experience in 1950 in depending solely upon European sources should be a deterrent which should make her hesitate to again withdraw from the Canadian market.
I am sure that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and his officials, particularly Canada's trade commissioner in London, are doing everything within their power to secure the largest possible order from the United Kingdom for 1953 purchases of pit-props as well as from other countries.
While it is appreciated that this industry is of a free enterprise nature, the trade and those connected with it, from the woods to the wharves, can feel sure that every assistance is being rendered by the federal government.
The long lumber demand from Miramichi producers is at present normal. Early orders for 1953 requirements are being received, and while the price is down about $10 a standard it is hoped that overseas, United States and domestic demands will keep this industry on an even keel during 1953. The defence construction program in the Miramichi area is expected to be very substantial in 1953. This of course depends on the international situation. Other industries and business generally are expected to maintain the 1952 level.
I should like to ask members of the house, and particularly the members of the cabinet, to seriously consider the problems of the maritimes in the light of future existence and the necessity of industrial expansion. The constituency of Northumberland, New Brunswick, through which flows the historic and important Miramichi river, a shipping lane for ocean-going vessels of the largest types, like other parts of the maritimes, forms a part of this great Canada of ours. In it the descendants of the English, French, Scottish and Irish pioneers live in perfect harmony side by side, resolved, individually and collectively, to make Canada a still greater nation and to foster national unity in a true Canadian spirit.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, what Canada makes makes Canada.

What Canada produces produces Canada. Blessed is the country that can, and does, make and produce its own. Such a nation, wisely governed, is beholden to no man and to no combination of men.
On December 4, as recorded at pages 339 to 344 of Hansard,, I discussed the matter of the Canadian beet sugar industry as it relates to national defence. It is my purpose today to consider the question of the Canadian sugar beet growing industry as an eminently respectable branch of farm business in Canada.
Sugar beets are grown in soil and generally on farms. There can be no doubt that sugar beet raising is a farming enterprise. True, the sugar beets are processed in a sugar factory before their product, sugar, becomes available to supply human needs. But wool growing requires a processing factory to render available yarn, cloth and clothing. Wheat growing requires a mill to produce flour. Generally vegetables and small fruits go through a canning factory to produce canned goods. Milk is often processed-in creameries to become butter, or in the cheese factories to become cheese.
Therefore I maintain that, notwithstanding the fact that sugar beet growing depends for its welfare upon the sugar factory, there can be no doubt whatever that sugar beet growing is a branch of Canadian agriculture. Sugar beet raising has an unchallengeable right to a recognized place and a respected and even honoured membership in the splendid sisterhood of Canadian agricultural industries. Therefore I contend that no man or group of men has any right to kick the sugar beet industry around as though it were a noaccount cur that amounted to nothing. Sugar beet raising in Canada has by past achievement merited, and should freely be accorded, full title to a standard equal to that of grain growing, fruit growing, potato growing, dairying, fur farming, meat raising, sheep raising, tobacco growing, soya bean growing and the rest of them-and I may say that in the case of nearly all these products the constituency of Lethbridge, Alberta, is famous for its achievements.
Sugar beet raising is a branch of agriculture and therefore has an incontestable right to be exempt from all forms of discrimination from which other branches of agriculture are exempted. It has a complete right to be entitled to all forms of assistance to which other branches of agriculture are entitled, and that without reservation or question. Is there any conceivable reason why sugar beet growing should not, for example, come under the Agricultural Prices Support Act? While we are on the matter, how would you feel about 68108-54
The Address-Mr. Blackmore the consistency of a nation that would put an agricultural price support under a given commodity and then let in vast quantities of that same commodity from another nation, thus destroying its domestic production?
First let it be known without qualification that beet sugar, the major end product of the sugar beet, is in every respect exactly the same as the finest cane sugar. There are still people spreading lies around Canada that beet sugar is somehow or other inferior to cane sugar. These people are either deceived or they are downright hypocritical. Let me read a passage to support the statement I have just made. The United States department of agriculture, bureau of chemistry and soils, says:
It is not possible to chemically differentiate cane sugar and beet sugar by the physical appearance of the two sugars, and there is no evidence to show that cane sugar is sweeter than beet sugar or vice versa. It has been alleged at times that beet sugar has an unfavourable effect in making jelly and preserves. It has been stated, for instance, that beet sugar prevents jellying. The bureau of chemistry has conducted experiments in the manufacture of apple and grape jelly, using commercial granulated beet sugar and commercial granulated cane sugar under identical conditions. As a result of these experiments, no difference was found to exist in the finished products in any of their characteristics, and no difference could be detected between jellies made with beet sugar and those made with cane sugar. In all probability the failure to produce the desired jellying effect, which has been observed at times, has been due to such factors as deficiency of pectin in the fruit juice, absence of proper acidity, etc. The highest grades of granulated sugar on the market reach an ideal state of purity so far as all practical purposes are concerned, and it is believed that where the highest grades of commercial granulated sugar are used there is no choice between beet and cane sugar.
It would be in the interests of Canada if the government would issue a statement similar to the one I have just read from the United States government. How can a country be wisely governed and well informed when people are deluded by misstatements?
The sugar beet is a king amongst vegetables. The average sugar beet is from ten to twelve inches long, it weighs from 1J to 2 pounds, it is light in colour, something like a parsnip. I am taking some care to go into detail in the matter because I realize that a good many members in the house have never seen a sugar beet and there are certainly millions of people in Canada who have not seen one.
Sugar beets have yielded as high as 23 tons to an acre, a colossal per acre yield. A good average crop is 12 tons per acre which, in itself, is an enormous yield. A good sugar beet, if well bred and well cared for in good soil with enough water and sunshine, will carry a high percentage of sugar-as

The Address-Mr. Blackmore high as 16 to 18 per cent or more. That percentage stands among the very top achievements in the world. The average sugar content in Alberta sugar beets over the past twenty years has bordered closely upon 17 per cent.
Canadian land where sugar beets are now grown has good soil, adequate sunshine and water. Canadian irrigated lands are especially blessed in all three of these respects. The sugar beet is one of the surest props-one of the great anxieties in agricultural industries is the uncertainty of the crop, but sugar beets are almost a certain crop under most conditions.
No disease comparable to rust in wheat, or smut in grains, or blight in potatoes, remains unconquered in Canadian sugar beets. No insect pest comparable to the wheat-stem saw-fly, the corn borer and various kinds of weevil, is uncontrolled in sugar beets. Sugar beets, growing, are successfully resistant to slight frost, frost which would normally come during their period of growth. Sugar beets in summer have a fair chance of recovering from hail-which is again an important matter. The average Canadian fall weather does not prevent the harvest, or harm the beets seriously after harvest. Beet harvesting, usually, comes after the garnering of most farm crops and consequently the work of gathering sugar beets is economical in the farm schedule of yearly activity.
Sugar beets have a sure market in Canada if governmental wisdom preserves it for them. It ought to be recognized ordinarily, and I believe it is by all realistic persons, that it is proper for the producers of the country to have the first right to the market of that country. Sugar beet growers are assured of a fair cash price because the farmers and beet processors sign contracts, before seeding begins-guaranteeing the beet raisers an attractive initial payment on the beets when delivered, and participation in returns from sales of the sugar and by-products as the sales are made.
How well do sugar beets yield in Canada? The average tonnage per acre from 1925 to 1950 in Alberta was good. It was rarely lower than 12 tons to the acre. The average sugar content percentage through the same years was, generally speaking, good. Very rarely did it fall below 16 per cent and several times it went above 18 per cent. The average sugar yield per ton in Alberta is good, as compared with sugar beets in almost any part of the world.
The sugar beet is a king and a queen amongst vegetables in respect of the by-products that it yields Canadians. Someone has


said that if a sugar beet could squeal we would utilize even the squeal. That is how completely the sugar beet is used.
May we consider these by-products and what they mean in terms of nutrients for livestock? According to the fifteenth report and financial statement of the Alberta cooperative sugar beet growers, a very reliable organization in point of accuracy of knowledge, "in meat production the various byproducts alone from an average acre of beets, not counting sugar, produces as much meat as will the product of an average acre of corn." Now that is a most important fact.
While primarily it might be said that we raise sugar beets to produce sugar, yet in raising sugar beets we are producing per acre a crop of nutrients-animal food-equivalent to what could be raised if you were raising on that acre almost any forage crop that can be named, and raising it for forage alone.
There are four by-products. They are beet tops, beet pulp, beet molasses, and beet tailings. Now, what are beet tops? Those who have had experience with raising beets know that the upward part of the beet, probably to an inch to an inch and a half below the base of the leaves, does not contain sugar and may contain undesirable elements which can mar the value of the sugar. Consequently the upper inch or inch and a half is cut off when the beets are harvested. Thus we see there are left all the leaves and the upper portion of the beet itself. Those portions remain on the field or are gathered up and hauled in to be treated as any other kind of valuable nutrient would be treated. They constitute what is called beet tops.
How valuable are those beet tops? Silver Sunshine, the 1946 fall issue, at page 31, tells us that tops from the average ton of beet contain approximately 200 pounds of dry matter. This according to 27 experiments conducted throughout the western United States in 1943, will replace 100 pounds of alfalfa hay and 46 pounds of grain in fattening cattle and sheep. One hundred pounds of beet tops therefore equal 50 pounds of alfalfa hay and 23 pounds of grain. Now, a rapid computation of the figures I have given will readily enable any ordinary member to estimate just how much nutrient value there is in beet tops from a 12 ton crop.
What is the value of beet tops? Beet tops from an average 12 ton crop are worth $19.50 per acre as feed when alfalfa hay is $14 per ton and barley is 60 cents a bushel. Tops cured and well dried will replace grain at the rate of one pound of tops for half a pound of grain. This is all authenticated and vouched for in the periodical, Silver Sunshine, to which I have referred.



DECEM3ER 17, 1952

[Stage Direction]
The Canada and Dominion Sugar Company, at page 49 of its submission to the tariff board in 1939, reference 106, quoted from reports of the statistical branch of the Ontario department of agriculture to the effect that the past five-year average yield of alfalfa, per acre in Ontario, was 2-32 tons.
Then the report says "so that a sugar beet grower gets on an average about two-thirds as much value in stock feed from his beet tops as if he had cropped his land solely to alfalfa hay".
"Beet tops properly siloed are worth as much as the beets". So says the Silver Sunshine periodical in the fall of 1946, at page 10.
I have shown that one ton of beets will yield 200 pounds of dried beet tops, equal to 100 pounds of alfalfa hay and 46 pounds of grain. A 12 ton beet crop will yield 12 times 200 pounds or 2,400 pounds of dried beet tops equalling 1,200 pounds of alfalfa hay and 552 pounds of grain. Silver Sunshine in the spring of 1948, at page 22, says: "Livestock prefer beet top silage above all other feeds".
It must be obvious to everyone who is at all concerned about the welfare of Canadian agriculture that the sugar beet growing industry is not a matter to be lightly treated.
The second by-product is beet pulp. Beet pulp is fed to livestock both wet and dry. What is it? It consists of the remains of the beet after the beet has been passed through the factory, sliced and the sugar containing fluid drawn out of the beet. One ton of beets produce 100 pounds of dried beet pulp, according to reference No. 106, 1939, which I referred to a few moments ago as having been presented by the Canada and Dominion sugar factory.
In the last few years men have perfected processes whereby the beet pulp can be dried, shipped far away and preserved indefinitely. This fact is of great importance to our nation in the matter of feed supply in the event that we should, for any reason, have a failure in our forage crops in any given year; and that is something which can easily take place in any part of Canada.
Dried beet pulp is an extremely valuable feed. No other product on the market possesses its virtues. It is both an appetizer and a conditioner. It makes cattle eat more of other feed, digest it better and improve in condition. Milk cows fed with it produce more milk and more milk per pound of feed consumed. Feeder cattle fed with it gain weight faster and add more flesh per pound of feed. Show cattle take on a bloom which cannot be produced as economically in any other way. In 1938 the price was $15.30 f.o.b.
68108-54J
The Address-Mr. Blackmore the factory. This I gather from this reference to which I referred, namely reference No. 106 which will be the name by which I will refer to it from now on.
Beet pulp fresh has succulence of tremendous virtue for stock. Those who have fed milk cows without beet pulp and who have then fed beet pulp for the first time find themselves completely astounded at the results which come from feeding the cows beet pulp. W. N. Hermis, R. E. Miller and R. D. Jones say in Sugar Beet Bulletin, volume 5, 1941, No. 3, paragraphs 61-63: "A ton of silage pulp replaces 139-9 pounds of ground barley, 636 pounds of alfalfa hay, 44 [DOT] 2 pounds of molasses in feeding lambs." This is mentioned in the Alberta sugar beet growers' 1941 report at page 27. Lambs fed on wet pulp made even faster and cheaper gains.
Here is the second by-product of sugar beet. I ask any man in the house or in the country this question: Does he suppose for one minute that the Canadian people and the Canadian government can afford to neglect beet sugar production in this country, judging from the standard of feed alone?
I come now to the third of the by-products, namely beet molasses. What is it? It is what is left after the sugar has been taken out of the beet juice drawn from the beets. There is a certain point beyond which it is not economical to take the sugar out; it costs more to take it out than to leave it in. What is left is called beet molasses. It is a thick, dark substance, in some respects resembling crude molasses with which most hon. members are at least in some degree familiar.
How much beet molasses comes from beets? Four per cent of the beets is the general amount or 80 pounds of beet molasses per ton of beets. This varies to some extent, according to a number of factors, but that is a good general rule. It consists of sucrose to the extent of 50 per cent, soluble salts and water. It is rich in potash and contains some nitrogen. Beet molasses is useful for stock feed, for yeast making, for distilling, and for mixing with dried beet pulp. It is used increasingly in chemical processes, according to Messrs. F. O. Licht in a memorandum prepared for the economic committee of the league of nations in 1929 at page 25. This will be found in reference No. 106 to which I have referred, 1939, at page 25.
Approximately four gallons of alcohol is procured from the molasses of one ton of beets. The average sale price of beet molasses was $20.04 per ton in Alberta, according to E. D. Battrum in the 1943 report, page 12, of the Alberta beet growers' association. Canada
844	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore and Dominion Sugar Company's submission, reference No. 106, 1939, says of molasses at page 52:
From ten to fifteen thousand tons are produced annually, depending on the yield, test and purity of the beet crop. The total gross value in recent years has averaged over $100,000 annually.
That is from the Ontario factory areas with which most hon. members from Ontario are familiar. So much for the molasses. Judged from the molasses alone from beet sugar production, one would say that, under ordinary circumstances, any nation would be well advised to have the guarantee of an abundance of such molasses being produced domestically every year.
I mentioned beet tailings. What are they? Beet tailings are the little roots on the beets which are broken off when the beets begin to be processed. They are good for feeding swine, sheep and other animals as long as they last, which of course is not long. They are a fairly valuable by-product.
Because of the drying of beet pulp, sugar factories have begun to mix beet molasses along with the beet pulp and dry the two together. This mixture is being found to be an exceedingly valuable feed. I am reading now from an article by T. George Wood who was for years the president of Canadian Sugar Factories Limited in southern Alberta. In an article which appeared in Silver Sunshine in 1950 he says:
Weight and water in wet beet pulp has restricted, its use to those beet farmers within a somewhat close radius of the sugar factories. Only from 10 to 12 per cent of wet beet pulp is actual feed, and hauling costs are high.
He goes on to discuss dried beet pulp as follows:
Dried molasses beet pulp, as produced at the Taber sugar factory, will contain about 25 per cent of molasses dried with the sliced beet residue. It can be used to make up balanced rations of such combination of feeds that will allow every beet farmer to get full livestock production at lower costs. Such a ration should be based largely on home produced feeds.
Dried molasses beet pulp is in all beet districts where it is produced, one of the best and most popular concentrates for feeding to dairy cows, beef cattle and for finishing sheep and lambs.
And again:
Nutritionists stress the need of making concentrate mixtures with sufficient bulk to aid disgestion.
Every farmer knows that in feeding grain alone there is a tendency to form a sticky, pasty mass that becomes indigestible, and is likely to cause bloat and other disgestive troubles causing animals to go off feed.
Now that dried molasses beet pulp becomes available, it should form 25 per cent of the feeding ration throughout all the feeding projects in southern Alberta.
The expanding bulk of dried molasses beet pulp plays a most vital part as a digestive aid because of
[Stage Direction]

its water absorbing quality. It will take up five or six times its original weight in water without producing gas or bloat.
It is easy to feed. Used dry the animal will provide the water. It will make cheap farm feeds palatable and nutritious.
And further:
According to a summary of 42 fattening tests conducted by agricultural experiment stations, each ton of dried beet pulp fed with grain and alfalfa replaced 1782-2 pounds of corn and 835-6 pounds of alfalfa in producing gains on cattle or lambs. This means that each pound of dried pulp saved -89 pounds of grain and -42 pounds of alfalfa, or was approximately equal to 1-15 pounds of grain. The high fattening value of dried pulp is in part due to its ability when mixed with grain to keep fattening animals on feed without any set-backs and thereby to produce steady and uninterrupted gains. As a rule, it is customary to feed dried pulp, if available, as one-quarter to one-half of the grain ration. When used with supplemental feeds, however, such as mill feed, bran, corn-fodder or ensilage, it can be substituted for the entire grain ration if necessary.
I apologize to hon, members for taking so much time to read, but I should like them to know that what I am saying is absolutely authentic and can be relied on one hundred per cent. So much for the pulp and molasses mixture.
How does sugar beet culture affect the soil? Sugar beet culture wisely employed by Germany between 1870 and September 1, 1903, increased that nation's yield of cereals from 14 bushels an acre to 34-9 bushels an acre, which sounds astonishing, does it not? Over that same period Germany paid out $340 million in subsidies, benefiting the beet sugar industry.
Sugar beet culture thereby enabled Germany to support her population in respect of wheat, barley, oats and rye. Germany, in becoming the greatest grower of sugar beets, increased her average yield of cereals 80 per cent over the period 1879 to 1909. Over the period 1919 to 1923 the average yield of wheat in Germany was 26 bushels an acre as against 16-04 bushels an acre for Canada. Messrs. F. O. Licht, the well-known international sugar statisticians, reported these facts to the economic committee of the league of nations in 1929.
How comes this about? Well, in producing sugar beets they use a rotation. This is a rotation which is being worked upon by the Lethbridge experimental farm: Thirty tons per acre of manure are scattered upon the land upon which it is intended to raise beets. Then beets are raised for two years; then wheat is raised one year; then alfalfa is raised for three years; then wheat for one year, and then 30 tons of manure are put on again. Now, in order to get the best results with sugar beets some such rotation has to

be used. Consequently the result is an encouraging improvement of the soil.
Here is a vegetable, through the growing of which, Canadian farmers in certain regions can produce for Canadians two highly valuable crops at the same time, sugar, an indispensable human food, and sugar beet byproducts, which, taken together, constitute perhaps the finest stock feed known to man. Surely the considered conclusion of all informed and enlightened Canadians must be that the sugar beet growing industry must be recognized, respected and then treated, as a branch of Canadian agriculture, second to none, the peer of all, worthy to be the queen of all.
What must be the estimate of any Canadian government that would permit the agricultural business of beet growing to be seriously injured?
Mr. W. M. Mott (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have this opportunity to say a few words at this time. First of all, I am sure I cannot add to the many kind expressions that have been conveyed to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. At the same time I should like to convey to them my personal congratulations on the very fine addresses they gave at the opening of this session of parliament.
Since I represent a British Columbia constituency I want to say to our own Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) how much we appreciate the fact that two outstanding members of our province have been elevated to high and honoured positions in the cabinet. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) does not come here as a man inexperienced in that industry. Fifty per cent of his constituency is bordered by the fishing industry. He has always been closely connected with it, and as an engineer by profession I am sure he will make an outstanding and successful job of his position as Minister of Fisheries in the federal government. The Solicitor General (Mr. Campney) is certainly well qualified to hold the position he occupies in the Department of Justice, since he is a member of one of the largest legal firms in the west. Because of that I am sure he comes here with considerable knowledge to fulfil that position. He is also Associate Minister of National Defence. I might say that he is one of many of us who had to do the tough job of marching as private soldiers in the first world war. Later on he was promoted to the ranks of the flying corps as a flying officer. I am sure his outstanding
The Address-Mr. Mott knowledge as a veteran fits him well for the position of Associate Minister of National Defence.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I also wish to convey my thanks to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and his colleagues in the cabinet for their assistance and help last year in the development of the harbour and port of New Westminster. The loan of $1,250,000 to the harbour board for the extension and expansion of our docks, that we need in the west so urgently at this time, will go a long way toward taking care of the extensions that we can foresee before many years. I should like to express sincere appreciation to the citizens for the fact that only a few days ago they passed a bylaw in which they turned waterfront property valued at about $100,000 over to the crown for the sum of one dollar. That bylaw was passed by a majority of four to one. It shows the deep appreciation of the people of New Westminster.
Then there are some other matters I should like to discuss at this time, matters which have been brought to my attention in my own constituency, and which I think it is only proper that I place on record. The first of these has to do with the returned veterans. I do not refer to all of them, but more particularly to the burnt-out pensioners to whom the war veterans allowance would apply.
A few days ago I listened to the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) when he spoke concerning the veterans. I noted that during his observations he made use of an old saying we always associate with the late R. L. Borden. I think many of us will remember those words all too well. They were brief. His statement was that nothing would be too good for the veterans of the war when they returned. I may not be using his exact words, but I believe my recollection of them gives the proper meaning.
Let me say here that, along with many thousands of others, I returned from the first war. We might very easily place emphasis on the word "nothing" in that saying. Each of us received $70 a month for six months if we had served three years in the Canadian expeditionary force. We received $35 for a suit of clothes-and while clothing might not have been as expensive as it is today, it was certainly more expensive than it was at the time those young fellows entered the army. That $70 a month was given (to us while we were looking for employment, and we know that in that same year there were some 55,000 returned soldiers from the first war who went to the United

The Address-Mr. Mott States looking for employment. At that time there was no organization such as the Canadian Legion to look after the veterans who returned from the war. That is why I now mention that in my view it is necessary that some further assistance be given to them.
I am not going to quote what the hon. member for Battle River said, because it is all to be found at ipage 314 of Hansard for December 3 and hon. members may look it up if they wish. I would point out, however, that he quoted the remarks made in 1931 by the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, in which he set out the plan he had at that time for the veterans of the first war. It showed progressive thinking, and anyone wishing to read it will understand it as well as I do. It shows that not only the late Mr. Mackenzie King but other governments since that time have been acting progressively in trying to assist the veterans. It is true those veterans have not received everything for which they have asked, and this, of course, is no indication that they are not entitled to what they have asked. In this connection my mind goes back to the veterans affairs committee, of which I was a member, and the efforts of the opposition to embarrass the government by pointing out that everything that had been requested had not been given. I believe the disabled veterans received more than they asked for. Then there have been many other grants to widows and also for the educational advancement of orphans. I do feel, however, that the burnt-out pensioner has not received, to the full extent, what he should have had.
I am not going to follow the example of my hon. friends opposite by saying that we should give them this and give them that and then, in the next breath, preach economy and ask the government to cut down personal and corporation income tax. I am not going to ask that, while at the same time asking for large amounts for social services. I agree to a certain extent with our friends in the C.C.F. party when they ask for increased social services. I do not know whether I have heard them ask that the income tax be cut, but I do know the party sitting to the right of them, from where I stand, in company with the official opposition, seem to be preaching a program of economy at this time.
I have noticed that other hon. members who have discussed veterans' problems have not made the fiery speeches they have made on so many occasions. They have not placed themselves on record with such high pressure as they have formerly. Some have said that if a committee on veterans' affairs is .appointed they would like to serve on it, but


I have noticed that they have quietened down considerably in their pressure on behalf of the veterans, if one compares what they have said recently with what they have said in the past.
While I stand in my place and ask the government to assist these veterans, and go along with hon. members of the opposition and on this side of the house in stating that it is necessary to give further assistance to burnt-out pensioners, I cannot in the same breath ask the government to cut down on personal and corporation taxation. I am not one who believes that on the one hand you can ask for heavier expenditures by the government and, on the other, expect lower taxation.
This is all I am going to say, except that I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) will take note of what I have said. I realize, of course, that even this small request would cost two or three million dollars. The war veterans assistance fund, which was taken away last year for two months after the increase in the war veterans allowance, has not worked out very satisfactorily, but it is my hope that even today the allowance will be of great assistance to them, and I would hope that something further will be done to restore it.
I should like to say a few words about our situation on the lower mainland in British Columbia, in connection with television. I come from a constituency located twelve miles from Vancouver, known as the hub of the Fraser valley-and I am sorry the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) is not in his seat, because I know he would have some comment to make. For many years, however, my constituency has been so described. There are some 150,000 people in the area, including one who has the funds and the equipment to instal television. I have no quarrel with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as I think they have done a wonderful job in providing service in places where private stations would not have spread out if it had been left to private enterprise to handle our radio in the past. I think the same about television. We need cultural and other types of programs which they will broadcast. We are going to require that type of program. We now get certain television programs from the United States. I have a television set and I get good programs from Seattle, 145 miles away, the type of television program that the ordinary person wants to see. I have been connected with sports nearly all my life, and when I am home on a Friday night I like to see four or five good boxing matches from Madison Square Garden or Detroit. I have seen practically every big football game which has been played in

the United States. We receive many good sports programs, besides plays and other things of interest which we enjoy.
My main reason for bringing up this matter is what is happening in Bellingham, a city of some 35,000 people about 19 miles from the border and about 40 miles from New Westminster. A television station is being installed in that city. The following article appeared in a New Westminster newspaper. It is a B.U.P. dispatch from Victoria and reads:
Plans of Bellingham radio station operator Roger Jones to set up a television station serving both Washington and British Columbia will be proceeded with immediately, it was learned today in Victoria.
David M. Armstrong, manager of Victoria radio station CKDA, said he learned from Jones that the Bellingham television outlet is expected to be approved within a few months, and will not be delayed three years, as first reported.
Jones, operator of radio station KVOS, confirmed that he planned to beam programs to British Columbia, using B.C. talent, and said he will accept advertising from B.C. firms.
Armstrong conferred with Jones today in Bellingham, discussing technical problems in establishing television outlets. The Victoria radio station manager plans to set up a TV outlet in the capital city as soon as his application is approved by the C.B.C.
I hope the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) will take notice of that. Here is a station being set up in a city only 20 miles from the Canadian border with the avowed intention of coming into Canada to get advertising and beaming programs to Canada from the United States. I know it is the intention of the government to put television in Vancouver, but I submit that where there is need for a station the government should fix a certain time limit for private industry to indicate whether they wish to set up a station. That is all I am going to say about television at this time.
I do want to say a few words with regard to this great discussion that has taken place during the last few days regarding the Currie report. I want to reply to some of the points brought out in the criticism by the official opposition and other parties. First I want to make it clear that my army experience was as a private soldier. As you all know, that is the lowest rank you can have; there is no one under you. I see the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) smiling. I am not ashamed to say that I served three years and two months in the Canadian expeditionary force and came out a private soldier. I must have been a good private to remain in that position three years and two months. Nevertheless I did gain some experience of the Canadian army.
Reference has been made to pilfering, but I think the only pilfering I did was to take
The Address-Mr. Mott the $1.10 per day they gave me for three years. Some of the things in this report amused me and some of the points raised by the opposition also amused me. I think one of the main things on which you should have put your finger has been left out absolutely. The other day when this matter first came up for consideration it reminded me of a real military operation somewhere, with all the lieutenant colonels that were taking part. I have nothing against lieutenant colonels or generals. All these lieutenant colonels and other marched in just as they used to years ago; they had their operation orders under their- arms, but instead of using heavy artillery, all they had was pop guns and firecrackers.
One thing was quite noticeable. In this report which had taken that length of time to prepare and which covered so many matters, you had to jump one, two, three and four pages to find one line to complain about.


An hon. Member:: What a line.


William Malcolm Mott: It was quite noticeable that you stayed down at the bottom with some of the things, where some of this trouble started, and then went to the top to hit the administration. Why did you hit the administration? You hit the administration because you wanted to get at the minister. The only way you could get at him was to attack the administration.
An order was sent out by the deputy minister to the quartermaster general. Did any of the lieutenant colonels on that side repeat that? I never heard one of them refer to it. They know enough about organization and military matters, and I know enough about them as a private, to know that 90 per cent of the troubles refer to discipline. It does not come from the Minister of National Defence; it is discipline.
All those who are returned soldiers know that when we were over in England and wanted an extra bucket of coal in the night, we formed our own little operation. We went up to the guard at the fence and two of us kept him engaged there while two more crawled over the fence to get the coal. That is part of army life, and everyone knows that.
Those who were in the army of occupation after the war know that these things happened. How many of those officers across from us in the official opposition who were speaking on this question walked down the streets of cities in the Ruhr, in Brussels and other places and saw girl after girl and young lady after young lady walking by in beautiful coats made out of our blankets. They never had such clothes. These things occur in the army to a certain extent and the only way

The Address-Mr. Mott to stop them is through discipline, not by trying to get at the administration or the Minister of National Defence.
I notice some other things. Reference has been made to a hobby horse or something else. Today with our mechanized army we really have an army of tradesmen. If you are up in Churchill, not at Petawawa, gracious sakes alive; if someone wanted to build something, should that be investigated in this manner? These things can be enlarged upon, it can be said they are made out of mahogany or gold or something else, but it is much better for soldiers or officers to be busy making these things in their spare time. If they have nothing else to do in their spare time I think they should be encouraged to follow a hobby and make these things. It may not be horses but something else. Take the air force in the last war. Look at the number of A-l mechanics who came out of it. Some of them were overenergetic, and while they were studying and learning their trades they made many small things that they brought out of the service with them as souvenirs. I do not think we should be too critical of these things.
I get a laugh out of the horses. In the war in which I served horses were used for transportation. Horses or our feet; that was all we had. In our mechanized army of today I wonder if we have requisitions with "horse" marked on them. In looking over the requisitions to find one marked "horse" probably they could not find one, so the cost was charged to labour. It is labour just the same as the labour of man. The horse is a living animal just as man is a living person, and probably that is why it was charged to labour, although that may not be the case. We should look into these problems to find out whether or not the criticism that has been levelled is correct.
As one who served under the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) when he was general officer commanding the reserve army on the Pacific coast in the last war, I should like to ask him in a friendly spirit-he does not need to reply but I know he will agree with me-if many thousands of courts of inquiries were not reported to him concerning things that were lost. We all know what happened when a pair of binoculars or a revolver was lost. If you were the officer commanding a small unit with the rank of captain you got $240 a year and were charged with looking after $80,000 worth of equipment. They gave you two sergeants, a quartermaster sergeant and an orderly room sergeant and expected you, on a salary of $240 a year, to be responsible for $80,000 worth of equipment. I can prove that because I was

in that position. If you lost something you did not have much to pay for it out of $240 a year when you had to provide your army equipment, buy a suit of clothes and other small things and keep up with the Joneses. What did you do? In your own mind you probably knew that a certain article was gone, so you sent to brigade headquarters and they set up a court of inquiry. You could call the article lost or stolen, but it was gone. It did not always fall through the floor.
I know there have probably been thousands of such courts of inquiry. A lot of these things go with the army and always will. There is no doubt about that. Today in Canada it is difficult to get men to serve in the permanent forces. Men were quite willing to do so when they could go overseas and get into action, for the adventure or otherwise, but they are not so willing to serve in the permanent forces. Therefore I wonder how serious some of these things are from the point of view of the veteran. I think when the facts become well known to the thousands of private soldiers and other ranks of the first war and to the thousands who served in the last war they will realize that they ran into the same thing during their army life. I do not say they should steal railway tracks, but at the same time I was amused by that incident. I will be fair with the opposition. I do not condone the removal of two Canadian Pacific railway tracks and their replacement by tracks taken from the Canadian National but it is a strange thing that the railway companies did not notice what was taking place.
In any event I will be interested in hearing the remarks that are still to be made, but as a private soldier I want to assure the opposition that they certainly have not convinced me that this matter is as serious as their speeches would indicate. In the first place we had already heard about the Petawawa scandal on the floor of the house. Now we are opening up the matter again, which is only the right and proper thing to do; but I do not think the matter is going to turn out to be as serious as the opposition are trying to make it appear.
I am very glad to have had the opportunity of saying a few words. I am leaving tomorrow morning, and I appreciate the opportunity of being allowed to speak at this time. Three years ago I said a few words in the house and this is only my second attempt. I am not going to take up any more time, because I am certain there are many others who wish to speak before we adjourn for the Christmas holidays.

(Translation) :
Mr. J. A, Richard (Si. Maurice-Lafleche):
Mr. Speaker, it is with deep emotion and a sense of profound national pride that I address the house. May I first be permitted to offer my sincere congratulations and thanks to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne; they have both fulfilled their task in an admirable way.
Without going into every detail, I must say that the speech from the throne delivered at the beginning of this session of the twenty-first parliament mentions projects of the highest importance for the economic development and general welfare of the country at large. I am confident that all members of the house, including those of the opposition, are greatly desirous- of fulfilling their important duty as representatives of their compatriots, conscientiously and without ever losing sight of the common good and general interest of the people.
From the house I wish to send my best regards to the people of St. Maurice-Lafleche, whom I have the honour and privilege of representing, and I wish to thank them sincerely for the confidence they have placed in me.
It gives me great pleasure to associate myself with the other members of the house who have tendered their congratulations to His Eminence Cardihal Leger, Archbishop of Montreal, who has been raised to the rank of cardinal of the Roman Catholic church. I do so on behalf of all those of the same faith and in particular in the name of the good people of the constituency of St. Maurice-Lafleche. His Eminence may be assured of our admiration, deep respect and filial devotion.
I also congratulate our Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, whose talents are recognized all over the commonwealth and have brought him his new title of doctor of the university of London. Our whole country is, undoubtedly, very proud of her brilliant Prime Minister.
There is another member of this house who, since he has been in public life, has spared neither his time nor his experience in the administration of the department entrusted to him and whose task is probably one of the most delicate and difficult. I refer to the Hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) who was recently honoured with a doctor's degree from Laval university. I beg the hon. minister to accept my most sincere compliments and congratulations.	1
The Address-Mr. J. A. Richard
In awarding this doctorate to such an outstanding person, Laval university has given recognition to one of the best promoters of national unity. For this we must give thanks to the broad-mindedness of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to French language and culture in this country. All my fellow Quebeckers are, I am sure, happy at what Laval university has just done.
Mr. Speaker, I turn now to another subject.
I wish to acquaint you better with the St. Maurice district and particularly with the constituency of St. Maurice-Lafleche which I represent here. I will attempt to make these remarks as brief as possible, after which I will submit my suggestions for the industrial, agricultural and touristic advancement of this lovely part of my province.
My constituency has three main industrial towns, all situated on the banks of the St. Maurice river, whose total population now exceeds sixty thousand. First we have the town of Shawinigan, where I live, and whose population is now up to the thirty thousand mark, exclusive of the suburban community of Almaville or Shawinigan South, known as the largest village in Canada, with a population of ten thousand in itself. The town of Shawinigan is twenty miles north of Three Rivers. Although only fifty-one years old, she is the princess city of Mauricia. Her people hope that, before long, she will become the queen of Mauricia, with all due deference to my worthy colleague, the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer). You will find in our city a peaceful population, hard-working citizens and a competent labouring class. In addition to the electric power plants of the Shawinigan Water and Power, we have pulp and paper mills, aluminum carbide, textile and electro-chemical products plants of great importance. In addition to those already mentioned, there are about twenty industries of secondary importance which provide work for the people.
The city of Grand Mere is today separated from Shawinigan, so to speak, only by an imaginary line, since owing to the progress and expansion of these two sister cities, houses have multiplied along the whole distance between these two industrial centres. The population of Grand Mere is about 13,000. Its main industries are paper, textile and shoemaking.
If one travels northward for about sixty miles, along the St. Maurice, one comes to the nice little city of La Tuque, which has a population of 12,000; these people derive their living from an important pulp mill and numerous other private enterprises. In the neighbourhood of these three cities I have

The Address-Mr. J. A. Richard just mentioned, there are twenty-seven rural parishes. We may say, therefore, that the farmers of this area have ready markets which, in spite of the difficulties inherent to the area, are very useful to them.
I should like also to point out that the St. Maurice valley with its large fields, beautiful mountains, game-abounding forests and well-stocked lakes is admired and enjoyed by all nature-loving people. The tourist who pays a visit to this district cannot but be wonder-struck, cannot but prolong his stay and come back to it. This area offers all facilities for industrial development, so much so that, at a congress of professional engineers held recently at Shawinigan, a famous engineer stated that the St. Maurice area has known such an industrial expansion for the last fifty years that it deserves to be called the industrial valley of Canada.
Is this not an eloquent testimony to the participation of our district in Canadian industry? Hydroelectric power has always been the main factor in this rapid development; it is responsible for all our industrial production in its various forms. As a matter of fact there are seven power plants set up over a 125 mile stretch of the St. Maurice river, with a total capacity of approximately 206,000,000 horsepower. The total value of industrial production in the town of Shawinigan alone exceeds $90 million. The towns of Grand Mere and La Tuque also have industries with an annual production figure of several million dollars.
Our standing orders prevent me from reading into the record the names of any of the industrial concerns of a particular district. Nevertheless I would invite anybody who is interested to come and visit them on the spot.
I therefore suggest to the government the possibility of further developing Canadian industry with due regard to all the advantages offered by the St. Maurice district. According to Mr. G. K. Sheils, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, industrialists will, in the next few months, invest one billion dollars in- plant construction and equipment.
As for the tourist trade, which always brings in considerable returns, I suggest we come to some agreement with our neighbours, concerning the stabilization at parity level of both currencies. Either side would thus succeed in avoiding numerous annoyances and such an agreement would further profit the tourist trade.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of numerous heads of families in my county may I address the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)? I should


like to voice their complaints about the income tax scale. They have asked for exemptions up to $3,000. Considering the very high cost of -living and the numerous obligations of those who have a wife and children, I feel convinced that all the complaints I have received are absolutely sincere.
I agree that a tax reduction in this category of wage earners would entail a notable reduction in public revenue. However, considering the normal increase in the budget for each fiscal year, would it not be -possible to find compensation for this loss of revenue, while granting relief to the small wage earners?
It is no secret that there is in the province of Quebec a political movement known as the "Union des Electeurs". Like most hon. members, I believe, I receive numerous protests, resolutions and requests for amendment regarding some of our social and economic legislation. I have no doubt about the complete sincerity of those people. This at least tends to show the deep interest they are taking in all that pertains to public business, and I congratulate them for it. Some of their requests are fair and deserve to be taken into -consideration by the government. However, for the time being, it is impossible under our constitution to implement some of the reforms advocated by the "Union des Electeurs". These gentlemen may rest assured that I am always willing to receive their constructive suggestions and help them whenever possible.
In regard to the thorny problem of taxation agreements between the province of Quebec and the central government, there is little I could add to the recent and quite appropriate speech made by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) and the comments of the member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier). However, I ask all members of the house to take the trouble of examining the facts, not from the point of view of selfinterest, but carefully and objectively.
I might add that it would be much easier to come to an agreement if the Quebec government did not make a political issue out of the matter. In spite of what our opponents may think, the central government has always been very generous towards the provinces, although it does not seek all the credit for it. Too many people are completely in the dark about the large contribution made by the federal government to the cost of old age pensions and family allowances, which in my constituency amount to $2,804,000 per year. In addition, there are grants to universities, to hospitals and other national contributions to all kinds of associations devoted to the improvement of health services, to mention but those.

The Address-Mr. Knowles
To come back to this business of publicity,
I wonder how we must take the audacity of a certain Union Nationale member who, merely for reasons of publicity, no doubt, had his picture printed in a daily newspaper, handing over a cheque for $100,000 to the mother superior of a religious congregation in a great fit of generosity. Now this happens to be a federal grant. I was anxious to put matters right for the information of several people who have been misled and in order to warn the people against this type of political propaganda indulged in by our opponents.
I now come to another matter which has been mentioned very often in previous debates, that is, the question of a national flag. It will undoubtedly be said that the matter is under consideration, that a committee has already been formed to investigate the matter and so on and so forth, but the fact remains that Canada is still without a national flag.
Don't you find it rather strange, Mr. Speaker, that a free country like ours, both great and rich, a country that ranks among the great nations of the world, has been so long without a truly distinctive national flag?
In 1950, I had the great privilege of making a pilgrimage to Rome. Before leaving Europe, I made it a point to stay a few weeks in France, Belgium and Holland in order to visit the most important historical sites. Among these, Dieppe and Vimy, where so many Canadians won distinction for their bravery during the first great war, drew my attention and that of my three companions, Commander Albert Giguere, Rev. Raymond Cossette, parish priest, and Mr. Harry Desaulniers, a Shawinigan merchant. Accompanied by a French guide, who was a very eloquent patriot, I had the opportunity of examining at Vimy the tremendous work done by our soldiers as a prelude to a glorious victory. I read many of the names inscribed on the base of the huge monument. Many of these names were well known to us. These soldiers gave their lives to safeguard our liberties. My feelings of respect, pride and gratitude towards these courageous men were somewhat mixed with a certain feeling of uneasiness, which I could not hide. I would have liked to see these graves decorated with a national flag. Let us hope that before long those who thus gave their lives will receive from their country this last tribute. Their sublime sacrifice is worth it.
As we are now in the Christmas season, I take this opportunity to offer to this house my best wishes. My greetings go first to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and to every member of his cabinet. I wish health,
happiness and a long life to these men who contribute so much to the progress and development of our country. I make the same wishes for all members of the Liberal party. I hope that Providence will keep them for a long time to come in their present places.
I would also like to offer my best wishes to the members of the press gallery who spare neither time nor effort to keep the public informed on all social and political events which concern them. Health, happiness and long life; may the work they take on be more and more appreciated all the time.
I would not want to forget the hon. gentlemen who sit on the left. I extend my best wishes to them. May Providence grant them and their families a great deal of happiness, along with good health, and may Canadians continue to have only limited confidence in their administrative capacity, for the greatest good of the great majority of the citizens of this country.
(Text):


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, last evening the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) indicated that the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) would be speaking some time today with reference to the Currie report. I think it is fair to say that most hon. members of the house have been waiting with some anticipation for that speech. I too have been waiting for it for several hours. But since he is still in his place and has not yet chosen to speak, I feel that I should say a few words by way of comment on what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had to say this morning.
At the outset I want to congratulate the Prime Minister for his forthrightness in the statement he made concerning the fact that there had been an earlier draft of the Currie report in which changes had been made before it was presented to this house, in confirmation of the evidence which I presented on Monday. As I say, I congratulate him on his forthrightness in taking the house into his confidence, as he did; although, along with many other members in this house, I was shocked by what he was called upon to reveal.
He has confirmed the fact that before this report was presented to the house an earlier copy was placed in the hands of the deputy minister of the department that was being investigated, and that that deputy minister apparently was given the opportunity to "vet" the report before it was put in its final form.

The Address-Mr. Knowles I congratulate the Prime Minister for his directness in replying to one of my questions when he said that he himself was a bit surprised that this course had been pursued. I think the surprise he felt was felt even more strongly by many of us in this house.
Here is a case of a department being investigated as a result of certain scandalous events that took place. That investigation arose out of a demand in this house that such an inquiry be made. The promise that the investigation would be made, that it would be thorough and that it would be objective was given to this house by the responsible minister. As we now know, the report is a serious indictment of at least certain sections of that department and the people who come under that minister. Yet it appears that before it was put in its final form, the top people in that department were given a chance to look at the indictment that was to be made of them and to suggest certain changes. Mr. Speaker, most of us in this house feel that is a scandalous way in which to carry out an investigation of this kind. I confess that I felt a bit sorry for the Prime Minister in that he had to admit to the house that this had been done.
I wish also to extend my congratulations to the Prime Minister for something else. I do it with respect to the restraint which I felt he exercised in relation to another aspect of this whole matter. I can imagine some individuals in public life trying to cover up the really serious aspect of the matter by dragging in any red herring that might be found. I can imagine some persons in political life trying to blow up the questions which he asked of me. But he merely asked-and let it go at that-as to how the earlier copy of this report came into the possession of my leader the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). He asked the question-[DOT] which was one of natural interest; I find a similar interest all over this building-as to how that copy of the report came into the possession of my leader; but he asked it and let it go at that. In other words, he recognized the fact-and he made that clear to the house in what he said this morning-that the important aspect of the matter with which I confronted him on Monday, arising out of the fact that we had in our possession this earlier copy, was the question as to how the changes came to be made and why they were made.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been in touch with my leader by telephone since this morning's sitting. I regret that, owing to illness, he is not able to be with us this week. He expressed to me the same view as that which I took from the Prime Minister's

statement this morning, namely that the important question is not how he came into possession of the earlier copy but rather as to how and why the changes came to be made. In the light of that fact, I say on behalf of my leader that he does not feel obligated to say anything further at this time as to how this report came into his possession. He feels that the important thing for him to do has been done, namely that use should be made of the information that was in his possession so the public might find out what had happened. It is now clear to everyone that if he had not done so-if he had not carried out that obligation by asking me to raise this matter in the house on Monday-we would never have known that this report, this indictment of the Department of National Defence, was placed in the hands of the deputy minister for him to "vet" before it was presented in its final form to the minister and, through him, to the house.
As I have already said, we regard this as a very shocking situation. To us it indicates the attitude that seems to prevail in the Department of National Defence. It has already been made clear in the Currie report itself that it is an attitude toward public expenditure which is scandalous; it is an attitude toward public property which is shocking to the Canadian people, but in addition to that there seems to be this feeling on the part of the Department of National Defence that it is top dog, and that nobody has the right to question its decisions or its wisdom, the way it spends money or the way it operates its affairs. When, an investigation is made, it takes the view that that investigation must be submitted to that department and to its top officials before the results of the investigation are made known to the house and to the country.
I was similarly astounded on Monday- and I feel even more that way when I go over the records in connection, with this matter-at the fact that the Prime Minister when he tabled the report on Monday, gave us at the same time a memorandum on the Currie report signed by the chief of the general staff. I shall have something to say in a few moments about one of the paragraphs in that memorandum, but what I am saying at the moment is that there seems to be this attitude in the Department of National Defence. To me it is so at the political level, with the minister, and it seems to be so at the general staff level as well, that somehow or other they feel they are top dogs, that they can run the show in whatever way they say. That attitude is clear from what the Prime Minister said in answer to a question which

my deskmate, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) asked yesterday when he inquired as to why that memorandum from the chief of the general staff was presented along with the report. "Why, simply because the chief of the general staff asked that it be done." That was, in effect, the Prime Minister's answer. Well, who is running this government? Who is to decide what is to be laid before the house when an investigation is being made into this department? I thought it was understood that Mr. Currie was making the investigation, and that all we asked for, all we were to be given, was his report. But, said the Prime Minister yesterday, at pages 764 and 765 of Hansard, in the midst of the speech of my deskmate:
The explanation was that General Simonds requested that it be done.
It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of an incident back in the days when Your Honour first assumed the chair as Speaker of this house.
I refer to the flour milling report. You remember the information that we got at that time. It appears that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) showed that report to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). He did not like the looks of it. So he said to the Minister of Justice that that report must not be made public unless there was another statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at the same time so that the report of Mr. McGregor would not be misunderstood. Well, we took a very serious view of that position then. I take the same view now with respect to the apparent insistence by the chief of the general staff that at the very moment the Currie report was tabled, indicting the Department of National Defence, there had to be at the same time' a memorandum from the chief of the general staff making certain explanations and demanding that Mr. Currie substantiate some of the statements that were made in that document. Well, Mr. Speaker, I ask you the question: Who is running the show around here, anyway? This is a democracy. The elected people are the ones who should be in charge, and I do not think the chief of the general staff even had the right to make a request like that to the Prime Minister, let alone the Prime Minister yielding to that request.
I have had something to say about the memorandum by General Simonds. I note in particular that the part of Mr. Currie's report that he dislikes the most is referred to in paragraph 6 of his memorandum. The reference is to a certain section in the first part of the report, which brings us directly
The Address-Mr. Knowles to the notorious page 17. As I say, I appreciated the forthrightness with which the Prime Minister spoke this morning when he admitted, in reply to questions that were put to him later, that there were some questions to which he did not know the answers, and he said he would try and ascertain the answers in due course.
I think we have to be told somewhere along the line the full story about page 17 of the Currie report. The Prime Minister said this morning that he was informed that it was not the subject of discussion on December 1, at any rate, between Mr. Drury, the deputy minister, and the representatives of Mr. Currie. Later on in the same discussion this morning the Prime Minister said he had no explanation to offer for the changes on page 17. We find in the memorandum of the chief of the general staff that there is a particular complaint about page 17. We now know that the report, before it appeared in its final form, was in the hands of the deputy minister of national defence. We do not know yet whether he showed it _ to others. One of the questions I should like to ask is whether that copy of the original draft, which apparently has been returned to Mr. Currie, has on it the initials of other people who saw it, and if so how many people did initial it? At any rate, it is clear that it was in the department, that they had a look at it, and for reasons that have not been given, not been explained, it turns out that on page 17, which directs certain remarks against those at or near the top, certain changes have been made. As a matter of fact there were two changes on that page. One of them is already well known, the original having read:
But, if this spirit permeated the lower echelons of the army, it is more difficult to condone the same attitudes at or near the top.
As everybody knows, this was changed to read:
-it is more difficult to condone the same attitudes higher up.
In addition to that there was a slight change in the rest of the wording of that page. It goes on to read in the original form:
There, a higher degree both of intelligence and responsibility is essential. It was not present in the degree required.
The version laid on the table of the house by the Prime Minister has the word "always" inserted, so that it reads:
It was not always present in the degree required.
Now, the interesting point about the changes on that page is that they seem to soften the indictment on that page and in particular they seem to withdraw a bit of the heat that was directed toward some of those
854	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Knowles
at or near the top in the army and in the Department of National Defence.
I notice that during the course of this debate there is a tendency on the part of our friends in the official opposition to put all the blame at the political level, and I do not particularly quarrel with them; and I ask them not to get too excited for a moment because I agree with them that in our responsible form of government the final responsibility does rest with the ministers, with the elected people. But they, by putting the full blame there, are eliciting from backbench Liberals around the house interjections that suggest that backbench Liberals think the blame should be put on the general staff. What I do not like about that interchange and that conflict between the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals is the "either or" aspect of it. It seems to me from the terms of Mr. Currie's report that blame has to be attached at both levels. Blame has to be attached to some of those at the very top in the army itself for permitting condi-T tions which allowed these thefts and this pilfering to take place, and certainly responsibility for there being people at these top levels who would permit that kind of situation rests with the minister himself, and there is no doubt about it that the final responsibility is there. But I think we should make it clear that there is some blame attaching to some of the top army people as well.
Last night the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who I presume has read the report- although I wondered a bit, from some of the things he said-asserted that in his view the whole difficulty was not to be found in any fault in the auditing system, or other arrangements in vogue in the Department of National Defence, but rather in human frailty. Well, you do not have to read very far in Mr. Currie's report to discover that in his view the case is the very reverse. He tells us that there was an open door, and that the only reason there was not more of this was due to the honesty of so many of the great mass of those in the armed forces. I think this emphasis that the Minister of Justice placed last night on human frailty in reference to members of the armed services was unfair, because Mr. Currie says-and it is right there in the early part of the report-that it was a loose situation, an open door, and the only reason there was not more of this kind of thing was that the men in the armed services had not walked through the door that was left open for them.
Well, the whole situation certainly adds up to a shocking and disgraceful picture, and I hope there will be drastic action to deal with it. There are cries among some of the backbenchers on the Liberal side that something

should be done to some of those on the general staff. Well, anyone in the army itself who is responsible for any of the machinery, the attitudes and the psychology-and particularly that psychology described at page 17-should be dealt with severely. But certainly at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that a minister who has permitted this sort of thing to go on-and it has been drawn to his attention time and again; it is several years since some of us first referred to some minor things that the auditor general in his report drew to the attention of the Department of National Defence-a minister in whose department there is a state of affairs such as that outlined in the Currie report should be doing something else than being a minister of national defence. And I earnestly hope, even before we can get around to a chance to let the people of Canada decide upon this matter at an election, that the rumours are true that there is going to be a change, and that somebody else will be in charge of this Department of National Defence, important as it is to the people of Canada and spending, as it does, so large a proportion of the public funds of this country.
I must confess I was startled by the lighthearted and nonchalant references made a moment ago by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mott). His references were made to the sort of thing that happens under conditions of actual warfare. Surely that does not justify this kind of thing happening here in Canada in peacetime. I believe that upon reflection the hon. member will regret what he said today, making light as he did of these rather huge transactions in pilfering and in downright thieving. I do not believe the hon. member for New Westminster expressed views that he will stand by. I certainly think they are not the views of Liberal members generally, let alone the rest of us. I think, rather, that all of us take this whole question as one of very serious import and serious consequence, and I hope there will be action at an early date.
With regard to this whole question of changes that were made in the report, I say again that I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) upon the forthrightness with which he dealt with this question this morning. The fact that these changes were made indicates two things to me. One is that the changes that were made, particularly on page 17, seem to be with an eye to drawing away such heat as can be drawn away from highly placed persons. I do not like that. If highly placed persons are responsible for these conditions, then the report should have said so, as it did in the earlier version.
The other thing I do not like, and that these changes suggest to me, is something to which

I have already referred, namely the attitude the Department of National Defence seems to have, that it is running the show, that even when its administration has been called into question and is being investigated it has the right to see the report on that investigation, in its earlier form, before it is finally presented to the minister for presentation to the house.
I shall say no more at this time. But I do regard, as do all the members of this group, this whole affair as one that is extremely serious.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it is very surprising that the members of the government should have been sitting back for three days now, without having a statement of government policy with regard to this Currie report made by one of the ministers. It is even more surprising that this afternoon we should have had the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) sitting in the house for two hours or more, apparently ready to speak; and yet he has let Your Honour call for the vote on the subamendment, without rising in his place and making any attempt to justify or to clear up this question on behalf of the government. It is also worthy of comment that apparently the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has seen fit to give the junior member of the cabinet the responsibility of explaining the government's stand on this question.
In my 17 years as a member of the house there has not been a more serious or a more damaging report than this Currie report brought before the House of Commons. I am afraid members of the government, and its supporters in the house, do not realize just how serious the report is for the Canadian people. For it is highly critical, highly damaging, even after changes have been made which have the effect of reducing criticism of the government. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has just pointed out, it is so significant that this morning the Prime Minister was unable to explain the most damaging change, that which deleted from the original report the words "at or near the top" and substituted therefor the words "higher up". At the same time the word "always" was inserted, thereby greatly weakening the sentence which was so condemnatory of the Department of National Defence. This insertion makes the sentence now read, "It was not always present in the degree required", whereas the original report contained the sentence, "It was not present in the degree required."
The Address-Mr. Green
This situation is even more serious because the efficiency of the Department of National Defence is most vital at this present time. We are in a period of world tension with the civilized nations of the world divided into two camps, both rearming. We are faced with what is known as a cold war. Canada for the first time is in the position where her shores, and in fact many of her cities and probably most of the key centres, would be under attack in the event of a third world war. We lie on the air route between the Soviet union and the United States, and if a third war should occur Canada would be another Belgium.
This world situation is not one that will end in a matter of weeks or months. It is generally accepted that this period of tension, this cold war, may continue for ten or fifteen or twenty years. Perhaps no one who is in this chamber today will live to see the end of the cold war. As things stand at the present time there will be an end to it only if we go into what will be a very hot war. I repeat that under those conditions the efficiency of the Department of National Defence is vital to the nation.
The efficiency of that department is vital for another reason. Our people are being called upon to make a great effort, essentially in support of this defence department. Our young men are being asked to volunteer for service in Korea and Europe. Many of them have been killed and several hundred others have been wounded. This call is going out to the young men of Canada to make a sacrifice for their country. We see these advertisements in the papers every week urging our young men to enlist, to do their part to help the country. Surely the one thing to which they are entitled, without any question, is to have behind them a Department of National Defence which is even more efficient than any other department of government. It is not a question of the staff, or the minister, or his assistant; the Department of National Defence as a whole should be the most efficient department of government in Canada today.
Not only are young Canadians being called upon for these sacrifices; all Canadians are being taxed to a crippling degree in order to support the work of this defence department. I was amazed to read in the press this morning a report of the speech delivered last night by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). Unfortunately I was able to hear only a small part of that speech. This report states;
Justice Minister Garson said last night in the Commons that Canada is not overtaxed and the government does not admit any large-scale extravagance or carelessness in the civil service.

The Address-Mr. Green
The heading is, "Canadians Said Not Overtaxed". I do not know where the Minister of Justice has been in recent months, or in recent years in fact. He is probably the only Canadian in the whole nation who does not believe that the Canadian people are being overtaxed. He is just that much behind the times.
We have a sales tax in Canada of 10 per cent, the highest in the history of the country. This tax is levied at the manufacturing level and then pyramids as it goes down to the level of the person making the purchase. We also have an income tax which is the highest we have ever had in peacetime, and which is making it extremely difficult for hundreds of thousands of Canadians to save for their old age. They are being placed in the position where they have to rely on security measures of one kind or another. Our corporation taxes are so high that there is not sufficient money available in Canada for the development of our resources, and billions of dollars must be brought in from the United States.
As I have said, a great portion of this money which is being taxed away from the Canadian people is devoted to the work of the Department of National Defence. Almost half of our budget for this current fiscal year is for the requirements of that department. I repeat that if there is one department of government which must be efficient at this time, it is the Department of National Defence.
I submit that the Canadian people and this House of Commons are entitled to a full statement of what the government proposes to do to remedy the defects outlined in the Currie report. Furthermore they are entitled to have immediate action taken to clean up this mess. So far we have had no such statement from any minister of the government. It would look as though all we are to get is a delayed explanation by a junior minister. In saying that I do not wish to belittle the minister in any way because he is a friend of many years' standing. He is also a neighbour and one of my constituents.


An hon. Member:: Does he vote for you?


Howard Charles Green: I have not much hope of getting his support in the next election, but still I have to be a little careful. I repeat that this is not a job to be handled by a junior minister of the crown.	-
Steps should be taken at once to increase the efficiency of the defence department. That cannot be done successfully by the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). I say that for several reasons. He too is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, but I think he has the wrong

portfolio. He has shown clearly that he is not sufficiently practical to clean up a mess of this kind. We need only refer to the report to find where he has been negligent, and I turn to page 712 of Hansard where we find this paragraph in the Currie report:
Before reciting the irregularities and their circumstances uncovered by the R.C.M.P.-with the assistance later of the provincial police and the army provost corps-it must be said-
These are the important words of the paragraph.
-that internal warnings had not been lacking in the Department of National Defence. The chief auditor of the department had performed his functions conscientiously. Time and again he had reported unsatisfactory conditions. This is clear from appendix "B" which summarizes his findings over a period of years. The deputy minister in each case had directed the quartermaster general to investigate and report. Lack of adequate action at this point had, however, caused a progressive deterioration in the situation. Aside from reports being delayed for considerable periods of time, the record shows the next audit revealing conditions similar to those previously reported and, in some cases, worse. The process is then again repeated.
What greater condemnation could there be of the Department of National Defence? What greater condemnation could there be of the deputy minister; and as such it must be taken as condemnation of the minister himself. Long ago he knew or should have known of these conditions, and he should have seen to it that they were cleaned up. If he had been an efficient, businesslike administrator he would have had them cleaned up.
Then I also suggest that the attitude of the minister is condemned in a paragraph on page 716 of Hansard. The minister was one of the higher-ups at least, and he certainly was at or near the top. The criticism contained in this paragraph must be taken as applying to him as well as to others. I think it is a perfectly accurate criticism of the minister. The heart of the paragraph is contained in the words, "costs count not at all." That has been the attitude of the minister. I am going to read the whole paragraph because I think it is a very reasonable statement of what we would expect. It reads as follows:
The situation was complicated by still another factor. The Department of National Defence (including the army works services) -
You will note that the army works services are only given attention by being included in brackets.
-was largely staffed and manned by men whose military training had been received in wartime. Its establishment and administrative practices reflected more clearly the urgent need and exigencies of war, when speed is everything and costs count not at all.

The Address-Mr. Green
By the way, the minister's training took place in that same period, and I suggest that he has the attitude referred to in this paragraph. I continue:
The carry-forward of this war psychology must be coupled with inadequate training and resultant ignorance on the part of personnel of their administrative duties and responsibilities. There was, in addition, indifference and reluctance on the part of military personnel to concentrate on administration to the degree required. It was not perhaps unnatural that these latter needs were largely forgotten or deliberately overlooked as soldiers gazed forward into the unknown consequences of the Korean outbreak, and foresaw still greater wars not very far away. But, if this spirit permeated the lower echelons of the army, it is more difficult to condone the same attitudes higher up.
In the unabridged or unrevised edition the words are "at or near the top."
There, a higher degree both of intelligence and responsibility is essential. It was not always present In the degree required.
' The original edition does not contain the word "always". The minister had exactly that same background and his faults were the same as those of the others who were involved. It is to that this reference is made. It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, with this attitude that costs count not at all, that we find such heavy overpurchasing. We find tenders called for 62,000 serving forks. After protest is made we find that cut to 40,000 and then to 14,000. I hear now that the latest call for forks is only for 220, which is a great deal more in line with the number of serving or cooks' forks that are required. We have had the purchase of over a million pairs of shoes and all the other overpurchasing.
I prophesy that in the final analysis many of these things will be turned over to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation to be sold at fire sale prices. I think the time has come when civilian goods of this kind should not be purchased in such large quantities, because if there should be a demand for them they can be made quickly by the existing industries. That is the trend now in the United States. In the United States News and World Report of December 5 I read a statement that they are planning now in the United States to set up reserve capacity to produce the requirements rather than manufacture the actual goods in such large quantities and then stockpile them, thereby probably bringing about obsolescence in many items and altogether a great waste of money.
Just last week I had one more example of the way the Department of National Defence has been carrying on. I have here the specifications that have been sent out to the tailors of Canada for the making of a peaked cap for air force officers. The document is called,
"Tailoring specification to guide private procurement." There are five written pages of specifications for air force officers' caps and two blueprints. Here I have the first blueprint, which has to do with the chin strap on the cap. There are half a dozen drawings on it. I do not know whether they go down' to the millionth of an inch, but they go down pretty small. All of the first blueprint has to do with the chin strap to go on the air force officers' peaked cap. I see that on the blueprint it says: "Note: tolerance: unless otherwise specified all fractional dimensions
of an inch." The blueprint of the chin strap is dated October 27, 1952 and is issued by the directorate of interservice development, Department of National Defence. There is a note on it to the effect that it has been drawn by one individual and that the order has been placed or approved-I cannot read' the word-by another. It is approved by another individual and checked by a third. That is the specification for a chin strap for an officer's cap. It looks like a machine gun specification.
There is here another specification, even larger, for the cap itself. There is a view of the cap from the north, east, south, and west -and it is also down to ^ or of an inch tolerance. It has also been checked by three different officials in this directorate of the Department of National Defence. Now, what earthly hope is there of having an efficient Department of National Defence when you have business carried on in that way?
I say further that the Minister of National Defence cannot organize this department efficiently because he has failed time and again to heed the warnings given in this house. Not only have they been given to him for years, but he has always answered that everything was all right; why were we worrying? It was all a lot of waste effort. His attitude in the house was so different from the attitude of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) when minister of national defence for air. In those days he came into this house and told us frankly what things were bothering him. He said: My department has been making mistakes in this regard and in that regard. I admit it. And he asked the members to help him out. He asked them to give him suggestions for ways in which those defects could be remedied; but there is nothing of that kind with the present Minister of National Defence. He does not admit errors, and he has been pitifully complacent about these warnings that have been given to his department.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the one and only minister of the crown who

The Address-Mr. Drew can take adequate action to meet this situation. He and he alone can call for the minister's resignation; and what is required is a new minister. It is high time this Department of National Defence was put on a businesslike basis. Furthermore, the Canadian people are entitled to a statement by the Prime Minister on this Currie report. He cannot delegate his responsibility for explaining the government's stand to any other cabinet minister, and I hope he will give this house his views with regard to this whole question.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken on the amendment to the amendment I wish to deal with that motion and to indicate the course we propose to follow in regard to it.
The amendment to the amendment is put forward in the following motion:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following:
"(f) To recommend legislation providing for the payment to producers, in respect of farm-stored grain, of an advance equal to 75 per cent of the initial price as established at August 1 in each crop year."
In dealing with the amendment now before us, it must be realized that the rules do not permit us to introduce any amendment to the wording of this subamendment. We must deal with it in its present form, whether we like that form or not.
In effect this subamendment does two things. It is a proposal that legislation be introduced to provide for a cash advance to producers in respect of their farm-stored grain equal to 75 per cent of the initial payment the producer would have received if he had been able to deliver that grain to an agency of the wheat board. The other effect of this resolution is to express want of confidence in the government in regard to their handling of the very large grain crop this year.
In view of the fact that farm storage of grain is not normal in Canada under ordinary circumstances when line elevator storage is available, it does not appear desirable that legislation should be designed to encourage farm storage when satisfactory elevator storage is a practical possibility. On the other hand it now seems necessary, and urgently necessary, that something be done to make cash available to the farmers for farm-stored grain, if they are to meet their current debts and make the necessary arrangements for the next year's crop. That is the principle at issue.
I emphasized this in my own remarks in the early stages of this debate on the speech from the throne. I would like to quote what
fMr. Green.1
I said on November 24 regarding this very subject, and I am reading from page 27 of Hansard:
The whole system of handling and distribution has broken down. The government, no matter what its explanation may be, has failed to take effective steps to provide for the handling of grain, in spite of the knowledge many months ago, and the warnings many months ago, that this situation was going to arise. In western Canada today there are many farmers, with huge quantities of wheat and other grains worth considerable sums of money, who are unable to get money at this time to cover their harvesting and living expenses because of their inability to deliver that grain to market.
This is a situation with which the government should deal immediately. It is urgent and calls for attention without delay.
As evidence of the fact that the government has not been meeting this situation, I would refer by way of illustration to the evidence furnished by a reply which was given today by the Department of Trade and Commerce. In response to a query as to the capacity of the dominion government grain elevator at Lethbridge, the answer shows that in November, which was the peak month this year for the handling of grain, that government grain elevator-at a time when there is such an accumulation of grain in western Canada-had only one-third of its actual capacity occupied. In the answer by the Department of Trade and Commerce the capacity of that elevator is given as 1,250,000 bushels, but in November there was stored in that elevator 457,161 bushels. That is merely evidence to support the statement that the government should be taking action to deal with this question.
For that reason we certainly support the purpose of this subamendment in principle. Legislation should be introduced to make cash available for grain which it has become necessary to store on the farms because of the abnormal conditions this year.
In dealing with the wording of any amendment or subamendment it is not possible to cross every "t" and dot every "i". We cannot vary the wording. Dealing with this subamendment strictly upon the basis of principle, we unhesitatingly support the proposal for legislation which will meet the urgent needs of the farmers of western Canada at this time, in accordance with what I have already said on behalf of our party at an earlier stage in this debate. On the ground, and recognizing that much more needs to be said in regard to the details of the legislation and the procedure by which this principle would become operative, all of which can be dealt with when the legislation is actually before us, we do propose to support this subamendment and hope that the government will accept the principle which it establishes, so the farmers of western Canada

may know that they are going to be able to meet the critical financial problems which confront them at this time.
The other feature of this subamendment is that it amounts to an expression of want of confidence in the government in regard to its handling of the present grain crop. From what we have already said there need be no doubt that we welcome the opportunity to express by our vote the strong criticism we believe should be directed against the government for their failure to deal with this situation which was so clearly anticipated many months in advance. With that matter I have already dealt in this debate. They have failed to take appropriate steps to meet a situation which had been openly discussed for a long time. They have failed to make transportation facilities available. They have failed to make arrangements under which the farmers can obtain the necessary cash for their daily requirements and their future production. On this ground we support the subamendment as an expression of criticism of the gross incompetence of the government in dealing with a situation which was apparent for a long time,


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken on this amendment to the amendment I feel that I should say a few words with regard to it. I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has indicated that they will support the subamendment. As a matter of fact it is not asking for a great deal, if we consider the position of the wheat grower in the United States. We in western Canada farm under much the same conditions as do the wheat producers in the areas to the south of us. In the United States the wheat producers have what is known as a parity price for their wheat, based on the conditions which existed in that country from 1909 to 1914. Provision is made for a cash advance on farm-stored grain in the United States which is equal to 90 per cent of that parity price at the present time. That provision enables the farmer in the United States, under similar conditions, to obtain approximately $2 a bushel as an advance on farm-stored grain. In this amendment all we are asking is 75 per cent of the initial price of grain as determined by the government on August 1 of each year. On that basis, this year it would mean an advance payment of between 85 and 95 cents a bushel to the average producer in western Canada.
In view of the similarity between the conditions which exist in the two largest wheat-producing areas in the world, we feel that in western Canada we should have somewhat similar treatment. The fact that this or some
The Address-Mr. Wright similar payment is not made available means that in the fall of the year many of the producers in western Canada, in order to get cash to meet their obligations which come due in the fall, are obliged to sacrifice some other product which they produce. Quite often this takes the form of selling their livestock; and that is what has taken place over the last number of years. The farmer has not enough money available, under the initial payment and the quota, to meet his obligations. He is therefore obliged to sacrifice his livestock. That is one of the reasons we get congestion in our livestock market in the fall of the year, with the result that at that time prices to the producer are demoralized.
When I was in western Canada this fall we were marketing first-grade beef cattle at from 18 cents to 21 cents a pound, where they were under the weights required. Under the floor price legislation which was provided for beef at that time, an animal had to dress 700 pounds. There in western Canada, as I said, I saw first-grade beef cattle weighing from 1,000 to 1,200 pounds live weight, and dressing from 500 to 600 pounds, being sold for 18 cents to 21 cents a pound. After I came down east here to attend the session of parliament I happened to be on a farm in eastern Ontario, and the farmer showed me a return which he had received that day on a three-year-old Holstein steer which he had sold, and which weighed 1,600 pounds. He received 25 cents a pound for it. He received in the neighbourhood of $400 for an inferior beef animal which we were selling in western Canada, dressing somewhat less, for in the neighbourhood of $200.
If some provision were made whereby cash could be made available to farmers in Canada as suggested in this subamendment, I am certain that it would prevent chaotic conditions in the marketing of other agricultural products in the fall of the year. I see no reason why it cannot be done. It is all right for the government to say that the farmer can go to a bank and get money if he needs it, when he has good marketable grain in store on his farm. But there are many farmers, especially the smaller ones, who over the years have had little dealings with the banks. It is all right for the large farmer who has a section or two of land. He has probably had dealings with banking institutions over the years, and he can obtain the credit that is necessary to carry on in an emergency. The smaller farmer, however, the man who has not had dealings with the bank and whom the banker does not know, finds it exceedingly difficult to obtain the necessary credit.
I do not intend to press this matter further, but I think the government should give

The Address-Division
serious consideration to the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue).


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Campney:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, may I beg the indulgence of the house for a moment before it is called six o'clock. I have here a statement which was made in the House of Commons at Westminster this afternoon. It was agreed at fhe meeting of commonwealth prime ministers and representatives attending the economic conference on December 11 that Mr. Churchill should make an announcement before parliament rose on December 19. The announcement is in the following terms:
I am glad to be able to inform the house, that after consultation between the prime ministers of members of the commonwealth, and in accordance with precedent, it has been agreed that a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers should be held in London immediately after the coronation next year.
I understood that; Mr. Churchill made this announcement in the House of Commons at Westminster at or about half past three this afternoon.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Adamson
Argue
Balcer
Blair
Brooks
Browne (St. John's
Bryce
Casselman
Catherwood
Charlton
Churchill
Courtemanche
Coyle
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Drew
Fair
Fairclough, Mrs.
Ferguson
Fleming
Fraser
Fulton
Gillis
Graydon
Green
Hansell
Harkness
Hees
Herridge


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. J. L. Deslieres for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, before
addressing my remarks to the Petawawa incident and some related matters, I should like to dispose of the question that has been raised from time to time, I think twice yesterday, with respect to the retirement of Brigadier Connelly. I should like to do this by reading to the members of the house a statement prepared by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) which reads as follows:
Hon. members are well aware of the confidential nature of the relationship which must exist between the Minister of National Defence and his service advisers.
The head of each of the armed services is responsible for the efficiency of his service and it is part of that responsibility to make recommendations regarding the retention or retirement of officers having regard to the best interests of the service.
The chief of the general staff recommended to me that Brigadier Connelly should be retired and after discussing the matter with the chief of the general staff I felt that the retention of Brigadier Connelly would not be in the interests of the services or of the public and therefore approved the recommendation.
This retirement was dealt with entirely as a military matter and the Secretary of State for External Affairs had nothing whatever to do with it in any way.
That is the end of the minister's statement.
I have listened throughout the past few days with very great interest to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and his followers in their attempts to indict the Minister of National Defence and embarrass the government by playing up a relatively small matter into one in which they seek to involve the whole of the army and the whole of the Department of National Defence. The basis on which they seek to raise this amazing superstructure is the activities of a few crooks and thieves at Petawawa who stole and converted to their own use equipment and stores at the army works services depot there. By exaggeration and by irresponsible statements and unreasonable deductions, they have in my opinion succeeded in working themselves into considerable hysteria politically, which political hysteria they seek to pass on to the people of this country. Maybe that is just
The Address-Mr. Campney another way of saying that they appear to be endeavouring to play politics with the Currie report.


George Randolph Pearkes: On a question of privilege, the minister cannot read that into any remarks which have been made.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotie):: A whole lot worse than that could be read in.


Mr. Lennard:: The Currie report speaks for itself.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sure now that any remarks of mine will not have any effect upon the members of the opposition in this regard.


George Randolph Pearkes: Not if they are that kind.


An hon. Member:: Or on the people of Canada.


Ralph Osborne Campney: On that point I disagree with my hon. friend opposite. It might be helpful to members of this house and to the people of Canada generally, whom after all we represent here-


An hon. Member:: What representation!


Ralph Osborne Campney: -to have the situation
reduced to its proper proportions and dealt with coolly and factually, and with due regard to the use of words and some sense of proportion. The situation at Petawawa arose primarily from the operations of certain crooks, some of them within the service and some of them civilians outside the service, who conspired together to steal and convert and turn to their own use certain stores and equipment at Petawawa.
I should like briefly to run over the narrative of that phase of the matter. I might say that in the late summer of 1951 the provost corps, the inspector of quartermasters' services and the auditor general's representative in checking over the situation at Petawawa, which was growing in activity at a tremendous rate, found some minor irregularities. They were not very great ones, but they were sufficient to lead them to be reported to the department. That report was under consideration and remedial measures were also under consideration when the letter referred to in Mr. Currie's report was received. That was in October.
As soon as this letter was received the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were asked immediately by the minister to make a thorough and complete examination of the situation at Petawawa. This the R.C.M.P. proceeded to do, assisted by the officers of the provost corps.
By February of 1952 sufficient information had been accumulated to indicate that a conspiracy did in fact exist, as I have inti-
862	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Campney mated, and that individuals additional to those at first suspected were implicated in the conspiracy and theft. The minister immediately appointed local counsel, and later appointed Mr. J. W. Pickup, Q.C., now chief justice of the high court of Ontario, as senior counsel. Prosecutions were launched and that was announced by the minister in the House of Commons on April 21 last.
Those prosecutions were launched as promptly as the accumulated facts warranted and were pressed to conclusion as speedily as the processes of the courts would permit. Five military personnel and ten civilians were charged. Of the five military personnel, two were officers and three were non-commissioned officers. Four of the five military personnel were convicted and sentenced, as were eight of the ten civilians. In addition, disciplinary action was taken against a certain number of other military personnel as well.
The evidence adduced at the trials indicated that a fairly comprehensive system of collusion had been worked out between those within the service and those without. That is why it probably took longer than would ordinarily have been the case where a straight theft had occurred, to correlate the information and ensure that the guilty persons might be punished. That in brief is the story of the criminal side of the Petawawa matter.
I submit that in all the steps in that connection the minister acted with dispatch, the department acted with dispatch and the guilty people were in fact punished. I do not think there is anything very earth-shaking in that, because thefts do occur and conspiracies do occur. They occur in all phases of our day to day life. Because a bank is robbed, you do not seek to indict the president. Because gold is stolen from a mine, you do not start out by arresting all the directors.
These things happen. Nobody likes them; nobody approves of them, but they take place. The fallibility of human nature is not confined to any particular class of people or to any particular area. Yet from the strictures which I have heard, especially yesterday and today, it would appear that it is sought by opposition members to hold the Minister of National Defence liable for all these incidents of stealing, petty thieving and pilfering which occur throughout the tremendous properties, buildings and areas which the Department of National Defence operates. So far as the thefts at Petawawa are concerned, while nobody condones them, and certainly nobody approves of them, they were not as a matter of fact in the aggregate of very great magnitude-


An hon. Member:: We don't know what they were.


Ralph Osborne Campney: -and I think Mr. Currie's report indicated that.


Mr. Ferguson:: How can you tell what they were?


An hon. Member:: Mr. Currie does not know.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not know whether Mr. Currie knows, but he looked at all the evidence adduced in the police courts. He quoted a lot of it for the benefit of my friends opposite and he makes this finding or submission. On page 11 of the report he says:
The evidence examined does not disclose irregularities involving relatively large sums of money, but, rather, an impressive array of petty irregularities on an extensive scale.
Again he says:
No reliable estimate of the total loss can be prepared. It does, however, appear probable that the total loss resulting from misappropriations and irregularities by military personnel at Petawawa was not large.
Again at page 11


George Randolph Pearkes: Finish that paragraph.


Ralph Osborne Campney: -he said:
The police, too, have been able to recover by far the greater quantity of the missing goods, and these have been returned to stores.
It seems to me that what I have stated is a fair and complete record of the thieving itself and of the incidents that took place at Petawawa. The situation was a local one and would ordinarily be treated as such and dealt with by the police and the criminal courts. There is no new evidence cited in the report that was not available in the criminal courts, and that was not used there. In short, all the incidents to which Mr. Currie refers by way of evidence, as it were, took place in 1950 and early 1951, and were all public property a long time ago.
But there is another side of the Petawawa matter, and I should now like to address myself to that. I refer to the question of the operations of the Department of National Defence at Petawawa. Coincidentally with the minister authorizing the appointment of counsel, the launching of prosecutions and the criminal proceedings at Petawawa, in view of the extent to which these things seemed to have prevailed from the information that had been gleaned, involving, as I said, five military personnel and ten civilians, the minister took the view that he ought to have the whole situation reviewed apart from the criminal prosecutions to see what was the situation at Petawawa within the departmental picture. Accordingly he appointed Mr. George Currie to make a complete investigation. I should like to quote a few sentences from the minister's statement in the

house on April 21 when he announced the appointment of Mr. Currie. He said:
-I have engaged Mr. George S. Currie, chartered accountant of Montreal, a former deputy minister of national defence, to make a full investigation of the situation, security and accounting procedure for engineer stores, equipment and services at Petawawa and elsewhere . . . Everything possible will be done to get to the bottom of this situation and take such action and adopt such remedies as may be required.
I should like to observe in passing that the appointment of Mr. Currie was made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton), and was not made by the house or by the government. His appointment was made at the instance of the minister in an effort to find out what the situation was at Petawawa with a view to having that situation remedied. As I will develop a little later, by reason of the fact that Mr. Currie was appointed and engaged by the minister he worked with officials of the Department of National Defence. They worked with him. Everybody was interested in finding out what had really happened to permit a conspiracy of members of the service with outside civilians to develop at Petawawa. If the minister had been so disposed, I think he might very well have regarded Mr. Currie's report as a document privileged to him, but he did not take that view. He never did take that view.
On the other hand he never said in the house in any statement he made that he would table the report or that he would regard it as a parliamentary document. I am not raising the issue and I am not arguing it; I am merely saying the fact is that he caused the Currie report to be tabled voluntarily because he felt that members of the house should know what the situation was. I think in doing so he showed courage, although he has incurred certain opprobrium from the members of the opposition by reason of what was in the report. I want it to be clear on the record that the report was made by a man engaged by the minister as a minister.
Between the date of the appointment of Mr. Currie and the filing of his report Mr. Currie was given access, and properly so, to all records of the department and of the army works services and depots, and to all the information and assistance from the officials of both that he desired. The result was that he made a survey and a study not only of Petawawa, where the incident which provided the occasion for his appointment arose, but of army works service units at Toronto, London, Camp Borden, Barriefield, Vancouver, Regina, Quebec and Halifax. He visited army works service depots, studied their situations and based a report thereon.
The Address-Mr. Campney
He came to certain conclusions with respect to army works services in general and with respect to Petawawa in particular. His conclusions were in the first place that there had been some break-down in administration, supervision, accounting and security in the depots operated by the army works services, and I propose to deal with that a little later. He also stated, as indicated at page 2 of his report, that notwithstanding the fact that he did not think operations were all that could be desired, only at Petawawa were there any substantial losses from the irregularities. This is what he had to say:
It does not fit the facts to indict or to smear the whole army works services personnel because of the sins of a handful of crooks.
So far as I know he found no other handful of crooks than those at Petawawa, and he studied all depots throughout the country.


An hon. Member:: That is not so.


Ralph Osborne Campney: So far as his general recommendations and findings are concerned, he also stated that the system of accounting would seem to be a proper one but that it was not operated properly, and I should like to make some comment on that. Before I do so, I should like to deal for a moment-because I think we should look at these things practically and realistically-with the army works services, what they were and what happened to them in two or three years.
The army works services are chiefly maintenance units, small in size, which look after running maintenance and minor construction at army camps throughout the country. In most cases up until Korea or just before their work was not relatively very extensive. For example, at Petawawa camp in 1947 the army works services were on a sort of caretaker basis. It was a big camp, but they had about 100 personnel and spent probably $100,000 a year in maintenance of that camp. Now, as is indicated in Mr. Currie's report-and of course verified by the figures from the department-that has all changed. As he states at page 16 of the report:
During the 1952-53 period, the Petawawa detachment will expend something in excess of $1 million on its own account, as well as having administrative responsibility for supervising some $20 million of new construction-
In other words, from spending $100,000 per annum in five years that unit had to take care of spending $1 million and supervising another $20 million, while its personnel has increased from about 100 to between 400 and 500. I think any practical person will realize -in civil life or in army life; it doesn't matter-that to step up an organization from 100 to nearly 500 or we will say 450, and from spending $100,000 to spending $1 million

The Address-Mr. Campney per year and supervising the expenditure of $20 million per year as well is a big increase in duties and responsibilities in a short period of time. The difficulties that would be encountered in finding suitable technical people would be, and have continually been one of the most serious problems of the Department of National Defence ever since the expansion of the army started.
At Petawawa today we have two complete regiments with all ancillary services, over 4,500 people. We have a huge establishment that has to be looked after by the army works services.
I would now like to make a few observations with respect to what I said about Mr. Currie's statement that the accounting system seems to be all right but that it was not operated properly.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Accounting if necessary, but not necessarily accounting.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would like to make a few observations on that. In 1948 the Department of National Defence itself made an intensive study of the army works services and of the accounting and supervising system. A complete reorganization was effected, and now we have 16 works companies with 33 detachments distributed throughout Canada from Vancouver to Newfoundland and from the north to the south of Canada. V/e have a personnel of about 7,500. It was intended that this system of accounting and supervision would be introduced into the army works service units in 1950 and 1951 as fast as suitable personnel could be obtained. Mr. Currie, at page 12 of his report, recognizes the efficacy of this system when he says- and it is this system to which he is referring:
The fault did not lie in the accounting system, which was a good one had it been operated properly.
I want to make some remarks on that later.
It was a new system, based on American and British as well as Canadian experience, and embodied features which, theoretically, would have quickly checked irregularities as they appeared.
He also says:
The accounting system, however, was not properly operated, nor were the regulation inventories methodically carried out.
That is true and there are reasons for it. The reaction on the part of any member or any citizen would be: Why was not the accounting system carried out? I think that is a fair and reasonable question, and it is a question that should be answered. I will try, in my humble way, to give an answer to that question, although Mr. Currie almost does it for me on page 15 of his report when he says:
-the problems, difficulties and shortcomings of the army works services outlined above-


which he had dealt with-
__suggest that they have been caused for the most
part-but by no means altogether-by the tremendous and sudden expansion of its activities brought about by the Korean war and by the large scale defence program involved in carrying out our NATO activities.
Again he says:
The establishment approved for the army works services after the second world war did not envisage the sudden expansion which was to take place in 1950. It was designed to carry out a purely peacetime role of planning, development and construction on an annual expenditure of approximately $20 million. This establishment became quickly burdened under the impact of big scale rearmament. In September, 1950, the program was increased to about $80 million. In the following April, it was increased to about $200 million. The program envisaged in the 1952-53 fiscal year aggregates about $250 million. Tne magnitude of this responsibility is reflected in an investment in plant and buildings which now amounts to $750 million and is still rising.
The question which follows from that- because after all that is an enormous expansion-is, why could not the army keep up with the rapid expansion? Civilian industry cannot do it always, although it does do it sometimes. The pertinent question in my mind, and I think in the minds of all members, is why could they not keep up with it. Well, I should like to say that there are probably three reasons why the army was not able to keep up with that expansion. The first reason is, I think, the root of some of the difficulties that have been encountered in the army works services. The army works service depends, as far as its direction is concerned, on engineers and accountants. They must be available and they must be on hand at all those depots, and they must be competent and trained.
As the demand by the army for engineers and accountants grew, the civilian demand for the same people was also growing. As between the army and the civilian industry of this country, the civilian industry is not bound by any particular restrictions or regulations. They go out, and nobody can complain of it, and pay any price to get what they go after-if they can afford it. Now, the army has to operate on regulations, on rank, and on salaries and allowances. They cannot go out and get a captain of engineers today and pay him what they have to pay him, and then go out and get another one tomorrow and pay him something different. They have to operate within a framework. The same thing applies to their civilian supervisors such as accountants. In that connection, and I do not say so with any disparagement, they also have sitting over them a body known as the civil service commission. The civil service commission has its categories for accountants and it has its salary

range. As far as I can tell from looking quickly at the relevant figures, an engineer entering the armed services from college, or an accountant after his graduation, will take about five years to arrive at the point from which he could start in very many commercial industries.
That is a real problem, and you do not solve it by drawing something out of a hat. The department had to do the best it could and it had to try and train a lot of people itself. The department did try to train them while work was piling up and piling up still higher. As reasonable people, can hon. members imagine how much time the meagre staff we had in those depots had for training other people while they were also carrying out duties many times in excess of those which they had ever carried out before? That was the problem the department had to cope with.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question at this point?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say that it was a shortage of trained staff which caused this difficulty?


Some hon. Members:: No, no, no.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would think that is so, because we were understaffed at those places and duties were ever increasing. There is no question in my mind about that. Of course there is always the human factor too. I am not ruling that factor out because the fallibility of people also has a bearing. When you have to get a large number of people in a hurry you cannot be quite so particular about the type of people you get; and the people you get, whether they are on the civilian side of the department or in the army, are just like everybody else; they are good, bad and indifferent. You do not get all perfect people; because whether it is an army unit or in the civilian services of the Department of National Defence, there are always a few people who go wrong. But who does not have such people? Commercial companies have them. Every department of government has them. You cannot avoid that.
I would ask hon. members to keep in mind at all times that while we were trying to solve these problems there was a continual burden being thrust upon the army works services which in some cases was almost fantastic as compared with what they had had to do two or three years previously. That is a real problem for anybody to try to solve. I do not think any reasonable man will fail to recognize the effect of that problem on the development of a large service in a short 68108-55
The Address-Mr. Campney period of time, especially when we consider the increasing and expanding industrial life of this country.
The situation is now improved and is still gradually improving and will be restored, but it will take some time yet before all the various units are really what they ought to be. That is nobody's fault. It just cannot be done except gradually and steadily, and that is what we are trying to do. I think we should recognize that Mr. Currie was right when he said:
It does not fit the facts to indict or to smear the whole army works services-
I quoted that language before.


George Alexander Drew: What page is that?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Page 2.


An hon. Member:: Page 87.


Ralph Osborne Campney: He says:
It does not fit the facts to indict or to smear the whole army works services personnel because of the sins of a handful of crooks.
In other words we have to look at the two pictures. There is the case of the thefts and there is the case of the administration, and you have to look at them not only together but separately as well. I should just like to say-


George Alexander Drew: May I ask at what point on page 2 that quotation is to be found?


An hon. Member:: Have you not read it?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It should be on page 2. No, it is my mistake; it is page 3.
I have tried to show some of the reasons why I say the general situation was one that was created by circumstances beyond the control of the Department of National Defence or beyond the control of any organization to meet quickly and effectively in the light of the situation with which we were faced. I say that the opposition has sought to take the incidents at Petawawa and magnify them into a general criticism of our stores accounting system and, at least by inference, to say that the whole system has something wrong with it.


An hon. Member:: And so it has.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is your opinion.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I should like to take one incident and set it off against that. That is the case at Plouffe park. I should like to quote not a member of the official opposition -because I have not heard any of them mention this incident-but a member of one of the opposition groups, in connection with that particular operation. No. 26 ordnance depot at Plouffe park is one of the largest in Canada, of course. As of November 30 of this year it had a stock of $97 million worth

The Address-Mr. Campney of goods-almost $100 million worth in fact- comprising 30,000 different types of items. This depot turns over $30 million worth of stock a year and handles approximately 230,000 separate items. When we were considering this particular subject in the select committee on defence expenditure, we made a visit to Plouffe park and after we had done so the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) at the next meeting of the committee on May 27 said, as reported at page 287 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence:
What I wanted to see was a lot oi detail. And all we did see was these principles whereas what I was interested in seeing was how these principles were put into effect, how the record worked, how the stock gibed up with the actual record of stock kept-those were details in which I was particularly interested. I am quite sure none of us have seen them in the time at our disposal yesterday but I got the impression that we only saw what we were expected to see. I may be quite wrong but I do want to see something else.
It was arranged that the hon. member should go down to Plouffe park, look around and check up in any way that he liked, and he did so. Then on June 3, in the select committee on defence expenditure he said:
A week ago, Mr. Chairman,-
This is the hon. member for Winnipeg North again.
__I expressed some dissatisfaction with the conducted tour since I wanted to see things that I did not see. I said in committee that I wanted to be foot loose and on my own.
Then he goes on and says that he was given an opportunity to see what he wished and he says:
What we did was to take an indent at random and trace it all the way through till the stores asked for on the indent were issued out. I saw in detail what I had wanted to see previously, and from what I did see I am quite satisded that the system down there is as good as human ingenuity can make it. Of course we have to take into consideration that weaknesses in the human factor will break down any system, but the various checks on individuals should be adequate to prevent any loss.
Then here is the final sentence, which I commend to hon. members of the house because it raises the perennial question of security which is always relative as between how much it costs and how much you can hope to save. There is no rule that is inflexible. At page 337 the hon. member for Winnipeg North says:
To have complete security would make the cost so enormous that it would far exceed, I think, the losses that are sustained.
That is a comment by a member of one of the opposition groups with respect to a large operation, and I quote it for that reason-


Mr. Benidickson:: Is that member not a professional accountant?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that he is a chartered accountant. I quote those remarks for this reason, namely that there is a tendency to make it appear that Petawawa practically represents the whole picture. One swallow does not make a spring and what happened at a little depot at Petawawa does not really indict the government if some thievery occurs at that place. As citizens of this country and as members of this house I think we should be realistic and practical. From the arguments we have heard yesterday and today it would appear that it is the feeling of the hon. members of the opposition that the Minister of National Defence, personally and physically, should stand guard over every railway siding, look after every stores depot and every airfield, and generally be in all places at all times and see what goes on everywhere.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Osborne Campney: But when we are spending almost $2 billion a year I think that is just another fantastic opposition idea, that he should be able to do that.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Nobody expects him to do that. They expect him to do his job and hire the proper people.


An hon. Member:: Look who is talking.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I should now like to deal briefly with the recommendations of Mr. Currie.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Before the minister leaves that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order; sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A question can only be asked with the permission of the minister. If the minister gives consent to the question being asked, it can be asked.


George Alexander Drew: Give him a chance to ask it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not for the Speaker to give the hon. member a chance to ask the question. It is for the member who has the floor to decide whether the question should be asked.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I notice that my time is almost exhausted and I still have two or three points that I should like to make. If I have any time left I shall be glad to answer the hon. member's question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should point out to the house that the minister's time is limited to forty minutes, unless he has the unanimous consent of the house to continue at the * expiration of his forty minutes.
8G7


Jean-François Pouliot: On a point of order, I submit that the minister who undertakes the defence of his department has unlimited time, according to the rules of the house.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) on December 15 and 16 respectively made some reference to the question of recommendations made during the conduct of the investigation by Mr. Currie, and I should like to deal briefly with those observations. At page 695 of Hansard the hon. member for Nanaimo said:
You will notice that a flat denial was given by the Minister of National Defence that there had been any interim report; that he has had no further communication other than that brief conversation, which is reported, with Mr. Currie. One cannot help expressing amazement, when one reads the first page of the report which was tabled today. At the bottom of that page appears these words:
"It should be noted that interim suggestions made by me during my investigation have been already seized on, and important reforms are already being carried out."
On the following day the Leader of the Opposition said, as reported at page 759 of Hansard:
On the very first page I find these words addressed to the minister-
And then he quoted the same excerpt from the report and said:
Mr. Speaker, is it possible for any hon. member of this house to be in any doubt that those suggestions were made to the Minister of National Defence? Is it possible for any hon. member of this house to doubt that in any event those suggestions were brought to the attention of the Minister of National Defence?
The answer to that briefly is that Mr. Currie was appointed by the Minister of National Defence to look into the situation that existed at Petawawa and to check on other army works service depots and to advise him, to help him in arriving at any necessary changes or steps to be taken that would improve the situation. Mr. Currie and his assistants, from the time he was appointed, not only worked in conjunction with the service people and the civilians at all these depots but also with the staff at headquarters. He had access to all the files; he had all the information it was possible to give him, and he had every bit of help he could get from the department, either in outlying posts or in Ottawa. From time to time-there is nothing mysterious about it-his men observed weaknesses in the accounting division of the department and in other divisions also and detailed steps that they thought should be taken to improve the situation. These steps were taken. These steps were taken not by the minister. They were administrative steps taken all along the line wherever it was found that something could 68108-55i
The Address-Mr. Campney be improved. They were taken up with the subordinate officials, if they could be done in that way, and with other officials up to the deputy minister if necessary; but no reports were made to the minister. These were detailed recommendations making for the effective operation of the department. And I think they were proper. I think it would be wrong not to have made use of those recommendations as quickly as possible. But the inference that starts with that and continues along as if Mr. Currie's report was prepared or altered or handled by the minister or the acting minister is not true directly or indirectly, formally or informally, and I want to make that very clear.
I would like to refer briefly to the recommendations. In the time remaining at my disposal I am not going to go into them in as much detail as I had intended.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Temiscouata did raise the question as to whether the minister has unlimited time. I do not think I should be called upon to decide that, as I understand the house has given him unanimous consent, in any event, to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Go ahead.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I will not detain the house very much longer.


George Alexander Drew: So that there may be no doubt, there is certainly consent to the minister who is speaking to proceed. But when the minister takes it upon himself to say that certain things are not true, in view of the fact that he was not even a minister of the crown at the time these events occurred, I trust that he will explain from whom he obtained the information on which he bases his present statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall be glad to do that. I obtained it by telephone from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton).


John George Diefenbaker: That is hearsay for you.


Lionel Chevrier: You tell that to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell).


Mr. Howe:: You came all the way back just to say that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the kind of denial we get here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The recommendations in the Currie report were 44 in number, and they were classified into five groups. I am not going to try to deal with them in detail,
868	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Campney because no doubt the select committee on defence expenditures will want to do that. There are five classes of recommendations: those dealing with organization and control; those dealing with personnel; those dealing with accounting; those dealing with stores; and those dealing with security.
Of the ten recommendations dealing with organization and control, eight have already been put into effect and are operative now. I am not going to take time to analyse all those recommendations, but I should say that some of them were put into effect before Mr. Currie made his report or started his work, owing to the investigations and the plan that had been evolved by the department in 1948 and 1949.
Of those dealing with personnel, six recommendations in all, five have already been considered or put into effect or are about to be. Of the recommendations dealing with accounting, three have been put into effect. There were eight altogether. Of those dealing with security there are eleven recommendations, of which two have been put into effect.
The question of security is the most difficult of all the problems, I think, that confront the department. That is true for a number of reasons. It has been suggested that we put a fence around Petawawa, which would be about 70 miles. I do not know how that would work out. We have had a lot of suggestions on how to effect security in these large areas. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) touched the heart of the matter when he said that the question of security is always bound up with what it costs in relation to what you are likely to lose.
Those recommendations are all receiving study by the department; but they are not easy of solution.
Now, in concluding my remarks I should like to stress one point; that the basic problems of the army works services arose almost entirely from the stress produced by a cold war on a prosperous and expanding economy such as we have in Canada today. As a result we are in competition for technical personnel with people with whom, in some ways, it is difficult to compete.
I do not wish to maintain that our defence effort is perfect, but I do believe that it is an
honest, serious and	effective	effort	tomeet the	situation,	and to	provide	assound and	effective	a job as may	be
possible by the joint efforts of service personnel and civilians in the department. I should like to call the attention of the house to part of the statement made by the Prime IMr. Campney.]

Minister when he tabled the Currie report on Monday last and said, as reported at page 640 of Hansard:
Though the report was concerned only with one relatively small branch of the Canadian army, the works services branch, and confirmed the investigation of the police that regrettable offences had occurred, it will be found that it contains some severe and sweeping statements which should not be taken out of their context because the report itself says, and I quote:
"It does not fit the facts to indict or to smear the whole army works services personnel because of the sins of a handful of crooks."
And I commend this to hon. members in the house.
I would hope, therefore, that in a matter of this kind no one would feel that any political advantage could be gained by taking broad, general statements out of their context in any way which might reflect in a wholesale manner on the great majority of loyal officers and men in the armed forces, and conscientious and hard-working civil servants in the Department of National Defence.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but from my observations, it would appear that the opposition have decided not to act upon that plea.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: This is going on in Camp Borden.


An hon. Member:: A new leader.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Investigate Camp Borden.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That was a plea, Mr. Speaker, which I believe the Prime Minister made in the interests of the Canadian people and the defence effort of this country. I am beginning to wonder whether the members of the opposition are willing to sacrifice all those interests in the hope of acquiring some party advantage-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Rot.


An hon. Member:: Pretty cheap.


Ralph Osborne Campney: -in respect of the defence effort which is now being made on behalf of the Canadian people. If they pursue the course they are following, they will create bitterness and friction between the services and the civil administration side of the Department of National Defence; and there has been lots of evidence of that intent in the house in the last two days.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Don't tell the public that.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The opposition will not succeed in that, but it is a dangerous thing to endeavour to do.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask a question of the minister?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, not until I have finished.


George Alexander Drew: You are overtime now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You read for two hours.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: You would make a good prime minister!


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister does not wish to permit the question now, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) could ask it at the close.


George Alexander Drew: I simply ask the question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the minister gives consent to the asking of the question?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that the minister was not a minister at the time, may I ask him if what he is now saying is also as the result of a telephone conversation with the Minister of National Defence?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is the sort of question which the Leader of the Opposition sometimes-but not always-asks, and which I think requires no answer.
I would like to observe that the chief of the general staff and his service heads are doing a fine job. We have only to look at the results in Korea, in Europe and in Canada to realize that. We have an air force and a navy development, going on under service heads, that are outstanding, among all the nations in the whole NATO organization.
The civil side of the department is doing a very difficult job, and doing it well and effectively. Then, we have the defence research board which, in a quiet way, is doing a great deal of useful work. Success in our defence effort calls for the co-ordination of all these elements, service, civil, research and all the other elements which go to make up the Department of National Defence.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: And the horses.


An hon. Member:: Leave yourself out of it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that combination is doing a good job. I do not think that the depredations of a few crooks at Petawawa, nor all the wild and irresponsible propaganda the opposition is seeking to base thereon, are going to shake the confidence of the people of this country in either the government of the country or the Department of National Defence.
I should like to say one other word-and I may say in passing that I thank the house for having given me more time-I would like to say one other word, and this is to a large extent personal; that I regret very deeply, as
The Address-Mr. Campney I am sure most hon. members of this house do, that in the course of the remarks made by certain members in the last few days they have seen fit to make violent and, I believe, unwarranted attacks on the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) in his absence from this house. I think this is greatly to be regretted, in that he is absent in Europe attending a meeting of the North Atlantic treaty council, as head of the Canadian delegation. That is a most important conference. It is a group with which we have allied ourselves and to which we are making a substantial contribution.
I do not say this because the minister needs any words of mine to defend him, because I can say without any hesitation at all that the Minister of National Defence by reason of his integrity, his industry, his proven ability and, above all, by reason of his great achievements in leading the Canadian defence effort to the heights it has attained in Korea, in Europe and in Canada, speaks much louder on his own behalf than anything I can say.


George Alexander Drew: I simply draw attention to the fact-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have spoken in this debate, friend.


Mr. Speaker:: I presume the Leader of the Opposition is rising on a question of privilege.


George Alexander Drew: I simply draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that in his closing remarks the minister, who of course has no knowledge of the period that he was discussing, used the term "irresponsible" in regard to remarks that have been made during this debate.


An hon. Member:: Very fitting.


George Alexander Drew: I draw that to Your Honour's attention. In view of the very strict interpretation which you have placed on words during this debate I leave it with Your Honour to decide whether that is a proper expression in this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Leader of the Opposition takes exception to the word "irresponsible" probably the minister will not insist that it stand in Hansard. It is not a very severe term.


An hon. Member:: Very accurate.


Mr. Speaker:: Probably under the circumstances the minister would withdraw the term.


Ralph Osborne Campney: If Your Honour asks me to and rules it is unparliamentary, and asks me to withdraw I certainly will. It did not occur to me that it was an unparliamentary word, but I shall defer to your ruling.

The Address-Mr. Campney


An hon. Member:: It was very true.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the strict interpretations, and may I say new interpretations, which you have been making of certain rules-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I place before you the word '"irresponsible" and ask you to make a ruling whether that is or is not parliamentary as applied directly to statements of speakers from the other side.


An hon. Member:: The chickens come home to roost.


An hon. Member:: What would Charlotte say?


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition has the right to say that I have made new rulings or rulings which have not been observed previously. If I have done so, the Speaker has the right to do so and the house usually accepts them. I would not normally have stopped the use of the word "irresponsible" when used especially in the heat of debate and I would hesitate to say that that term is unparliamentary when referring to a statement made by a member of the house. If the Leader of the Opposition has any precedent he can quote to that effect, I shall be glad to enforce it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since you have asked me to make my comments on it I would point out that this word was not used in the heat of debate. The word was read from a written context.


An hon. Member:: No, not like yours.


George Alexander Drew: I would therefore ask you to decide as you have decided before, without any question, and make a ruling as to whether that word is parliamentary.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I make a ruling that it is unparliamentary of course I could not allow it to be used on any future occasion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then don't do it.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the house would want me to be quite as severe as that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: If I allow the word to stand now any hon. member can use it in the future.
I remind hon. members of that.


An hon. Member:: We are not afraid.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before you give your ruling-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking from my seat. I would point out that the effect of what you have just decided should be recognized by the house. Therefore I say that everything the minister said in his closing remarks was utterly irresponsible.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I had not made a ruling, but possibly in view of the statement by the Leader of the Opposition I should allow the word to stand.
(Translation):


Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I did not speak during the debate on the address in reply at the beginning of the sixth session of the 21st parliament. I preferred to comment on some of the bills brought before the house during the session. For this reason without further delay I would like today to congratulate the government for having complied with the legitimate wishes of all our compatriots by appointing a Canadian to the highest and most representative position in the country. Inasmuch as I am permitted to do so by the rules of the house, in the name of the electors I represent and in my own name, I respectfully congratulate the Right Hon. Vincent Massey upon his appointment as the first of a long line of Canadian-born viceroys.
The matter is not a new one. It had been discussed for a long time and this wonderful appointment was made in due course. All those whose love goes first to Canada who want to be Canadians above all were pleased with it. I said a moment ago that the matter was not a new one. Indeed, several years ago, in 1935, Mr. Maurice Ollivier, law clerk of the House of Commons, in his prophetical book, "Le Canada, pays souverain", wrote:
The letters patent appointing a governor should be replaced by revised letters patent appointing a viceroy who should be Canadian.
Why not avail ourselves of our status of full equality and fulfil the legitimate aspirations arising from our emancipation.
The appointment of a Canadian would symbolize the growth, the increasing independence of Canada.
Moreover, the appointment of a Canadian would be an excellent thing for Great Britain who would cease to be blamed unfairly for the mistakes of the representative of the sovereign.
The British empire of yesterday is now a commonwealth of nations bound by common economic interests.
It is with extreme pleasure that I congratulate the mover of the address in reply, my very good friend the member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Deslieres), whose constituency is next to mine, and a very beautiful constituency at that. I know this from experience since I spent with the new member the trying days of his electoral campaign. You can

see now that he carried this campaign to a victorious conclusion. I must add to these congratulations a tribute to the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) who discharged, as expected, in a wonderful manner the task with which he had been entrusted.
Mr. Speaker, we are now at the stage where the last vestiges of colonialism are going by the board. For several years now we have enjoyed the right to govern ourselves, that is to adopt the legislation which suits us best without taking into account the legislation of any other country. We have indeed obtained the right to negotiate alone our own treaties. We have obtained the right to a distinctive diplomatic representation abroad. We have abolished the right of appeal to the privy council, not only in criminal cases but in every other case as well. Our sovereignty is now complete. There remains, it is true, the right to amend the constitution, and on that point I should like to congratulate the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), as well as the government, for having obtained in 1949, on behalf of the federal parliament the right to amend our constitution in federal matters, a right that the provinces themselves have enjoyed since 1867 in provincial matters.
There remains only to obtain the right for Canada and its provinces to amend the constitution in those matters that relate both to federal and provincial rights. This, however, would not affect our autonomy, our sovereignty, for the simple reason that Britain would be only too glad to have the Canadian constitution, that is the B.N.A. Act of 1867, put completely into our hands.
It remains only for us to come to an agreement with the provinces on a method of amendment which would satisfy everyone, and which would protect at the same time federal and provincial rights, as well as minority rights which are exceedingly important to us. As a matter of fact, one should not forget that the federal members from the province of Quebec in Ottawa represent their province here as well as the provincial members, and that, like them, they are devoted to the tongue, traditions and customs of their ancestors.
However they do not forget that they have a sacred duty: not only must they be nationalists or provincialists but, above all, they must be Canadians. Quebec is our native land, but the whole of Canada belongs to us, it is our
The Address-Mr. Boivin larger mother country; why should we, therefore, erect a wall around the province of Quebec, in order to isolate it from the rest of the world and, more particularly, from the rest of Canada?
Canada is a great country, a truly beautiful country; it is a land abounding in all riches and all beauties, from the St. Lawrence river to the Rocky mountains, and across the golden western plains. The whole country is our inheritance and what a shame it would be if we ever had the idea of transforming it into a sort of Balkan area, when ten distinct provinces would each be led by some petty dictator, who would deem himself free to manage everything to his own liking and solely to his own advantage.
I am bound to say that my patriotism oversteps somewhat the boundaries of my province, though I retain strong ties with the land where I was born, with that province whose faith, language and traditions I shall always uphold whatever the circumstances. I am still happy to be a citizen of a great and beautiful country and to assert that I am a Canadian.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) on the masterful speech he made on this matter, on December 2 last.
Mr. Speaker, there is another subject about which I should like to say a few words, as it is linked with the first: namely communism. In principle, we all agree that communism is our greatest, our most dangerous and most insidious enemy, an enemy that threatens and seeks to destroy us. There are many ways of fighting it. The first and easiest way is to denounce it, but unfortunately that is not sufficient and we must take other means, that is prepare ourselves to fight that enemy.
Russia has been arming and mobilizing her military forces for a long time now. What will be the use of our oratory if we are not ready to clash on the day of decision, with the communists, with equal forces or preferably with superior forces.
What will be the use of all our prosperity, of our wealth, of all the institutions we will have set up, of all the houses we will have built, of all the automobiles we will have manufactured and of all the tractors or other agricultural implements we will have placed at the disposal of our agricultural people, if we are to be invaded one day, Mr. Speaker, by these barbarians who are watching us on the
872	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Boivin other side of the Arctic. All these achievements, all that wealth would be taken away from us and we would be reduced to slavery by an hostile power.
It is true that taxes are high, but it is a small price to pay for liberty. Our freedom is more precious than all our wealth; these millions that we are spending on national defence are very little after all, although they may sometimes weigh heavily on our shoulders, compared with the safety they afford and guarantee. In other words, taxes are an evil, but a necessary evil, and are to be preferred to the evils that would befall us if, due to a lack of preparedness, we were to be shorn like sheep in the slaughterhouse.
All these taxes for national defence, all this revenue is provided by direct taxation, that is by personal and corporation income tax. Should we leave this field to the provinces and open our country to invasion?
If I may say so, Mr. Speaker-and I believe you will agree with me-should our country be invaded and conquered by the barbarians who live under communist rule, there would hardly be any more discussion of federal or provincial or minority rights. There would be little talk of the Christian religion, of our language and of our traditions.
That is what must be understood whenever there is any discussion over the apportionment of fields of taxation between the federal government and the provinces. I sincerely believe that the defence of this country and the survival of our nation are more important even than highway construction, important though that may be.
While we are on this subject, I must add that we should come to the assistance of those who need our help, who are hungry. I am referring to those countries which live in the shadow of communism.
One must admit that we have now in our warehouses a surplus of meat and that we have to pay for such storage in order not to lose this meat. So why not distribute this meat to those who are on the verge of rebellion or of falling prey to these barbarians? We would thus give them a foretaste of the real sense of democracy.
Mr. Speaker, having referred to income tax,
I should like to repeat the request I made in this house on May 27 last, in connection with the worker's income tax. I believe very sincerely that the father of a family as well as the individual, with the present cost of 

living, is not sufficiently compensated by way of basic exemptions. In this connection, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) to the manner in which income tax collectors and their staffs go about collecting amounts which are in arrears of one, two or even three years. A letter is sent advising them that if the amount is not paid within fifteen days, a garnishee order will be issued and sent to the employer.
With the present cost of living, the ordinary worker finds it very difficult to meet his obligations and that is why in many instances, if the Minister of National Revenue institutes proceedings against them, that represents for these people a real catastrophe. I hope that my brief remarks on that subject will urge the Minister of National Revenue to convene his collectors in order to ask them, or at least recommend to them, to be a little more lenient, as well as remind them that they are our servants.
I am convinced that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), together with his advisers, can and must find other means of levying revenues for his needs, if such is the case, without inflicting so much harm on those I have mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, I now come to a subject to which I have already referred in the past. On March 19 last, I wrote a long letter to the Minister of Finance concerning taxes on cigarettes. I should like to discuss this matter during the few minutes I still have at my disposal. It is true that the last budget brought a reduction of three cents on a package of cigarettes, or of $1.50 a thousand.
I	remember that the minister had informed us that he had received a lot of free advice concerning this tax. I should like to tell you right now that I never gave any advice. I must admit though that had I been one of his financial advisers I would have liked to give him a bit of advice. Possibly the tax on cigarettes would not be what it is today. I have already asked him in the past to cut
II	cents off the tax-that was before the last reduction-not including of course Mr. Duplessis' additional 4 cents. This would have brought the price of our domestic cigarettes down to 35 cents.
Mr. Speaker, it must be admitted that approximately 50 per cent of our people smoke smuggled American cigarettes which they buy for 30 cents a pack, in order to save

money. A pack of Canadian cigarettes would cost 43 cents-that is with Mr. Duplessis' 4 cent tax-and you cannot blame them too much, in view of the present high cost of living.
With your permission I would like to make a survey going back to 1932 when cigarettes sold for 20 cents a pack. At that time, as will be remembered, there was an excise tax of $4 per thousand and a sales tax of 4 per cent. With these figures for 1932 in our minds, let us come now, if you wish, to the figures for 1952. Cigarettes are now sold here at 39 cents a pack, not including the Quebec tax. We must not overlook the fact that the excise tax has jumped to $10 per thousand and that the sales tax has been increased to 10 per cent. Let us say that the increase in taxation is the basic factor in the price increase of our Canadian cigarettes.
Considering that the per capita consumption of cigarettes in 1941 was 746 cigarettes in Canada and comparing it with the American per capita consumption during the same year, we find that the latter was 1,575 cigarettes. In 1942, the Canadian excise tax was increased by $2 per 1,000 and, during the same year, in the United States, consumption increased by 200 to reach the figure of 1,775 cigarettes per person. In 1943, the $2 increase in the Canadian excise tax had the effect of increasing the per capita consumption in the United States to 1,925.
So, Mr. Speaker, realizing gradually that the price of our cigarettes was much too high, our people have been buying more and more American cigarettes. This is the cause of the gradual increase in the per capita consumption of American cigarettes in the United States, which reached 2,400 cigarettes in 1950.
I have no figures for 1951, but I am sure they are still higher, because we see more and more smuggled cigarettes in Canada. The figures I have quoted are based on American production and they prove once again that per capita consumption in the United States is much higher than it should actually be, because of Canadian purchases of smuggled cigarettes.
The Minister of Finance stated during the last session that the volume of cigarette smuggling had been exaggerated. I am wondering whether he was not alluding to the statements I had made in the house when I said that four out of every five people were smoking American cigarettes. I am not the only one 68108-56
The Address-Mr. Boivin who thinks so. To corroborate my statements, I would like to quote an article from the Revue de Granby entitled "Between the lines" and dated April 5, 1952. I quote:
The budget brought down by the Hon. Mr. Abbott, who is hoping for a $9 million surplus in 1952-1953, will certainly not help police officers in their fight against the smuggling of American cigarettes. Citizens of the eastern townships will surely stop smoking Canadian cigarettes which cost 13 cents more per pack of 20 and continue to buy their smokes on the black market. Local club and hotel waiters tell us that 8 or 9 empty packages of cigarettes out of 10 left on tables by their customers are of American brands.
After reading that article we must come to the conclusion that some of our people think nothing of smuggling, as may be seen any day. On March 15, the Montreal Star published an item entitled "A judge tolerates smuggling". I quote:
Mr. Justice R. Herbert Barton stated yesterday that smuggling of American cigarettes into Canada was not too serious a matter. During the hearing in Toronto police court of a case involving a taxi driver whose car had been seized because he had smuggled American cigarettes, the judge said: That is only smuggling and everybody is doing it.
When a judge makes statements of that nature, I believe it is high time for the Minister of Finance to take action and reduce the tax.
I am convinced that the reduction of $1.50 per thousand, or 3 cents per package, has not brought about the increase in sales of Canadian cigarettes anticipated by the minister. Unfortunately, smuggling continues to the prejudice of Canadian manufacturers and of our national revenue.
I would like to quote here from an editorial which I found in La Voix de VEst of Granby, dated April 10, 1952, which bears out my contention:
As for cigarettes, we believe that a three cent reduction is ridiculous and that Mr. Abbott should have reduced the price to 35 cents per pack of twenty cigarettes with a view to increasing the consumption in Canada. It is evident that, as a result of the budget speech, the smuggling of cigarettes will soar again, because a great many Canadians will refuse to pay 43 cents for a pack of cigarettes they are able to purchase for 27 or 30 cents.
In the face of all this evidence, one has to admit that the excise tax reduction which I suggested would have reduced both smuggling and per capita consumption of cigarettes in the United States and lead to an increase in Canadian consumption. We like to smoke cigarettes as much as the Americans do; we smoke as many as they do. How can you explain that consumption in the United States is twice as high as in Canada? The explanation is simple. It lies in the difference between the excise tax in the two countries. In the United States the excise tax, for 1952, was $4 per thousand whereas in Canada, even

The Address-Mr. Boivin after the $1.50 reduction, it remains at $10 plus a sales tax of 10 per cent.
I do hope that we may cut down this far-famed excise tax when the time comes to bring down the budget. If we reduce this tax we will allow for the sale of cigarettes at a reasonable price. Moreover we will reduce smuggling and, by the same token, increase our own production and consumption.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that our manufacturers are subject to an abnormally high tax considering the price of their product, but I really believe it would be wrong to think that they would take advantage of a reduction in the excise tax to increase their profit. I really believe that the people of this country should not be left under a false impression, after the words spoken in this house by the hon. member from Bow River (Mr. Johnston) at the last session. That is why I would like to call your attention once more to the figures I mentioned a few minutes ago, while adding others in order to support my contention. 1932: retail price, 20 cents, excise tax, $4 a thousand, sales tax 4 per cent; 1952: retail price, 39 cents, excise tax, $10 a thousand, sales tax 10 per cent.
Since companies have, as you know, cartons of various sizes for sale to wholesalers, I shall take for comparison purposes the sale price of 100 cigarettes. In 1932, 100 cigarettes in 20-cigarette packs represented five packs at 20 cents, that is $1, excise tax of $4 a thousand, that is 40 cents, sales tax of 4 per cent or 1-3 cents, commission to jobbers, 10-5 cents, commission on retail sales, 17 cents.
The 100 cigarettes which sold for $1 in 1932, cost in taxes and commissions 68-8 cents; the manufacturer's selling price was therefore 31-2 cents or $1.12 for a carton of 18 packs of 20 cigarettes. For the purpose of my comparison-, I shall now take the retail price of 1952 which is 39 cents. Five packs at 39 cents, retail price, represent the sum of $1.95, the excise tax at $10 a thousand, $1.00, the sales tax at 10 per cent, 6 cents, the jobber's commission, 12-2 cents, the commission on retail sales, 22 cents, or a total of $1,404-
Cigarettes which sold at $1.95 a hundred in 1952 are costing, in taxes and commissions, $1,404, the manufacturer's sale price therefore being 54-8 cents or $1.97 a carton.
It seems to me odd indeed to hear people criticize the manufacturers' profits, without knowing the facts. The cigarette manufacturers have, within the last 20 years, raised their price by 23-6 cents for one hundred cigarettes and by 85 cents for a carton.


Let us keep in mind that raw leaf tobacco for cigarettes sold for 20-5 cents a pound in 1932, whereas, in 1951, it had more than doubled and cost 44-5 cents a pound. The raw products of the cigarette industry number a thousand and more and they have also followed the mounting trend of raw leaf tobacco prices. Further, we must allow for the fact that the cost of living has also increased for the cigarette manufacturers from 1932 to 1952. Within the last 20 years, they have raised the wholesale price, and not their profits by 85 cents a carton, and yet the manufacturers are being accused of increasing their profits, when the government has, by means of taxation, raised the price of these products by $1.97 a carton. The cost of living index had reached 190-4 per cent in October 1951, at the time when the raise of two cents mentioned took place. The cost of living had also gone up for the employees, who had obtained repeated salary increases. One of these sister industries is established in our district; I am in a position to state that its employees are well treated, both from the standpoint of salary and of security for themselves and their families. That is why I deemed it necessary to reply in the house to certain accusations made here by another hon. member, who made them with no ill intent, I trust.
I can only express once again the hope that the excise tax will be lowered so that Canadian cigarettes may sell for 35 cents retail. Then, for the small difference, our people will certainly smoke Canadian cigarettes. The increase in production will make up for the difference in national revenue so that it would be approximately the same as today.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) who more than 25 years ago sat with my late father in parliament.
I wish also to congratulate very sincerely the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) for the appointment of a citizen of Granby to the commission due to sail for South America on January 5.
Indeed, the city of Granby last week held a banquet to honour the general manager of the Granby co-operative who will be leaving shortly. I believe that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has found the most competent man in the province of Quebec in the person of the manager of the Granby Agricultural Co-operative. This is, to be sure, not only a tribute to the city of Granby, but to all the farmers of Quebec.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to offer my most sincere congratulations to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) who has finally given the city of Granby a long awaited post office building.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for your indulgence.
(Text):


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, before this debate concludes I want to say a few words with regard to the subject matter that was discussed for the greater part of today and yesterday. I want to refer, in a general way perhaps, to some of the remarks made by the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney). Before I do so, however, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney) on being taken into the cabinet. However, I wish that the subject of his first speech had been more inspiring than the one with which he had to deal this evening.
Perhaps I had better begin with what the Acting Minister of National Defence said at the end of his speech, or close to it. He referred to the statement made in this house by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on Monday last when he tabled this report. He read from page 640 of Hansard and I will quote again the words which he quoted from the Prime Minister's statement. They are as follows:
I would hope, therefore, that in a matter of this kind no one would feel that any political advantage could be gained by taking broad, general statements out of their context in any way which might reflect in a wholesale manner on the great majority of loyal officers and men in the armed forces, and conscientious and hard-working civil servants in the Department of National Defence.
The Acting Minister of National Defence quoted that statement, as well he might, with approval; but I suggest to you, sir, that many of his own statements from the report were taken out of their context. I imagine it would be unparliamentary for me to say that was done for political purposes.


Mr. Sluder:: What did your member get it for?


Angus MacInnis: That does not excuse the Acting Minister of National Defence. He is an individual acting on his own, and quoting with approval the remarks of his leader in this house.


Irvin William Studer: Your member was acting on his leader's orders also.


Angus MacInnis: No, he was not; and there was nothing quoted for political purposes.
The first thing I would say in regard to the very fine statement made by the Prime Minister is that he must be naive-and I think he is not-if he believes that an opportunity of this kind could be let pass without political use being made of it by the opposition. That 68108-561
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis is the nature of our political institution. As a matter of fact there is nothing the government could do here that could please the opposition except the mistakes it might make, and the same would be true if those who are on the government side of the house were on this side and those who are on this side were on the other side of the house.


Mr. Lesage:: They do not need to, because the opposition is making mistakes all the time.


Angus MacInnis: That is to your advantage, if they are, and you should not regret it; but you had better be concerned about your own mistakes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which are legion.


Angus MacInnis: I mention that, sir, because it has been suggested that a committee on defence expenditures is being set up; that if there is any further information required in regard to this matter it could be referred to that committee. After listening to the remarks, and watching the exhibition that went on in this house tonight, can anyone believe that there would be any chance in the world, a chance in one thousand, that any information would be brought to light that would in any way reflect upon the present government?


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: What about the report?


Angus MacInnis: Therefore if any further information is required, and I believe there is, the only way to get that information-and that is the way this information was obtained -is by appointing a commissioner who is free from the political associations that are inevitably connected with anything of this kind that is done here.
May I say in regard to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that he has taken, and very properly, a serious view of this report. In every word and in his attitude one could see that he is concerned; but the Acting Minister of National Defence made light of the whole thing tonight. He said nothing really of importance had happened; that nearly all of the recommendations, or in any case a great many of them, that were made in the report had already been put into effect. There is one answer to that, sir, and it is this. If the commissioner-and I hope I am using the proper term in regard to Mr. Currie-was not able to find in the department the result of those recommendations that the acting minister said had already been put into effect, of what advantage was it to put them into effect? Surely, just for the sake of making them he would not have made recommendations in regard to a condition which he had

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis found had already been remedied by the administration. That makes nonsense of the whole report; and the report is not nonsense.
The Acting Minister of National Defence read this statement-and I assure him that this was taken out of its context:
No reliable estimate of the total loss can be prepared. It does, however, appear probable that the total loss resulting from misappropriations and irregularities by military personnel at Petawawa was not large.
Then the paragraph goes on:
My view would be, however, that the generally lax administrative situation would give rise to waste and inefficiency far more costly in loss than that covered by actual dishonesty. The evidence examined does not disclose irregularities involving relatively large sums of money, but, rather, an impressive array of petty irregularities on an extensive scale.
Here the Acting Minister of National Defence quoted five lines taken out of their context, while the rest of the paragraph was as damaging to the administration as anything could be. May I ask whether that was done for political purposes or not?
Then we go further back; I cannot give the pages as they are in the report itself and I am reading from the text in Hansard. The Acting Minister of National Defence said: If a bank is robbed, surely one would not blame the president for the loss of the money, or words to that effect. But if the president or the manager left the door of the bank open, surely he would be subject to criticism for doing so, and that is exactly what was done by the Department of National Defence.
The acting minister went on to say that though there were camps at Toronto, London, Borden, Barriefield, Vancouver, Regina, Quebec and Halifax, no maladministration was found in those places, or no petty thieving of the kind that was found at Petawawa. But Mr. Currie said far more than that. He said:
The conclusion I have come to is that, while there has been a general breakdown in the system of administration, supervision and accounting, it was only at Petawawa that extensive irregularities over a prolonged period of time took place. The contents of this chapter are chiefly based upon my studies there, because of the existence there of a combination of factors: lax control, poor discipline and the presence of dishonest personnel. The combination proved disastrous.
The Acting Minister of National Defence glossed it all over as though it were of no particular importance whatsoever. Then he went on to take another few lines out of their context. He read this:
It does not fit the facts to indict or to smear the whole army works services personnel because of the sins of a handful of crooks.
But he did not go on to read:
At Petawawa, however, the crooks were present and took advantage of the situation, and it is an unhappy circumstance that the beginning of this

investigation lies not inside the Department of National Defence and its full complement of regulations and supervising personnel, but with the receipt of an anonymous letter couched in the following terms:
Had it not been for the fact that someone took the trouble to write to the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned these things would be going on yet. Surely, Mr. Speaker, under conditions of that kind the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is open to criticism. And it is sheer impudence for anyone to come here and talk on his behalf and say that he is not. Either he is responsible for what has happened or no one has responsibility at all in matters of this kind.
So I would suggest to hon. members on both sides of the house that, while we cannot altogether get away from political associations in parliamentary procedures, for the good of Canada and for the morale and good of the men who are now serving in the forces and who are carrying out their duties under most difficult circumstances, we should not allow such things as happened at Petawawa to go by without placing the blame where it should be placed, showing the people of Canada and the men in our armed services that we think more of the sacrifices they are making than to allow any laxity in administration, and through not paying attention to even small things. We should not allow, as it says here, a handful of crooks to do what has been done.
Let me repeat what I said in the beginning, that if there is any further information required in connection with this matter, it should not be referred to the committee to be set up on defence expenditures, because that is just the way not to find out what is going on. I have been here long enough and I have been on enough committees to know that the government majority on a committee, if they can prevent it-and there are fairly astute people on committees, including lawyers and others who are adept at covering up-will not let these things come to light. Things should come to light, if they are there.
I would suggest that if this matter does go to the committee on defence expenditures that is to be set up, the chairman of that committee, whoever he may be, should say, "Gentlemen, the lid is off. If there is anything here that should be exposed, then we are going to expose it, regardless of who is going to get hurt in the process". That is the only way in which honest, efficient and democratic government can be carried on.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join other hon.

members in extending my best wishes to Hon. Robert Mayhew, former minister of fisheries, who comes from British Columbia and who has now taken on a new task as the representative of Canada in Japan. He goes to this task after a long and distinguished career, and I am sure he will acquit himself with distinction in this new field.
I am particularly pleased that, finally, the government has recognized the stature of British Columbia by having seen fit to appoint two cabinet ministers from that province. I am pleased to note that the Prime Minister has chosen two men of proven ability to fill these two important posts. I would say to him and to his colleagues in the cabinet that they would do well if, very often, they were to listen to the sage advice of these two ministers. I might say, too, that British Columbia may now expect the completion of many of the things that have long been deferred. Perhaps with the persuasive eloquence of these two hon. gentlemen something will come to pass.
In passing I should like to make only one or two comments about private television. It seems to me that the government's policy in television is somewhat akin to its policy in respect of Trans-Canada Air Lines. I would like to be able to say that I thought the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been operated as well as Trans-Canada Air Lines; but I can say that there is a parallel in these two organizations in the fact that both retain for themselves any plums to be found in the business life of Canada, and they allow private aeroplanes or, as in this instance, private television to take the scraps that are left. Sometimes these scraps are in very doubtful spheres, so far as economics are concerned.
I would sincerely like to see the government give one private station out in Vancouver an opportunity to come in and begin to operate now. I have had the assurance from a man interested in putting his money into this field of enterprise that he could have television for Vancouver within six months. If that is so I would like to see the minister give that gentleman the opportunity to do so.
I would say also to the British Columbia cabinet ministers that I would like to have them prevail upon their colleagues to see to it that the committee on veterans affairs is set up again when we return after the Christmas recess, so that we may give careful consideration to the representations made in the brief submitted to us by the Canadian Legion.
Then I should like to speak for a moment or two regarding our highway on Vancouver
The Address-Mr. Gibson island. I hate being parochial at a time like this, when there are so many grave problems before the House of Commons, but I think in this instance Vancouver island has been badly neglected. By some curious circumstance the trans-Canada highway goes to Vancouver, then jumps to Nanaimo, and then proceeds east to Victoria. Just how they arrived at the conclusion that Victoria should be the terminus of the trans-Canada highway, I cannot say. But I would ask the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) to consult with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and the new members of the government from British Columbia, to see if we cannot have the trans-Canada highway go from Vancouver to Victoria, and thence due west to the head of Vancouver island.
Sometimes I hear my friends from Prince Edward Island being very sensitive about things that happen there. But if any of them ever wandered so far from home as to see the tremendous island we have out on the western coast, I am sure they would be impressed. I would recall what was said by Kipling many years ago, when he described our island as the fairest gem in the British crown. It is a reflection on Canada and on the trans-Canada highway policy when one cannot travel from one end of Vancouver island to the other. I would ask the responsible minister to consult with the government of British Columbia with a view to rectifying this very serious situation.
There is another highway on Vancouver island about which I have spoken before. I am happy that one of the ministers from British Columbia is to be the associate minister of national defence (Mr. Campney). I am referring now, of course, to the proposed highway from Port Alberni to Tofino airport. It is not generally known that far out on the west coast of Vancouver island we have one of the finest airports in Canada. This was one of the first airports opened during the war for the defence of the west coast. I pointed out last year when I dealt with this matter that there is no access by road to this point. The federal government have always contended that they are not interested in roads and should not participate in the building of roads, but this is the most westerly outpost of our air defences in Canada, and it is not connected by highway. As a matter of fact I can tell the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) that this proved of great disadvantage during the last war. I am quite sure the fact that there was not a road in there cost us far more than it would have cost to construct a road.
378	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gibson
There are business opportunities there. I think the minister could well go to the government of British Columbia and say, "We recognize that this is primarily your responsibility, but here is a quarter of a million dollars we will give you as our contribution if you will put a road in there." I think a road could be built for a million or a million and a half dollars. I submit that this government ought to make a gesture of that kind to the government of British Columbia and say, "We will make a contribution toward the road."
I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is not with us at the moment, as there is something I should like to bring to his attention. I have brought this to his attention several times before. We now have no passenger service on the west coast of Vancouver island, due to the fact that the Canadian Pacific steamer which had served the area for almost 70 years finally, like the one-horse shay, fell apart. The people in this area feel that the Canadian Pacific have had a monopoly there for about 70 years. I ask the minister and the maritime commission to make representations to the Canadian Pacific to renew this service. It is most essential to the life and development of that coast, and it should be renewed.
I come now to the subject that was covered very ably last night by the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Garson). I should like to make some comments with regard to government policy in connection with budget surpluses. The other day the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) pointed this up very dramatically when he said that since 1945 the government has had an average surplus of $1 million per day. That figure is startling.
At the outset of my comments in this regard I should like to pay a sincere personal tribute to our very efficient Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I must say that I have always admired his courage in imposing these high taxes. I agree with him that they have been a deterring factor in controlling inflation. I think in that aspect he did a good job. I was glad to see him resist over the years the pressure that came from various parts of this house to impose controls on both prices and wages. If we are fair about it I think we would all say that in the long run he has proved to be right, because actually the cost of living is coming down and I think the inflationary trend is lessening.
But I think now with seven years of surpluses we have had about enough. There is no particular virtue in having a surplus all the time, despite the idea of some people that a surplus is always necessary. I think


this is the time for a really healthy deficit. If I were the leader of a large group, instead of being an independent as I am, I think I would suggest that this would be a sound time to use up some of this surplus.
I often wonder whether we Canadians are not becoming a little soft. I know there is a saying that a rich man cannot get into heaven any easier than he can pass through the eye of a needle. I sometimes feel that with all the approbation we have been receiving in the United States press and the press of other countries we have gone perhaps a little too far with the surpluses we are having. Our premium dollar and other things of that kind seem to have gone to our heads. I think we would make better friends for ourselves throughout the world if we played a role that was a little bit poorer, and did not appear to ostentatiously have too much money.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made a statement the other day that rather intrigued me. He said that after all these surpluses are great stuff; and incidentally, I very seldom disagree with him. He told us that these surpluses are good things and that our grandchildren will rise up and call us blessed for not leaving them too much money to pay back. That may be true, but I think as we look back to our youth we must admit that things today are infinitely better than they were when we were young. If the trend continues, then we can expect that things will get progressively better. I contend that our grandchildren will not have too heavy a load to carry even though we do not struggle to pay off all our debt at the present time. I notice that the carpenters of British Columbia are thinking of a 30-hour week, which would seem to indicate that no one is going to have too heavy a burden to carry.
I think Mr. Ilsley did a very good job during the war when he paid half the cost of it from taxation as we went along. We must all agree that he pursued a wise course in that regard. Then as far as the balance is concerned, I think we have made a good job of paying off half of that because of the effects of inflation and the fact that today our dollar is worth only fifty cents compared to what it used to be worth. The present per capita debt is nothing to become alarmed about. In fact I think it could be increased some. Every time the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) brings in 12,000 or 15,000 people in a month we reduce that per capita debt quite substantially. Then when we consider the desirable birth rate we have in this country we must realize that that also is playing a part in reducing the per capita debt.

Canada has so many frontiers to be developed, and when we have surpluses of this kind I think we should look around to see where it can be invested so that the frontiers can be pushed back. After all, money at 3 per cent is pretty cheap money. It is the cheapest money anybody can get. I do not think we ought to strain ourselves at the present time after having reduced our national debt every year for seven years. We do not need to concentrate on reducing it any more at the present time.
Sometimes it is nice to be able to agree with a C.C.F. member like my good friend the hon. member for Moose Jaw. He says taxes are too high. If I remember correctly, he did not say all taxes are too high. He did not say anything about personal income tax, but he did say that the corporation income taxes are too high. I gather that he has some knowledge on that subject. It does not seem right to me that our government should own 52 per cent of every successful incorporated business in Canada; and I do not think they should overtax corporations and individuals to the extent of $1 million a day in order to pay off a debt on which we have to pay only 3 per cent. I think if the average businessman could get all the money he wanted at 3 per cent, he could pay that rate of interest and use the money for expansion of his business and probably make 10 per cent on it.
Once you give money to a government it just goes down the sink, and I would say that of any government. The moment we are able to show up here with a surplus my good friends away down to the left dredge up some brand new idea to get rid of it. And are they efficient at that type of thing!
I have a few suggestions to make, though I hate to make them in an election year. Perhaps I should save them for another year. I will say that I am not speaking with any correct knowledge of that event, so the opposition need not take what I say as an announcement of when the election will be. It seems to me that we have accumulated quite a lot of money, and we should look around to see how we can invest it wisely.
I have dealt with some of the things, and other speakers from British Columbia have mentioned how money might well be spent in the greater Vancouver area. I have mentioned some things that might be done on Vancouver island. However, I must commend the government-and I suppose it is as a result of the surpluses they have had- in that they now find they are able to say that Canada will go ahead on its own and build the St. Lawrence seaway. Coming from the west I know that in a parochial sense
The Address-Mr. Gibson it probably will not do my riding any particular good, but I have always thought anything that is in the interests of Canada, such as the St. Lawrence seaway, is actually of benefit to us all.
The other day the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) mentioned that it might be a good thing to put some hard surfacing on the Alaska highway. I would commend that to the government as a good place to spend some money. I think a railroad is needed into the Peace river district. I am sure any hon. members who have been in that vast territory will realize what an empire it is and how much it needs opening up and development. There are millions of acres in the Peace river district, and agriculturalists tell me it is the finest land in Canada. When we bring immigrants into this country we tell them there are millions of acres of the finest land in Canada there and that they should go there and settle, but that is most difficult for anybody coming into the country, particularly as these people almost never have a large amount of capital when they come here. It is very difficult for them to go and open up country of that kind. It seems to me that it would demonstrate real vision if the government would go in there and as an experiment clear a million acres of land. I believe that could be done for around $35 million. I think it would be a good test plot, as it were, and that the government would be well advised to undertake a job of that kind to indicate to the people that they have vision and that they have the idea that this country must be opened up. So many people in Canada live in cities, and somehow or other they get the idea that is where the wealth is. That is not true. There is only one place from which wealth comes and that is from our forests, mines, farms and fisheries. The people who live outside the confines of the cities should receive credit for developing this wealth. I should like to see the government give them every possible encouragement.
There is another thing about which I have always been very sorry. I think hon. members will recall that when the pipe-line bills were going through the house in 1949 I suggested that perhaps it would be feasible for the Canadian National Railways to get into the transportation of oil. I pointed out at that time that perhaps the best freight revenue the Canadian National Railways will ever get out of that country is from the transportation of oil. However, I suppose the directors of the C.N.R. were probably too busy wondering about inside plumbing at Riviere du Loup or about what brand of paper cups they were going to use on the trains. They certainly missed the boat. When I
880	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gibson think of these oil transmission line companies and the way such investments have appreciated on the stock exchange to three or four times their original worth in some cases, I believe we should have been able to advance $300 million to the Canadian National Railways for such a project. We have advanced them hundreds of millions since for other projects. If they had had the necessary vision at that time and had invested $300 million in this way they could perhaps have paid for their own capital reconstruction which we put through the house last year. To me it is a tragedy that they did not have the vision at that time to see what a chance they had. They may have missed the boat in that particular instance, but I would hope that in the future they will not make the same error.
I now want to make a few remarks with respect to the meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers in the old country. I realize we are going to have a debate on this matter later, but I am wondering if we could not have used a little vision there so far as our surpluses are concerned. I realize I am not an international financier. I have never studied economics in a university or anything of that kind, but it has always seemed to me that international and public finance are not too different from private finance. When business is slack in a country; when a manufacturer finds that he has a surplus of goods and that a particular customer is hard up and cannot afford to stock the goods on his shelves, the manufacturer goes to his bank where his credit is good and arranges for credit. He goes to the retailer and says to him, "I will put a stock of my goods on your shelves on a consignment basis. You need goods so you can carry on your business.
I will supply you with the goods, because I have the goods and I have the credit." Is that not just about the position in which Canada is so far as the United Kingdom is concerned? Not only would this be an extremely good move so far as the business aspect of the matter is concerned, but it has always seemed to me that we have been missing the boat strategically so far as the old country is concerned.
I do not like to say it, but I have seen many times in many magazines that in effect the United Kingdom is in great measure our primary outpost of defence. It has been called our unshakable aircraft carrier off the coast of Europe. If it is valid for us to continue to stockpile men and aeroplanes over there, to stockpile guns and equipment, then I submit it should be equally valid for us to make sure that we have a supply of goods over 

there that would be available in the event of war. Nobody wants war, but if it comes we are going to find the same situation that we had the last time. We will find that half the material we send over there in the first year of war will be lost through submarine action. There is no question about that. I suggest to the government that we look at this matter very carefully. As I say, we have many products that we could send over there. I can assure the government that there is lots of lumber and base metals in British Columbia for which we are looking for markets, and I can certainly assure them that there is plenty of canned salmon which would be an excellent product to stockpile in England.
Incidentally, one of the reasons the United Kingdom is short of dollars now for the carrying on of these purchases is the fact that they have had to stockpile. The fact that they did stockpile and then found themselves short of money has caused serious repercussions so far as the base metal mines are concerned, because they will fall short of money to purchase other things. These people say that the cold war does not look quite so hot or cold, and they say they might as well put these stockpiles on the market. As a result we have had tremendous fluctuations in the prices of base metals with very disastrous results to the base metal mines of British Columbia.
I would remind the cabinet-and they must be quite conscious of it-that we have a major shareholder's interest in all the primary industries of this country. So far as canned pork is concerned, I can assure my farmer friends that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has been doing a consistently good job in taking care not only of the pork producers but of the pork packers. They also did very well. It seems to me, however, when the same problem is presented with respect to the salmon industry in British Columbia the government more or less-I do not want to be unkind to them-yawn over that one. The British Columbia salmon industry this year-and I speak not only for the packers but for the fishermen-has had a very difficult time. The country is the senior shareholder in the salmon canneries and in the fishermen and their boats, and I would point out that the industry has lost millions of dollars in British Columbia this year. The industry not only lost 48 per cent of it; the government lost its 52 per cent, and I am quite sure that the returns of the Department of Finance from British Columbia this year will reflect that very serious situation.

So far as stockpiling is concerned, I should like to point out that salmon is something like scotch whisky. You can keep it for twenty years and it is better then than it was when you first bought it. As an old expert who knows what he is talking about as far as canned salmon is concerned, I offer that by way of comment.
If you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, should I break a rule of the house, I want to talk about practical politics a little. I want to say to the cabinet and to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that we are not all crazy in British Columbia, despite what happened in the last provincial election. The folks out there are pretty sound, and I would say that 95 per cent do not like, and do not understand this Social Credit monetary theory; and people do not usually support things they do not understand. I will make another categorical statement and say that 75 per cent of them do not want to have anything to do with socialism.
I know the two ministers from British Columbia will give you sound and honest advice. If you listen carefully to what they have to tell you I do not think you will have too much difficulty in British Columbia in the next federal election.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the original motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Drew: On division.


Mr. While (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have supported the amendment. Also, this afternoon I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West.


An hon. Member:: Too late.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the main motion carries?


George Alexander Drew: On division.

Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: The original motion is carried on division.
Main motion (Mr. Deslieres) agreed to on division.
Right	Hon.	L.	S.	St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister) moved:
That the said address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	L.	S.	St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister) moved:
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	L.	S.	St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister) moved:
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	L.	S.	St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister) moved:
That when the house adjourns this day, it stand adjourned until Monday the twelfth day of January, 1953.
George Alexander Drew: At what time, Mr. Speaker?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The standing order fixes 2.30 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Two-thirty o'clock in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the Clerk at the table has called my attention to the fact that taking this adjournment might breach the rights of those who have petitions to present for private bills, because under the standing order they have to be presented in the six weeks period from the beginning of the session. Under similar circumstances in other sessions it has been customary to pass a motion extending the time to equal the portion of the six weeks that is taken by the adjournment. I therefore beg leave to move:
That on account of the pending adjournment of the house, the six weeks period allowed by standing order 92 for the presentation of petitions for private bills be deemed to expire on Monday, January 26,	1953, instead of on Wednesday,
December 31, 1952.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on the 12th day of January we propose to take up the notice of motion by the Prime Minister for the setting up of a committee on defence expenditures. Then we shall take up the different notices of motions. I am not in a position this evening to give the order in which we shall proceed with these different notices of motions.


Mr. Graydon:: What about private members' day?


Angus MacInnis: Is January 12 not private members' day?


Alphonse Fournier: Then the order would apply on Tuesday, instead of on Monday, January 12.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: May I venture to speak on behalf of every one of your colleagues in the house, Mr. Speaker, and on their behalf as well as my own express our very best wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy new year for yourself and your family.
On motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m. until Monday, January 12, 1953, at 2.30 p.m.

Monday, January 12, 1953