1952-03-11

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I read a letter from Mr. Slaven, a druggist in Sydney, Nova Scotia, complaining of the method of distribution of cigarettes by the Imperial Tobacco Company Limited.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Might I ask under what rule the present comments are being made?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I might explain that I propose to table a letter which I hold in my hand. I think it has been the practice to table documents on the order for motions.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the remark of the leader of the opposition, which no doubt relates to the question which was brought before the house yesterday with respect to statements which are made at the opening of the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not questioning the point raised by the leader of the opposition. I was explaining that I propose to table a letter, and I think that is in order at this time.


George Alexander Drew: I should think so.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is no
objection to the letter being tabled. I think the leader of the opposition asked his question because he wanted to see the rules observed with respect to debating matters and making statements in the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not proposing to make a statement; I am going to ask leave to table a document. I do not mind when I table it; I will table it whenever I am told is the proper time, but for seven or eight years I have been in the habit of tabling documents on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is quite in order for the minister to table the document now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On Friday last I read a letter from Mr. Slaven, a druggist in Sydney, complaining about the method of distributing cigarettes. Yesterday morning I received a letter from the president of the Imperial 55704-20
Tobacco Company, the company complained of, explaining their system of distribution, and asking-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: No speech.


An hon. Member:: Table it.


Mr. Speaker:: The leader of the opposition has a point of order.


George Alexander Drew: I pointed out yesterday that I thought the ruling that was being made might present some difficulties, and I suggest that we are now confronted with one of those difficulties.


An hon. Member:: Not at all.


George Alexander Drew: If the minister proposes to table a letter I suggest that he table it. But the moment he starts to give an explanation he places himself in the position in which I understood we always had been up to yesterday.	.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will not argue that point. I was requested to make a statement-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not the slightest objection to-


Mr. Graydon:: Call the page.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister is
speaking to a point of order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was requested by the
president of the Imperial Tobacco Company to make a statement in the house that that company was in no sense in default in the way in which it was distributing its cigarettes. I advised him that I could not make such a statement, but I would table his letter.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may we have a ruling?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Minister of
Finance should table the letter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I now ask leave to table the letter. In fairness to the Imperial Tobacco Company-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -I would ask-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.

Printing of Documents in Hansard


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Finance
desires to table a letter. What he desires to do further I do not know, because I have not been able to hear his comments.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this may seem amusing to some hon. members, but the fact remains that I raised a question yesterday as to whether barriers were not being placed in the way of a practice that had been long established. In view of the ruling, Mr. Speaker, that you at least indicated you proposed to make yesterday, I think it is only right either that that ruling stand, or that we return to the earlier practice. If the ruling stands, then the minister can table the letter but can add nothing to it at this point.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I move that the letter just tabled be printed in Hansard.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not propose to add anything to the letter. I was asking that it be tabled, and I was suggesting that in fairness to the Imperial Tobacco Company the house might give unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: -that it be printed in
Hansard as Mr. Slaven's letter was. That is all I am asking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Don't get annoyed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I never do. I may look it, but I never do.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the letter be printed in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Coldwell:: I want to be fair to the Imperial Tobacco Company, but the other night the hon. member for Melfort attempted to have a letter from the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act printed in Hansard and was refused permission by the house.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: No; he refused to read it.


Major James William Coldwell: I said that if any further attempt were made to put letters on the record I was going to object, and I am bound to object at this time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He refused to read it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was not present in the house when that incident took place, but the Minister of Finance has disclosed the source of his letter-


Gordon Graydon: And how!


Mr. Speaker:: -and the house has agreed that it should be printed in Hansard.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I said I was bound to object in view of what I said the other evening, and I want to stand by that. I am objecting.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sure it requires umami-mous consent, Mr. Speaker, to have the letter printed. I will table it. I thought it might be fairer if both letters were printed.


Mr. Speaker:: I should think it does require (Unanimous consent to have the letter printed in Hansard. Do I understand there is not unanimous consent?


Major James William Coldwell: No, Mr. Speaker. It was unfair to the commissioner of combines the other evening to have the letter referred to without its being printed in Hansard, and I have to take the same attitude now that I took then.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not want to enter any controversial discussion. I think hon. members will appreciate that I hold no special brief for the Imperial Tobacco Company in this case. However, I did read a letter the other day complaining about the company. I read that letter without comment, and I make no comment on this one; but I think in common fairness to each party it should be available to members in Hansard. That is all I am suggesting.


Mr. Wright:: Exactly the same circumstances applied to the letter I had from the commissioner of combines which I was refused permission to have printed in Hansard. It would have been much fairer to the combines commissioner if the letter had been printed, but an hon. member on the government side refused consent, and I certainly object to any other letter being printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Many members of the house would like the letter to be printed in Hansard. If, as the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar and the hon. member for Melfort have said, it was improper not to have allowed the other letter to be printed, surely it is not helpful to follow the same improper procedure at this time.


Major James William Coldwell: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not contending that. I am contending that if the rules of the house are to be observed they must be observed at all times. That is my point, and I want to stand by it.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Are we not
slipping into an unusual situation? This is not going to be a case of two wrongs making a right; this is going to be a case of an infinite number of wrongs making a right.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps there is a solution. As soon as the striking committee makes its report and it is adopted by the house we shall have a committee on printing. That committee has to determine which papers tabled during the session shall be printed. An opportunity will probably be afforded for that committee to decide whether the letter referred to on Friday last and the one now under consideration should or should not be printed as part of the documents available to the public.


George Alexander Drew: May I offer another suggestion in view of the one that was made yesterday? When I put forward with great earnestness the suggestion that we would expedite greatly the debate on the speech from the throne if we had a specific debate on defence and defence production on the one hand and external affairs on the other, it was indicated by the Prime Minister that he thought subjects of any nature could be brought up during the course of the debate on the speech from the throne. The Minister of Finance can very easily wait until the vote has been taken-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not care if the letter is ever published.


George Alexander Drew: -on the amendment to the amendment. Then he can read the letter at the appropriate point in the debate when we are discussing the amendment.


Mr. Sinclair:: You are the best reader in the house. You read it.


Gordon Graydon: No better than you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Because of my comments yesterday, probably I am responsible for the confusion that has arisen in the house today. I hope what I said will help and not hinder the house in carrying out the rules. The reason I referred to the matter yesterday was that I thought that last year I had allowed too much latitude, and I felt that during the present session, when we will have a committee of ways and means and a committee of supply, we should endeavour to abide more strictly by the rules of the house. May I ask the co-operation of all hon. members in carrying on the business of the house in accordance with the standing orders.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The letter is tabled but not published.


Mr. Garland:: 
Major James William Coldwell: That referred to a ministerial document.



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947, to extend the provision for the payment of compensation contained in section 8 of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is there a possibility of amendments to improve the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is mentioned in the speech from the throne? If so, will this legislation be expedited and made retroactive in effect so that any additional benefits from the new amendments-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: would cover the lay-off of workers in the packing house industry-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: -brought about by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease?


Milton Fowler Gregg: If it is your ruling that I should reply, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. member kindly sent me notice of his question, and the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau) also sent word that he was going to ask a similar question. Perhaps I might answer both of them briefly.
The amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act need further study by the commission and the advisory committee to the commission before being presented to the house. I do not think they can be brought to bear upon the situation mentioned in the immediate future. In the meantime, however, both unemployment insurance commission services, namely, the insurance benefits and

Inquiries of the Ministry the national employment service, are doing their utmost to help in the situation brought about by the outbreak of this disease.
Perhaps the house might be interested to learn how the matter of unemployed among packing plant workers stands at the present time. Since this situation arose the unemployment insurance commission has provided me with regular reports on the number of packing plant workers who have actually been thrown out of work as a direct result of the outbreak. I stress the word "actually" because there have been a good many rumours and suggestions as to what may and perhaps will happen in the future; but taking it from east to west the actual situation is as follows:
Total packing plant
Total packing workers
	plant	including
	workers	stockyard
	as at	workers
	1 Jan. '52	laid off as at 10 Mar. '52
Maritime provinces ..	585	0Quebec 	4,173	66Ontario 	7,853	166Manitoba 	2,790	147Saskatchewan 	1,274	152Alberta 	3,218	227British Columbia 	1,396	63Total 	21,289	821I should indicate,	perhaps,	that the
prospects of more men being laid off in future appear to be greater in Manitoba than in the other provinces.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Has the government given consideration to the request of the packing house workers for federal compensation to make up the difference between unemployment insurance benefits and the actual wages lost by those workers due to the emergency caused by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not even consideration?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Has the attention of the Minister of National Defence been drawn to a statement in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that the 27th brigade in Europe are not able to obtain cigarettes which have been ordered from this country, while at the same time the tobacco companies in Canada are complaining of a lack of markets? Why cannot the troops in

Germany be supplied with the cigarettes which according to this statement were ordered some five or six months ago?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Read the letter.


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: I have to thank the hon. member for Cape Breton South for drawing my attention to this article in the Globe and Mail, which I had not seen until now. Arrangements have been made for Canadian soldiers to order duty-free cigarettes through their pay accounts from the Canadian tobacco companies. There has been some delay in delivery, however, due to the fact that surface mails are used; and no delay can be attributed to the tobacco companies. I understand arrangements are also being made for stocking tobacco and other Canadian products in the canteens and clubs which service Canadian troops. As soon as those arrangements are completed they will be able to buy Canadian cigarettes and other Canadian goods at canteens and clubs for cash.
[Later: ]
On the orders of the day:


Brooke Claxton: If I might supplement the answer I gave to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I have since received additional information to the effect that early in February cigarettes from Canada were delivered to the troops in Germany and they were then quite satisfied with the situation.



CITY OF OTTAWA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: wonder if the Minister of Public Works could say when Mayor Charlotte Whitton of Ottawa will realize the filthy condition of some of the streets leading to parliament hill.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: Has
the Department of Fisheries or any other department of the federal government receivedi any request from any province or any department thereof for financial assistance to rehabilitate the fishing industry in those sections of the maritimes which suffered so severely during recent storms?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. member was kind enough to give

me notice of his question. I can only reply that I did receive a wire from Newfoundland saying one of their ministers was coming to Ottawa to discuss with the department the matter of .storm damage. I have not received any intimation from any other provincial government.



PORK PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) asked a question with respect to floor prices for certain cuts of pork. I can assure him that the floor price is the floor price which is contained in the order of February 16, which no doubt he has seen. We have agreed over this last week end to buy certain pork products at the floor price that was paid, and put them into cans.


Mr. Fair:: Is the floor price mentioned by the parliamentary assistant effective so far as the producer is concerned?


Robert McCubbin: The answer is yes.


Robert Fair: You mean at the packers' level; not at the producer's level.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert McCubbin: Yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked a question in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease being found in the Burns stockyards or packing house, or any of their premises. I can tell him that the foot-and-mouth disease was diagnosed in the feed lots of the Burns packing plant in Regina.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. E. W. George 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. Fair, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Bryce.
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last evening I had agreed with the recent statement by the
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that governments had no philosopher's stone by which they could solve all the problems of the world, political and social. At the same time I was deploring the fact that there has been a tendency on the part of this government to promote the idea that all the wonderful progress and economic benefits we have seen in Canada since the war have been directly associated with the administrative policies of this government. Of course you cannot have it both ways, and today we find that we are faced with some real problems that have been outlined in the motion proposed by this party.
When I concluded my remarks last evening I was dealing specifically with farm problems, which have been discussed at some length already this session. I would point out that the dairy industry continues to decline. There is also a decline in diversified farming. In making their presentations to me many farmers declare that this decline in diversified farming, with all the harmful consequences it is bound to have on this basic industry, is the result of the income tax policy of this government, particularly as it applies to farmers in the prairie provinces. They feel it is of no personal benefit if they continue to produce beyond a certain level of income, because all the results of their endeavours will be skimmed off by the excessive income tax. Of course the problem of labour supply is associated with that condition as well. Last evening it was pointed out by the member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) that there is a severe lack of qualified recruits for our agricultural industry. He told us that since the end of the war 77 per cent of all immigrants have found their way to the industrialized east rather than to the area of Canada most in need of these human resources. These difficulties are giving rise to a new agrarian protest which is making itself felt on the prairies. I am sure that this agrarian protest, which in the last thirty years has produced two great political movements, with their consequent divisive effect on Canadian unity would be much more severe today were it not for the fact that we have been blessed with an unbroken series of good crops and relatively stable prices due to prevailing world shortages.
This leads me to the conclusion that in the west we have never subscribed to the myth that has been so carefully cultivated by our government, that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds. As I listen to the representatives from the maritimes I feel that they too have much the same attitude. Highlighting the situation so far as we are concerned is the redistribution bill which
302	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale was introduced yesterday, and which indicates that Saskatchewan and Manitoba are both faced with the loss of several representatives in this house. I have some statistics on the population decline in the prairies published by the Manitoba defence development committee. This committee outlines the situation as follows:
As evidence of this the population of the prairie provinces in 1941 was 2,422,000, but during the next five years, due in great part to this migration, the population dropped 59,000, a decrease of 2-4 per cent. From 1946 to 1951, when this drain was not present, the prairie provinces increased their population by 175,000. It is a reasonable assumption that the need for industrial workers in the central provinces cost the prairies over 200,000 persons during the war years.
Those figures will become significant as in a few moments I proceed to deal with the problem of industrialization on the prairies.
Related to the redistribution situation, however, we have the matter of federal aid to education. For years now, due to this rural-urban migration carrying off the cream of our young people, we have been subsidizing the east educationally. As soon as our young people graduate from high school, rather than making their contribution on the prairies they move to the central provinces of Ontario or Quebec in search of employment. At the basis of this problem is the factor of the slow industrial development of the prairies. Actually we are just beginning to industrialize. Recent reports, particularly since the war, are very encouraging. For example, we can boast that during 1951 our gross product in Manitoba amounted to $546 million, and the number of workers now employed in Manitoba industry total 44,700, which is an increase of 87 per cent.
On the prairies we are just beginning to move toward a diversified economy. Perhaps we are in the same position that Ontario and Quebec found themselves in at the close of world war I. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the only permanent solution for the repeated expression of agrarian protest with which we have been faced during the first half of the twentieth century is to have a diversified economy. It seems to me that the fact that we are today faced with a tremendous task in defence production provides an excellent opportunity to encourage the industrial trend that is already under way on the iprairies. Other encouraging factors are the recent discovery of oil in Manitoba, in two parts of my own- riding, one near the town of Virden, and the other near the town of Reston; and the mining developments in the northern part of the province. I say that with the huge contracts being awarded in connection with defence production, we have


an opportunity of encouraging the trend that is already so substantially under way in Manitoba.
If we examine the situation up to the present time, we are forced to the conclusion that there has been no real effort in this regard. In an article in Saturday Night last autumn, prepared by the editor of the Winnipeg Tribune, this title was used: "Manitoba ready and waiting." Recent statistics released by the Manitoba defence development committee express the situation in more concrete terms. The committee states:
With 5'7 per cent of Canada's population and 4 per cent of Canada's manufacturing capacity, Manitoba to date (January 15, 1952) has received 2-8 per cent of the money spent in defence contracts. Of this 2-8 per cent approximately one third has been for the construction of air stations and other military establishments, which, while helpful, have no peacetime industrial value. Furthermore, of the remaining contracts placed here a substantial portion are for clothing and for aircraft work of which a high proportion of the total cost represents materials, parts, engines, etc., which were manufactured in the central provinces.
I was delighted to read in a report of the defence production board for February that Brandon had received its first real defence contract. Recorded on page 3 of that publication was the information that a contract had been awarded to the Canadian Brown Steel Tank Company for the sum of approximately $140,000. There was only one sour note in that announcement, in that they listed Brandon as Brandon, Ontario, instead of Brandon, Manitoba. I can only conclude this error was due to force of habit.
I must now conclude my remarks. The members from the west, as well as the members from other parts of Canada, gave their wholehearted support to the St. Lawrence seaway project when it was before us last session. We did so realizing that the immediate effect of the St. Lawrence project would1 be to intensify the centralization of industry in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. We understood, however, that it was important to the defence of Canada, and all we ask is that, in the total industrial development of Canada, a conscious program of national development be undertaken by the government for the development of a healthy national life.
I think we are forced to the conclusion that there has never been a time in the history of Canada when centralization has proceeded more rapidly than it has during the past dozen years. If we are to have an equitable distribution of population, to maintain the basis of Canadian unity and to prepare in this country the bulwarks of defence, we must realize that a basic consideration should be the dispersal of industry right

across the country, the allotment of defence contracts in such a way that the minimum of disturbance is introduced into the economy, and making sure that this work is handled in the most economical way possible, with an eye to the future as well as the urgent demands of the immediate.
I am sorry that my time is exhausted, Mr. Speaker. I have more to say, but there will be other opportunities to take part in further discussions.


Mr. D. A. Riley (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I first wish to offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. To us who come from New Brunswick the excellence of the speech made by the mover was not surprising, because he is one of our colleagues. He performed his task in an extraordinarily capable manner, and, with the hon. member for Lake St. John, is deserving of the highest commendation.
It was with satisfaction that we learned from the speech from the throne that at this session of parliament a bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act is to be introduced. I sincerely hope that this bill is being designed to provide for general increases in the rates payable to veterans who come within the scope of this act. I further hope that those increases, if they come, will be in keeping with the spirit of the act and will provide for the recipients of the allowance and their dependents sufficient funds to enable them to maintain their independence and their self-respect.
No one will deny the principle of these allowances. It is one that has been recognized for many years by national leaders, by governments and by citizens generally in this country. I refer to the principle that special assistance is owing by the state to those of our countrymen whose minds or bodies have become ravaged through wartime service in the uniform of their sovereign. Having in mind the fact that this principle has been accepted, it is the solemn duty of parliament to regulate the rates of this special assistance in order to meet the exigencies of the times. I have had personal contact with many of these cases and have firsthand knowledge whereof I speak. I am particularly concerned about cases in which children are involved, believing as I do that a special formula of rates should be devised so that those children may be provided for in a normal manner.
I express particular concern over these cases, but I also express concern over another matter. When the increases are forthcoming,
The Address-Mr. Riley it is to be hoped that the maximum extra income, beyond the assistance, allowed under the act will also be increased. While I am on the subject I should also like to point out that more discretion should be allowed to the war veterans allowance board, or more leniency should be shown by them, in consideration and examination of applications from widows of war veterans for special assistance.
The main subject, Mr. Speaker, of my remarks today is the condition now existing in the port of Saint John. From time to time, more particularly in recent years, the facilities of the port of Saint John have been taxed up to and beyond their limits. Since the disastrous fire which destroyed most of our port's facilities back in 1931 there has been a gradual rebuilding of the piers and sheds along our waterfront. But with this rebuilding has also come an increase in the amount of traffic which flows into and out of our port. The port of Saint John is one of the two ports available for winter traffic on the Atlantic seaboard of this country. Because of that fact, our port and the port of Halifax occupy a vitally strategic position in the economy of the country. At the present time we have in Saint John berthage for twenty-four deep-sea vessels and two coastal vessels. We have something like ten piers on the one side of the harbour, or ten main wharves, and a couple on the east side. Over the past ten years we have had something like 33 million tons of freight go through our port. During the past year this traffic has tended to increase more than ever. Because of this fact I want to focus the attention of the membership of this house on our port today.
Over the past week or so I have received a large number of complaints from businessmen, from the mayor of the city of Saint John, and from the president and members of our board of trade. These complaints deal with the fact that our port is overcrowded at the present time. As I said, we have something like twenty-four berths for deep-sea vessels. When I received some complaints last week about a number of vessels lying outside of the berths at anchor, I checked on the matter and at that time I found that there were thirty-five vessels in port. Twenty-one of them were working, six were at anchor, five were awaiting berths and three were under repair. The complaints last week dealt mainly with the fact that some of the pit-prop exports which were leaving our province were held up, or that the ships which were going to load those pit-props were held up. I investigated and found that on this particular occasion, because rail traffic had been
304	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Riley handicapped by heavy snowstorms in the eastern provinces, and because there may have been some mutual understanding between port authorities and the shippers, these pit-props were not being handled as expeditiously as they might have been. There may be a very good explanation for this condition, but it arose at a time when the port was congested otherwise, and it sharply focused the attention not only of our businessmen and citizens generally in the city of Saint John, but also of our provincial authorities, on this particular problem which had to do with the export and import traffic through our harbour. .
The question may be raised as to why those who have nothing to do with the operation of our harbour itself may become interested in what might appear to be trifling problems of this nature. But I want to point out that the port of Saint John constitutes an integral part of the economy of our province and a very important part of the economy of the country. It should also be borne in mind that, unlike the port of Montreal, the citizens generally in the city of Saint John are seriously affected by problems which affect the port. We have something like 5,000 waterfront workers whose livelihood depends largely upon the movement of freight through our port. I can quite understand the reasons why our citizens have become aroused over the fact that the facilities available at Saint John harbour at the present time are insufficient to handle the amount of freight which is now going through the different docks.
I have wondered at times whether in requesting the construction of other facilities in our harbour I might not be shouting against the wind. I have wondered whether the volume of traffic generally throughout the year would not warrant the huge capital expenditures which are necessary on the part of the federal treasury in order to provide additional berths in a harbour such as ours. But after talking to shipping people, speaking to shipping agents and hearing accounts of the diversion, because of the lack of facilities, of ships which might otherwise have come to Saint John, I have come to the conclusion that we have reached the stage where we must demand more forcibly that additional port facilities be made available along our harbour front.
I have had occasion to bring to the attention of the cabinet the fact that we should have a continuous program of port expansion, and in recent years I have been advised that port expansion programs must necessarily be curtailed because of the necessity of


heavy defence expenditures. Well, I maintain that the expenditure of capital funds in expanding port facilities in ports such as we have in Saint John and Halifax go away beyond national defence requirements. They are an integral part of the economy of the country, and as the economy of Canada expands, as our trade expands, we must be in a position to handle the incoming and outgoing traffic through our ports.
I have reference at this time particularly to a couple of dilapidated docks on the east side of our harbour, which should constitute the next step in the rebuilding program of our port. The Digby boat wharf, so-called, and the Reeds Point wharf, are in such a dilapidated condition that they are not only a disgrace to our city but a disgrace to this country as a whole. I know that there have been instances in which ships would have come to use the facilities of our port if these particular berths were available and in shape for ocean-going vessels. When I was down in Saint John last year with some fifty members of parliament I had occasion to point out to them, standing on Pugsley pier-the newest of our piers on the eastern side of the harbour-the appallingly dilapidated condition of the Digby boat wharf. I have a picture in my hand which was enlarged from a snapshot taken by one of the visitors at that time. It shows that I am pointing out to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) the disgraceful condition of this pier. I recall that at that time he expressed concern over it. In a port such as we have in Saint John we should keep pace with our expanding commerce and have these berths available for the type of traffic offered. I can remember at that time that the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Blue) expressing somewhat similar sentiments, and also the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing). The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) expressed the same sentiments. Therefore when I bring this problem to the attention of the house I bring it to the attention of men who have had some firsthand knowledge of the conditions existing in our harbour.
I know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is aware of these conditions. I know that during personal tours of inspection of our harbour front he has expressed some concern himself over the condition of the Digby boat wharf and the Reeds Point wharf. At the same time I know that the Minister of Transport-although he is deeply sympathetic and wants to see the facilities of these ports expand; I feel certain of that-does not make government policy. It is for this reason that I want to urge upon the government as a whole that they allocate sufficient funds to rebuild the Digby boat wharf and the Reeds

Point wharf. Although it may cost millions of dollars, and the defence program may be such that public works of a non-essential character should be curtailed, I want to see the government allocate sufficient funds to rebuild these piers, because they are as essential as most defence projects, and tie in directly with them.
I further think that the rebuilding of these piers should be but the commencement of a continued and uninterrupted program of expansion of the port of Saint John. The long wharf which lies to the east side of the harbour is in such a disgraceful dilapidated condition that it needs but a nudge to collapse into the water. We need an extension of some of the piers on the west side of the harbour. We need new berths beyond the ones I have mentioned on the east side of the harbour, and we need some development work in the Courtenay bay area.
These may seem to be extravagant demands for my constituency, but if the government will examine the significance of the necessity for these expenditures I am sure that they will agree with me that they constitute the type of expenditure which should be made at this time.
I should like to mention also the question of the defence of Saint John harbour. During the last war when we had to defend our coast line there were a number of unfortunate sinkings in the area of Halifax. We know that submarines were hovering off the coast at times when the lifeline of the allied nations was in need of careful preservation. Because of a lack of harbour facilities at Saint John it was necessary at times for seven or eight ships to lie at anchor and thus provide perfect targets for submarines. It is only by pure luck that we did not have sinkings directly outside of Saint John harbour.
This may sound like an extravagant statement, but I think the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) will bear me out when I say that at a time when we were feeling comfortably secure along the Atlantic coast an enemy submarine landed a human cargo just a few miles southeast of the harbour of Saint John. At that particular time there must have been seven or eight ships strung out within a few miles of the landing point of that submarine. I feel sure that the only reason' that torpedoes were not launched at those ships was that the captain of the enemy submarine had been given orders to land his human cargo and get out of the way without exciting undue apprehension on the part of those in charge of that defence area.
The main section of Saint John is located on a peninsula and there are only two narrow arteries, with bridges on each, leading from
The Address-Mr. Riley the city. It would be quite possible to cripple those bridges with small charges of explosives. I do not know the defence program in connection with our east coast ports and it may well be that provision for the necessary protection has been made, but in case it has not, I urge upon the government the necessity of paying particular attention to the port of Saint John and perhaps to the port of Halifax as well. This matter may be within the scope of civil defence and if so I hope they will take heed of what I am saying. It may be considered a municipal responsibility, but when regard is given to the fact that Saint John is a vital and strategic port in time of war and in time of peace the problem becomes national in scope.
When we urge the necessity of defence in the Saint John area we do not do so simply for the security of our own families and our own property; we do it because we feel there is a need for national security. Before I close I want to urge that something be done in the immediate future to correct this serious situation which presently exists in Saint John harbour, due to the fact that there are not sufficient port facilities to handle the ever-increasing volume of traffic going through that port. In order to show that this traffic is increasing, I should like to indicate the tonnage handled in certain months last year as well as in certain months this year. The figures are as follows:
tons
January, 1951	 345,237
January, 1952	 382,816
February, 1951	 358,617
February, 1952	 384,697
It will be seen that the increase is substantial. I should like to stress again the possibilities of loss of traffic. On Friday of last week I was informed by some of my shipping friends in Saint John that two ships had left the harbour because they could not wait either to load or to unload their cargoes. I do not know where those ships went; they may have gone to the United States or over to Halifax.


Mr. Dickey:: Hear, hear.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: The hon. member for Halifax says, "hear, hear". When the time comes for any other section of the maritimes to get something a little extra, I am all for it. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I have many friends in the shipping business who are seriously concerned over the situation. These men are operating businesses which depend upon the prosperity and success of the port, but they are also interested in community affairs. I should like to be able to tell these men in the near future that the government, which I was elected to support-
306	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge


Stanley Howard Knowles: It took you a long time to say that.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: -is vitally interested in the welfare of the port and is going to do something really tangible in the way of corrective measures. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre say that it took me a long time to say that.


Mr. Laing:: But with deep conviction.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: The hon. member for Vancouver South suggests that I say it with deep conviction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He recognized it even if you did not.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I was elected by the people of my constituency to support the federal government. I have never had any criticism from my constituents for supporting the federal government. When I came here I went about my work as seriously as I could in an attempt to do everything I possibly could for my constituents. I have not endeavoured to become an outstanding expert on parliamentary procedure. I have paid constant attention to my duties as a member of parliament. I have never tried to usurp the duties of the Speaker, and when I continue to try to perform my functions as a member of parliament, as a member of parliament and not as an expert on parliamentary procedure, I do not think I am deserving of any criticism, veiled though it may be, from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was only interested in your hesitancy at supporting the government.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it was towards the latter part of the morning that I found I might have an opportunity to say a few words this afternoon. Since that time I was invited to a luncheon provided by the Canadian Horticultural Council and, having arrived here somewhat after three o'clock, have had to make a few hasty notes. After the excellent luncheon provided by these kind gentlemen, I might say that I am not in a particularly good condition to speak at length, but I will have to do the best I can.
First of all I want to express my complete support for the very logical and well-documented point of view on foreign affairs presented to the house by our leader when speaking in this debate. I am not going to add at any length to the excellent case he made for our point of view, but I think the views he presented to the house are supported by far more people in Canada than some hon. members realize. We in this group

are for the Atlantic defence policy. We support rearmament for defence. We support collective security amongst democrats for defence. We are opposed to association with former nazis or fascists in order to defend democracy.
There are sound reasons for a good many of us viewing with some alarm the situation that has developed with respect to western defence and negotiations aiming towards peace in Korea. The things that disturb us are not the policies announced by the United States government or the policies of other responsible people but the statements made by people in non-political circles in the United States or those who are playing a very important part in the economies of other countries in which they live. I want to illustrate that point by reading one or two comments from newspapers. I refer first to the Ottawa Citizen of March 10 and particularly to an Associated Press dispatch from Washington which reads as follows:
United States policy makers are fighting persistent arguments of a "war now!" group which believes the United States should launch a sudden attack on red Russia in an all-out war to destroy communism.
United States policy makers are doing that, Mr. Speaker, and we are of the opinion that members of this house should get up and support these people who are trying to down those who are declaring for a policy of allout war now. The article continues:
For more than a year there have been clear signs that some military men and civilians are convinced war with Russia is inevitable and therefore the United States should strike first. Each time President Truman or his lieutenants have taken quick action to slap down this line of thinking. It runs directly counter to the administration's announced policy of trying to force an understanding with Russia without war.
But despite this opposition the war talk persists beneath the surface by those whose thinking goes like this:
"Russia is determined to dominate the world. When Russia is strong enough the red leaders will send their armies and those of their satellites against the western world. This war of conquest will come like Pearl Harbor-without warning. This being true, then the United States should strike first in a 'preventive war' to beat Russia to the punch."
In capsule form this is the situation now spotlighted by the diary of Major General Robert W. Grow which somehow was stolen from him by the communists last year. Grow wrote the diary while United States military attache in Moscow. The army says parts of the diary are being used in the red propaganda drive against the United States. One extract quoted Grow as writing:
"It seems to me the time is ripe for a blow this year . . . We must start by hitting below the belt. This war cannot be conducted by Marquis of Queensbury rules."
The viewpoint expressed in the diary recalls that in the summer of 1950 an air force general was rebuked for offering publicly to destroy Russia's

A-bomb centres. In this case Major General Orvil Anderson, then head of the air war college, gave an interview in which he was quoted:
"Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia's five A-bomb nests in a week, and when I went up to Christ I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization."
A few days earlier the secretary of the navy, then Francis P. Matthews, had made a speech in which he said the United States should be ready if necessary to start a war to "compel co-operation for peace." The statement was disavowed by both the White House and the state department. But this line of thinking persists even though government and military leaders have rejected it time and again.
Our point in this group is that parliamentary leaders and governments throughout the world must have direct control over rearmament and defensive policies, and that there are great dangers to us and to other countries if these military people are allowed to express their opinions and influence others along these lines. I have checked the papers since the leader of our group presented our statement on foreign policy. I find that some papers seem to have misunderstood his statement, I presume because of not reading it carefully, and others support it. I should like to read an editorial appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of March 10. It is headed, "A Plea for Canadian Leadership", and I think it puts the case very well from our point of view. It reads as follows:
In the present state of international affairs many Canadians of all political persuasions will be inclined to agree with Mr. M. J. Coldwell, the C.C.F. leader, that Canada should take a stronger stand for constructive policies. Mr. Coldwell has suggested during the debate on the speech from the throne that Canada propose to its allies direct political negotiations to end the Korean war. He is alarmed by talk in the United States of promoting the spread of conflict with China, a policy that by crippling the west and consolidating communist regimes could prove disastrous. Mr. Coldwell thinks NATO has become over-ambitious militarily and should direct to underdeveloped areas some of the funds earmarked for weapons. It is certainly evident that in both Korea and western Europe policies conceived in military terms have not been politically successful. NATO's publicized plans for spending $300 million to equip about 90 divisions over the next three years are widely regarded as unrealistic and excessive even if feasible. Granted that adequate defensive strength must be achieved militarily, the fact remains that collective security requires vigorous social and economic exertions.
That is one great criticism this group has of developments to date under the Atlantic pact. We are now being told about what are termed by even conservative newspapers fantastic military propositions, while at the same time nothing has been done so far to implement article 2 of the Atlantic pact, which provides for economic assistance and so on.
As Prime Minister St. Laurent told the Canadian Federation of Agriculture last January, "the secure peace in the world which we all want" is in danger so long as great numbers of people are hungry. For education week, Mr. L. B. Pearson,
The Address-Mr. Herridge
the minister of external affairs, issued the message that "our defences must consist of ideas as well as weapons". Yet Canada expects to provide billions for armaments while apparently content with $25 million a year for a constructive program like the Colombo plan.
Politics, of course, entered into the military planning zeal of the recent north Atlantic council meeting at Lisbon-in particular the internal politics of the United States, where in an election year the administration desires at least the appearance of notable results of its foreign policy, and congress sharpens the economic axe. The NATO allies cannot disregard one another's domestic problems. But political thought and action on a much higher and broader plane will be needed if international relations are to be shrewdly managed so that conditions favourable to peace may be created.
I think the editor of that newspaper has written in a very statesmanlike way. Now I want to refer briefly to the Korean situation. In that connection I support what our leader had to say in this respect, and his remarks addressed to the leaders of the governments now carrying on the negotiations. I think the dangers of allowing these negotiations to be carried on by military people are evidenced by a Canadian Press dispatch from Seoul dated March 10, from which I am going to quote briefly to indicate the frame of mind of the military leaders and their inability to understand the point of view of their enemies and the thinking of the average man:
General James A. Van Fleet disclosed Saturday the Chinese and Korean reds have built up a force of about 900,000 men in Korea, but there is no indication of a spring offensive. The U.S. eighth army commander said in an interview the reds have more men, weapons and planes but that the allies have enough to stop any attack. He said about 450,000 reds are in the front lines.
Van Fleet added that he would be "surprised" if the communists attempted an offensive similar to their costly but unsuccessful major drives in April and May of last year.
"I am confident we could stop any attack the communists might throw at us," he said. "It would be a good thing if we could get those people out of their foxholes and dugouts to mow them down the way we did last April and May."
Just imagine the thinking of a man supposed to represent Christian nations, who apparently would welcome the opportunity to mow down his enemies as they did last April and May. A general speaking in those terms does not represent the thinking of the majority of the people who are backing the resistance to aggression in Korea. In my opinion it is disgraceful for a military commander of a nation supposed to be Christian to utter sentiments like those. Those of us who are sincere believe in opposing aggression, but we regret the loss of life incurred in doing so.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: You mow
them down just the same.
308	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, but we do not glory in it. He goes on:
"We still have an intense desire to do it. We have enough equipment, men and ammunition available. We could do it just as effectively as we did last year."
I bring to the attention of members of this house the frame of mind of a man like this, and ask what chance he has to carry on successful negotiations with a view to arranging an armistice and we hope finally peace. I mention these facts to illustrate to the house statements being made that cause serious concern not only to a group such as ours but to many Canadians. In my own constituency in addition to people who support the C.C.F. party there are a number of good citizens who are Liberals, and a number of citizens who support the Progressive Conservative party. I know some of them wholeheartedly endorse the statement made by my leader a few days ago with respect to foreign affairs.
That is all I am going to say on that point at this time, except to quote what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) had to say on this question during this debate, because I think in this paragraph at page 117 of Hansard the hon. member brought the whole subject into focus in a very few sentences:
It seems to us-
And when our leader says "us" he means the C.C.F. group in this house and our supporters in the country.
-that NATO has been influenced almost entirely by domestic and political considerations in the United States. This is an election year there. Most nations are dependent upon our great neighbour for financial and economic aid. Fortunately Canada* has paid her own way and is in no sense dependent on the United States for financial or economic aid. Hence we are in a peculiar position of being able in NATO, and indeed in the United Nations when necessary, to give a lead towards the acceptance of more sensible and constructive policies than we have been getting.
That is the point. This group believes this government is in a most favourable position to give a stronger lead than it has given in the past, and to offer more sensible and constructive policies with regard to foreign affairs, our rearmament for defence, and our resistance to aggression in Korea.
Now I want to speak in a more parochial vein; I think that is the term used by the writer for Saturday Night when members speak of things that directly concern their constituents, or matters of particular interest in their own constituency. During each recess, like all members of this group I usually get around my riding as much as possible, not only speaking to various organizations but meeting people. I like to go on the farms,


to go down in the mines, to go into the lumber camps and the smelters. I like to meet people who are working from day to day, to find out what they are really thinking about current problems in Canada. I have found that the people are anxious to discuss many matters with me, and a considerable number are interested in the few matters I am going to bring to the attention of the house now.
I had the opportunity to address a considerable number of branches of the Canadian Legion, and to talk to many widows, dependents and others interested in veterans questions. I found that thousands of veterans and veterans' dependents throughout this country are very interested in amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I am very pleased that the government has indicated the intention to bring a measure before the house amending that act. The personal contacts I have had with hundreds of people and the correspondence I have received indicate very clearly the great and increasing need for something to be done for this large and needy segment of our population. Only two or three days ago I received a letter from a very fine lady in my constituency, the widow of a veteran who rendered great service to this country. She and her husband came to Canada some forty-five years ago with a little capital, and in this letter she retails her life history. She tells how their capital vanished in developing their little ranch; what they went through; how her husband went overseas, where he was wounded and gassed; how he spent some twenty-five or twenty-seven years in poor health and then died. She recounts the circumstances in which she finds herself today. In other words she writes a letter that thousands could write. When one talks to people in those circumstances, when one gets letters of that kind by the dozen, one realizes to the full the need for great improvements in the War Veterans Allowance Act. I am not going to say more about that at this time, Mr. Speaker, because when the bill comes before the house we shall have an opportunity of presenting our views. I hope the government goes further than the representatives of the Canadian Legion proposed during their last meeting with the cabinet.
Another thing I found that did concern many of the older people was something that was mentioned by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) yesterday. He does not miss very much, Mr. Speaker. He looks at the economic and social life of this country through a microscope, and then presents his findings to this house. The hon. member mentioned that he had found a number of old age pensioners who had been

drawing the old age pension prior to December 31, 1951, and who were quite concerned about recoveries against estates. I found exactly the same situation in my constituency. A number of people are quite uncertain as to what is going to happen. They have been receiving the pension for some years and have decided, in their own minds, that there is a lien against their property. I understand that there is some confusion as a result of the constitutional situation or as a result of an agreement between the federal and provincial governments. I feel that at this session the government ought to relieve those people's minds by washing out that aspect of any agreement.
There happen to be a number of superannuated civil servants in my constituency who have retired from public works, post office, customs and the other departments scattered throughout the district. I find that some of these superannuated civil servants are in needy circumstances. The member for Winnipeg North Centre said yesterday that there were 1,478 superannuated civil servants who were receiving less than $40 per month. There were 2,647 widows of civil servants who were receiving less than $40 a month. I trust that the government will listen to the very eloquent plea of the member for Winnipeg North Centre, and do something at this session to relieve those people from their necessitous condition.
Like other members in this group, I regret that there is no provision being made this year for the establishment of a committee to study a national health plan. Members would be surprised to find the growing interest and demand for some form of national health program. As a result of the experience in the provincial field it has been found that, regardless of the best the provincial governments can do because of their limited facilities and circumstances, we are not going to have satisfactory health or medical services in this country until they are correlated, within the framework of a national health program.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I certainly support the subamendment moved by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), urging the government to take action with respect to stabilizing prices to protect the producers and consumers. Just prior to coming into this chamber at three o'clock I had a discussion with a number of people from British Columbia who told my colleague the member for Yale (Mr. Jones) and myself that a considerable increase in the price of meat in British Columbia had already taken place. This is only the beginning. If it is found necessary to maintain this ban on the movement of meat from one province to the other,
The Address-Mr. Herridge the situation is going to become quite serious.
I urge the government to give consideration to the proposal contained in the amendment moved by the member for Selkirk.
Before I conclude I want to deal with a few matters of direct interest to the riding I have the honour to represent. For the information of some of the prairie members who are not so fortunate as to live in as fine a part of the country as I do, may I say that the greater part of the Columbia river community, as we call it, is within my constituency. The Columbia river community is that part of Canada the history of which, when future history is written, will be written in the terms of the history of the Nile, the Mississippi and the other great rivers of the world.
The Columbia river basin is an area of 39,000 square miles in Canada, rich in land, timber, minerals and water power resources.
I intend to be brief, but wish to give some indication of the tremendous developments in this district-I am glad the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is listening because I have an appeal to make to him later. I shall outline a few of the developments. I speak with some sentiment on the matter because I come from a family that has lived in that district nearly fifty years, and has waited nearly fifty years to see the things happening that are happening today. I am very glad that we had faith enough to wait that time. At the junction of the Columbia and Waneta rivers there is a dam and power plant being erected that will cost over $30 million. The Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company is spending something in the nature of $10 million on the expansion of its Trail plants. The Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and the West Kootenay Power and Light Company are spending something over $5 million in power line extension to Kimberley and to the mine at Riondel. I understand they have just erected the longest over-water power cable that we know of in the world. Something like $3 million is being spent in the development of the Riondel mine. Approximately $10 million is being spent in the development of other mines, including the famous Emerald mine which is now being operated under government supervision for the production of tungsten. Plans are now well under way for the construction of a pulp and paper mill that will cost in the neighbourhood of $65 million. The company has made application to the government of British Columbia for a forest management licence covering an area forty miles in width and three hundred miles in length. This will make possible the complete utilization of
310	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge the growing timber in the area, all the forest floor waste and all the waste that now occurs from saw mills and others cutting timber products.
I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because these growing developments produce demands for improved public services. One problem that now faces some of the communities in my area is the problem of housing. We are going to have an increase in the population of Castlegar of around 5,000 in a few years. Some of the small communities will double in population in the next two or three years. I wish to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that something more than has been done in the past will have to be done by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation if the small unorganized communities are going to be served. I am thinking of a village quite close to where I live, the village of Nakusp, with a present population of about 1,200 people. This population could be tripled within three years, and yet there is no civic organization whatever today. It is extremely difficult in such areas to get loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I say that it is going to be necessary for the corporation to make a special effort to assist in the building of houses, particularly in the unorganized area where there is no possibility of coming under the terms of the act that provide for federal-provincial co-operation. I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Public Works that this development is going to require an extensive increase in expenditures for improvements to wharves and buildings, the building of new wharves, their renewal and repair.
In addition to that, I trust that this new suction dredge that is being built at the present time for use on the Okanagan lake and on the Arrow lakes will soon be brought over to the Arrow lakes, when the work in the Okanagan is completed, in order to deepen the channel between the upper and lower lakes. When logs are being driven, during the time logs are moved from the upper to the lower lakes there will be a period when a million feet of logs are going through that narrow channel, through that swift water, in every twenty-four hours. I think the government should give consideration to deepening that channel in time for the company that is intending to operate to use it when it commences to move this timber.
I also bring to the attention of the house the fact that more money is required for the removal of snags on the Arrow lakes and on the Kootenay lakes. I trust that the vote for


the deepening of the Duncan river and the removal of log jams will be carried forward again this year.
That is all I have to say about public works. I want to say a word or two about post offices. Post offices are an extremely necessary service. I want to mention first the post office at Trail. I have received letters from the board of trade and from other organizations there. There is a growing demand for improved post office facilities in the city of Trail. I am fully aware of the circumstances that have existed. I know that in the estimates for three or four years there has been a vote to provide for the purchase of a site for the post office at Trail. I know of the great difficulty there has been in securing a site. I mention the matter in order to urge that everything possible be done to secure a site at the first opportunity so that the new post office or federal building can be built and the federal public services housed in a place satisfactory to the community as a whole.
For two or three years there has been a vote for the extension of the Nelson post office. That post office has been quite adequate up until recent years. It was built in the early days of this century when we built those rather ornate drill halls across Canada, as well as ornate post offices and ornate structures of other kinds. Today, however, it is totally inadequate. As to the Nelson post office, its extension and improvement has been delayed because of the economies caused by the defence production program. I urge that this extension and improvement be carried out this year. In Nelson the federal government has the post office, the customs and excise offices. The unemployment insurance offices are housed in another building which is quite inadequate, and for which they are paying $3,000 a year rent. If the people of the district are to be properly served, it is very necessary that the Nelson post office extension and the other improvements be carried out this year.
One other post office about which 1 wish to speak is that at Salmo. Salmo is now an important mining area. I know the department has under consideration either the renting of suitable premises or the building of a new post office owned by the government itself. I want to say at this time that I think a great deal of time is lost in, shall I say, correspondence between two departments. The post office department makes a report that they have need of certain accommodation. Then the public works department takes up the matter. Then the architects'

branch in British Columbia deals with it and they send someone in to investigate. There is a lot of coming and going and a great deal of time is wasted, I think, because of the necessity for two or three departments, on some occasions, to deal with one problem. In any event, I urge that immediate consideration be given to the building of a new post office in the Salmo area in order to serve these people. The present post office is a disgrace to any public service. Going into it is like going into an old cow barn which was discarded about five years ago.
I want to mention one other point with respect to mail service. On the whole, we have a fairly good mail service in the interior of British Columbia, and I will give the department credit for that. The services have been much improved in recent years. I am just making the plea for the restoration of mail service on the upper Arrow lakes between the two points of Revelstoke and Nakusp. At the present time when we want to post a letter to Revelstoke, which is 71 miles from Nakusp, it goes to Nelson, which is 102 miles away. Then it goes to Calgary on the Kettle Valley railway and it reaches Revelstoke three days later; and when a letter is posted back to us it goes around the same way. It often takes seven days to get a reply to a letter posted to Revelstoke.
Revelstoke contains our provincial government offices and our dominion government offices. The assessor is there, as well as the tax collector, worse luck, and certain other officials connected with that provincial district. Associated boards of trade in eastern British Columbia and the boards of trade on the Arrow lakes, the Arrowhead board of trade and the Revelstoke board of trade are exceedingly anxious that the government restore a direct mail service between Revelstoke and Nakusp. It means a bag for Revelstoke to Nakusp, to be distributed by mail truck from there south, and two bags to provide mail service to the summer resort at St. Leon and Halcyon Hot Springs twice a week on the days the steamer runs. I think that is a modest request when one takes into consideration that in the upper Arrow lake last year in the neighbourhood of $2 million worth of forest products were cut and shipped in the form of lumber and poles in the period of about seven months.
Before concluding, I have two other things that I wish to mention.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Speaking of the shipment of lumber, and knowing what we ship

The Address-Mr. Herridge in the Fraser valley, may I ask if those 2 million feet were shipped out in jeeps or some-think like that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) looks at all the social and economic questions with a microscope. The hon. member for Fraser valley, when he is looking at Fraser valley questions, considers them as though looking through a magnifying glass. I should like to say this and I say it with all kindness. As I look at the blank and sombre face of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, I fully realize that none of my arguments, none of my reasons and none of the things I am speaking about will penetrate to the inner recesses of an ivory tower of ornate medieval construction.
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about just two other things. The first is with regard to the airport of Castlegar. Air service into our district is becoming more important every day, and the airport of Castlegar is the most important one in the southern interior of British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad that I have the member's assent on this occasion. Last year the federal government made a grant of $35,000 for the improvement of this airport, including the paving and the improvement of the runways. The airport is owned jointly by the city of Nelson, and the villages of Castlegar and Kinnaird. The people of the district appreciate what is being done, and they have made a request for an additional $50,000 this year to complete that work. I ask the minister and the department concerned, as well as his officials, to give serious consideration to this matter because with the enormous industrial development going on in that area-and it will go on for some years to come-it is extremely necessary that we have our airport completed and in satisfactory condition.
In conclusion may I say that the city of Nelson is trying to build an airstrip for light planes. They are not asking for anything in the nature of a large grant. They are asking for a small sum of money toward the improvement of their municipal airport so that they can service the small planes that fly around the country in connection with forest surveys, forest management and things of that sort. In conclusion, I represent a district that has enormous production. Tremendous wealth is produced in that area. Where there is great production this government reaps a harvest of taxes. Up till recent years the area which I represent and to a

The Address-Mr. Mayhew greater extent the area in which I live, has been considered a backwater. For instance, we very rarely get a cabinet minister through our area-


George Alexander Cruickshank: What a break.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -because they usually
travel along the main lines. I do ask the government to give consideration to the huge production that is going on there and the much greater production coming in the immediate future, and when they are considering the public services to remember our needs and provide those public services that are urgent and necessary at this time if the community is to receive its fair share and be adequately served.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Speaker, it is some time since I have taken the opportunity of saying a word in the debate on the speech from the throne. Today I do so for a very special reason.
On December 3 last, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked me if I was going to make a statement at an early date concerning the progress of negotiations with the United States and Japan with respect to the fisheries treaty. At that time the officials had not completed drafting the agreement nor had it been brought to the attention of my colleagues. I therefore did not feel that it was the proper time for me to make any report. I gave an undertaking to the hon. member that I would report to this house as soon as possible after receiving the completed draft and after discussing it with my colleagues.
Although the agreement was tabled on December 29, this is the first occasion when it seemed appropriate for me to make a report regarding the treaty. I am pleased to do so now.
I would very much like to follow the usual courtesies and extend my congratulations to the constituencies of Westmorland and Lake St. John as well as to the two members representing those ridings who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. This house always recognizes industry, ability and efficiency; it also recognizes quite readily the marks of a gentleman which were so evident in these two members and in their speeches. They gave the historical background of their ridings, what they had accomplished to date and what they hoped they might do, making it clear that these two links in the chain of confederation are healthy, sound, and ready to play their parts in the development of Canada. These encouraging words are appreciated by all members of the house.

I now want to say something about the United States-Japan-Canada tripartite agreement on fisheries.
For some time it was thought that there would be something in the peace treaty with Japan referring to fisheries, not only on the west coast of Canada, but in other parts of the Pacific as well. Early in the spring of 1951, the deputy minister, Mr. Stewart Bates, and I were invited to Washington to discuss with Mr. John Foster Dulles this problem. Soon after we met him and began talking about the problem we were convinced that an attempt to include a fishery agreement in the peace treaty itself would mean endless work and delay. It would mean a separate agreement between Japan and all our allies, particularly in the Pacific. We were convinced after our talk with Mr. Dulles that he was right and that our best plan was to work out a separate fisheries agreement. Again after a great deal of consideration and after discussing it with the fishing industry and fishermen of the west coast, it was thought that a tripartite agreement with Japan and the United States and Canada was the only really sensible sort of agreement. His Excellency the prime minister of Japan had already indicated by letter to Mr. Dulles that he would enter into a fisheries agreement with us and other nations promptly after the signing of the main peace treaty.
The prime minister of Japan, during a brief visit with my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and myself at San Francisco, asked us if we would be prepared to go to Tokyo shortly to discuss such an agreement. We assured him that we would be ready. An official invitation was extended to us in October last. After that and before leaving for Japan we had further discussions with the fishermen and with the industry. The Canadian delegation to Tokyo consisted of the deputy minister of the Department of Fisheries, Mr. Sam Ozere, legal counsel to the department, my colleague Mr. E. T. Applewhaite, member for Skeena, Dr. J. L. Hart, head of the biological station at Nanaimo, Mr. John Buchanan, representing the industry of British Columbia, and myself.
I think it is advisable for me at this point to indicate why an agreement of any sort was necessary. Those living on the Pacific coast have for a good many years been very deeply concerned about the danger of Japanese fishermen coming to British Columbia to fish our salmon, halibut and herring. The Japanese expedition to Bristol bay before the war demonstrated that this was possible and that they were actually thinking along this line.

This trip also created a great deal of resentment against the Japanese fishermen. While the Japanese fishermen had never fished along our coast, yet there was no reason why they could not, and very sound reasons as to why they would do it. For many years Japan has been the leading country in the world as far as fisheries are concerned, taking first place in the volume of her catch before the second world war. In addition to that, Japan needs what she gets from the sea to feed her people, probably more than any other nation. I understand that about eighty per cent of her protein is harvested from the sea. She also needs some of the other valuable species such as salmon and tuna for export purposes, and her fisheries have been considerably reduced as a result of the recent war, since Russia is now in command of the very valuable salmon fisheries formerly enjoyed by her. It was therefore necessary, if we wanted to add stability and security to the fishing industry on the British Columbia coast, to make some agreement with Japan.
The basis of this agreement involved two questions of principle which were difficult to reconcile: the right of all nations to the freedom of the seas and the reverse of that, to restrict Japan from fishing near Canadian or American shores. However, the solution to the problem was readily available. Canada and the United States both have a long history of conservation of certain species- salmon, halibut and herring- and it is quite true to say that these fisheries would probably have been lost to the world's food supply had we not over the years taken very rigid conservation methods. For many years we have restricted our fishermen as to the time they could commence seasonal fishing, when they would cease fishing, restricting all fishing for two or three days a week, regulating the length of their nets and the size of the mesh, and on many occasions leaving idle fishing gear and plants while these regulations were being applied. In addition to that, the government of Canada has spent large sums of money year after year for the scientific study of these species. Industries locating on our rivers were obliged to prevent pollution and to construct, at their own expense, dams and fishways to meet our regulations in order to provide easy ascent to the spawning grounds and safety in the spawning grounds. Likewise, the taxpayers of Canada have paid for both river and sea patrols to see that these regulations were carried out. We have also made international agreements between the United States and Canada for the conservation and propagation of the sockeye salmon on
The Address-Mr. Mayhew the Fraser river as well as for the halibut fishery, so that Canada as a whole, and the fishermen and fishing industry of British Columbia in particular, had a capital investment in the three species-salmon, halibut and herring. The fact that we had been doing this work for years made it comparatively easy and gave us a reasonable argument to use with Japan as to why they should waive their rights, not to the freedom of the high seas, but to fish these species in the waters of the east Pacific.
In gaining this concession, we obtained for the fishing industry of British Columbia what it has been most anxious to obtain and what it has been insisting on for some years. It was obtained not as a punitive measure nor because Japan was a defeated nation. It was obtained because it was a reasonable and1 fair request to make, one that in the same circumstances we would be ready to grant to any other nation in the Pacific.
Some of those who are opposing this agreement, and I believe others who are not opposing it but have not given it very serious consideration have asked the question, and I might say we have asked1 the question ourselves-why not just a simple agreement between Japan and Canada, each agreeing not to fish within a certain radius or area of each other's shore line? That sounds very simple and I am sure quite reasonable to a lot of people. But I would ask you to take just a second look at it. If you do you will see that such an agreement would mean the zoning of the Pacific ocean. Both Japan and ourselves would have to enter into separate agreements with other nations on a similar basis, and what would be the result? While I was travelling from Seoul to Tokyo by plane, the navigator had a map on his desk, and I asked him if he could give me roughly the coast line of Japan in miles as compared to the Canadian coast line; with the coast line of Japan, I included the inland sea of Japan. In a very few minutes, he was able to give me the approximate mileage. You would probably be surprised1 to know that the mileage of the coast line of Japan is approximately five times that of the coast line of British Columbia from point to point. If the whole of the Pacific area was divided up as suggested, Canada would suffer since she has one of the shortest shore lines of any country in the Pacific basin.
Others claim that this is by no means a perfect agreement as far as Canada and the United States are concerned. With that we agree, because it is not an agreement with the United States at all. It has not changed our relationship with the United States and we enjoy all the rights and privileges that

The Address-Mr. Mayhew we have ever had with that country. This is expressly stated in our agreement, and in this agreement we used the same wording as was used previously in the convention tor the northwest Atlantic fisheries. I quote:
Nothing in this convention shall he deemed to affect adversely the claims ot any contracting party in regard to the limits of territorial waters or to the jurisdiction of a coastal state over fisheries.
We have made no concession whatever to the United States.
However, the United States and Japan realized and so stated that the stocks of fish on the North American coast are so intermingled that it would be impossible to segregate them in any way that would be practical of administration. Therefore the conference agreed that under no condition would Canada and the United States be asked to abstain from fishing any species of fish from and including the gulf of Alaska southward to the gulf of Mexico. That is a recognition which is very valuable to the Canadian fisherman.
We do agree not to fish for red salmon in the Bristol bay area. The United States claims that there is no intermingling of this stock of fish with others along our coast or the coast of Asia. If that is proven by the commission which is being set up as a judicial body, not as a regulatory body, then we will permanently, or as long as this agreement lasts, not fish for red salmon in that area. But if the commission proves that there is an intermingling of these stocks of fish, then, because it would come under the principles which we applied in making this agreement, we will be free if we wish to fish in these waters. In the meantime we have the right, if we wish to use it, to fish any other species in the Behring sea, and to fish for salmon west of the 175th meridian.
Another complaint that is sometimes heard is that this is a five-year agreement. It is a five-year agreement if we cease to carry on with the conservation methods and management techniques that we have employed for years, but if we continue to employ, as I am sure we will, these same protections, then the agreement will last for ten years or indefinitely.
Another point that is brought up is that we have extended an invitation to Japan to fish for cod, flounders and other groundfish along our coast. That of course is very, very far from the truth. Japan, or any other nation that cares to, may fish outside the three-mile limit of our coast or the coast line of any other country. But Japan has never found it worth while to cross the Pacific nearly 6,000 miles to fish for the species just mentioned,

and I do not believe that she will do so now since she has waived her right to fish salmon, halibut and herring.
In this agreement we have established a principle that can easily be applied to a fourth, fifth or any other number of nations that want to accept it. I cannot say that this has been secured without cost. It has been secured at the cost of many millions of dollars, the millions of dollars which we have spent in conservation in the past, but it is certainly costing us no additional money or rights at this time. In that connection, if we had not been engaged in conservation and propagation on the west coast we would not have had this basis for asking the Japanese to waive any rights. That is the only cost. There is no new cost. All three countries are firmly convinced that the conservation of the fisheries on the high seas is a necessity, and that more and more the nations of the world will come to depend on the sea for more of their food. This agreement will allow the maximum of exploitation and at the same time a sustained yield of fish.
It is not my intention and I do not think it is the intention of the government to press for early ratification of the agreement for two reasons. First, the majority of the governments that signed the Japanese peace treaty in San Francisco will have to ratify the peace treaty before anything further can be done. I think hon. members will realize that at the present time Japan is not in a position to sign this agreement, until the peace treaty has been ratified. When this has been accomplished we will then consider when we should ask for the ratification of the fisheries agreement. Second, we want all interested parties to have an opportunity of making representations to us.
We have a standing committee on fisheries, and I would hope that some time during this session they will be called together to consider this agreement. Now that I have made this statement in the house, where I think it is proper that I should do so, I am free to meet with other groups, particularly in British Columbia, to discuss this matter. I have tried to give to the house in as simple and as clear a way as possible not the whole treaty but the results of our meeting. The legal and technical details can be discussed in the committee on marine and fisheries, and if members are interested they can be further discussed in the house when we are asking to have the treaty ratified.
I have already given you the names of the Canadian delegation attending the conference in Tokyo. May I now extend to them my sin-cerest thanks. They worked hard throughout

the whole conference and with good effect. Canada has received the maximum protection without injuring the welfare of any other country, and has obtained something that we did not have before, security for the principal fisheries of British Columbia. I think the members of the delegation are entitled to our sincere thanks.
I wish also to add to the names mentioned that of Mr. Arthur Menzies, head of the Canadian legation in Tokyo, our host, our guide, our friend and counsellor. This includes of course Mrs. Menzies. Ladies are always called upon on occasions of this kind to depart from their normal routine, if in such positions there ever is a normal routine. We were much impressed by the good work that is being carried out in Tokyo for all of Canada and particularly for the boys who are in the forces in Korea and who visit Tokyo from time to time.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the statement which has just been read by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew). I am sure that members of the house and the people of British Columbia will appreciate the fact that the minister has taken an early opportunity in the present session to explain this difficult, very complicated and decidedly controversial agreement. Many interests in British Columbia have had doubts as to the soundness of the agreement, and, as the minister himself intimated, the agreement has been questioned and objections to it have been raised. As the minister has suggested, that may be because the people of British Columbia, and particularly the fishermen, have not been fully conversant with all the details and the background. The minister has taken the trouble today to explain some of that background, and I am sure his remarks will be studied with care and interest even though they may not be accepted immediately by people who have another point of view.
I was particularly pleased to hear the minister say that the government was in no hurry to seek ratification of the agreement, and to hear him promise to refer it for the consideration of the standing committee on marine and fisheries. My hope is that every opportunity will be given to call before the committee the parties who are particularly interested in this matter.
It is not my intention this afternoon to say any more about this question. I was asked last fall if I would attend the sixth session of the general assembly of the United Nations as a parliamentary observer. While I was in Paris a further invitation came asking me
The Address-Mr. Pearkes if I would also attend the consultative assembly of the council of Europe which was meeting in Strasbourg. I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Speaker, through whom the invitation was issued, and the house for granting me the great privilege and remarkable opportunity of attending the meetings of the council of Europe. In the time at my disposal I should like to report to you and the house my impressions of the assembly and to give very briefly the background of the work which the council of Europe is endeavouring to carry out. I do so because I was the only member of this house who was privileged to attend the meetings of the council, and in fact the only member who has ever been there as an official observer. I found my experiences to be both unique and of the greatest value. I would like to pass on in a factual way, certainly not in a controversial manner, the impressions I received from my attendance at those meetings.
It may be of general interest to know that shortly after the cessation of hostilities in world war II Mr. Winston Churchill, while speaking at Zurich, called for the establishment of a European system to ensure a greater degree of unity amongst the nations of that continent. That appeal led to what became known as the European movement, and through that movement the council of Europe was created.
The council of Europe is quite unique. It is different from the assembly of United Nations, and its organization is different from that of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It consists of a consultative assembly and a committee of ministers. The consultative assembly meets annually at Strasbourg in Alsace, a province of France. I would like to digress for a moment to give a word picture of that ancient city of Strasbourg, because I believe it has some bearing upon the results of the consultations of that assembly.
Strasbourg is a very ancient city. The day we arrived there by train it was celebrating its liberation from the Germans after the second world war. Strasbourg has been captured and liberated many times in its long history. When we went to our hotel we looked over blocks of dwellings the roofs of which were almost identical with those depicted in some of the old fairy tale books, such as Hans Andersen. They had very high gables and red slates, with very uneven ridge lines. In the gables were small apertures or windows, seldom having glass in them. Looking over a long vista of these roofs we saw behind them, and towering high above

The Address-Mr. Pearkes them, the century-old cathedral built on a mount which had been a place of worship long before the birth of Christ. That city is also surrounded by very slow moving canals. One saw barges moving up and down those canals in very much the same way they had been moving for many years past. But those barges eventually reached the ocean, and I think they are symbolic of the slow movement toward an objective which is being shown by the council of Europe. That whole city is steeped in history and tradition, and it is on that tradition and history that Europe is slowly advancing and building upon what has gone before.
As I said, the consultative assembly met in Strasbourg. This assembly is composed entirely of national delegations from the fifteen member countries of the council of Europe. There again it is interesting to note that the member countries are not all members of the United Nations, nor are they all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. All the delegates are elected representatives of the parliaments of their particular countries. That again, I think, is significant, because they were people who had to take a practical view of conditions. They could not be too idealistic, or too far in advance of public opinion in the districts they represent. They represented not only the governments of their countries but also the opposition parties, so an observer from Canada had an opportunity to talk with representatives of all parties who were there.
In the assembly the delegates are seated alphabetically. You might find a delegate from France sitting next to a delegate from Greece, simply because of the initials of their surnames. Each delegate votes individually, not by countries, so you avoid the bloc system of voting which is quite noticeable at the United Nations. The resolutions and recommendations adopted by the assembly are then passed on to the committee of ministers, whence, if approved, they are referred to the governments of the various countries.
As I said in the beginning, the object of the council is to ensure greater unity amongst the countries of Europe. At the first session of the consultative assembly, which was held three or four years ago, it was shown that there was no hope of securing a federation of the whole of Europe at that time, so an alternative proposal was advanced which has become known as the functional approach. By that is meant the setting up of specialized authorities designed to ensure European cooperation in specific fields such as agriculture, defence, transportation and trade relationships, where a definite problem might

be dealt with. But the ultimate responsibility of accepting or rejecting it would rest with the national government. On the other hand the federalists, represented very largely by French and Italian delegates, adhere to the theory of supranational authorities responsible to some international parliamentary body. As the debates went on it appeared that the functional approach seemed for the time being the most practical way of bringing about greater unity among the various countries.
The first specialized authority to be proposed was the Schuman plan in connection with coal and steel, which was advanced in 1950. At the same session Mr. Winston Churchill moved a resolution in the consultative assembly calling for a European army, which subsequently was developed into the Pleven plan which no doubt we shall be discussing some time later in this house. When Mr. Churchill advanced his proposal he was anxious to attract western Germany to the western cause, and he used these words:
There is no revival of Europe, no safety of freedom for any of us, except in standing together, united and unflinching.
I ask this assembly-
That was the consultative assembly of the council of Europe.
-to assure our German friends that if they throw in their lot with us, we shall hold their safety and freedom as sacred as our own.
Statements had been made shortly before that, and have since been repeated by Herr Grotewohl, leader of the German party in east Germany, which had attracted a great deal of attention. He referred to the neutralization of Germany, and by that he was suggesting that a vacuum might be created in Germany where there would be no armed forces. The occupational forces of Russia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be withdrawn, and there would be a neutralized zone. At this time it was felt, and I believe it was felt by a majority of the people attending the council of Europe, that such a program would be tantamount to placing the whole of Germany at the disposal of the U S.S.R., and that it would be handing over that vast territory to the communists.
The integration of western Germany, therefore, within the European community was considered of paramount importance. It was only by permitting western Germany into the council of Europe on a basis of equality that the German people could be given the necessary prestige and authority. As you know, the Labour government, which was then in

Great Britain, did not take part in the discussions on either the Schuman or the Pleven plan. In due course the Schuman plan was adopted and the treaty signed, while plans for the European army had progressed. The position taken by the British delegates at the consultative assembly this year was that of close association with, but not unconditional participation in, either the Schuman plan or the European army plan.
I believe the position of the British delegates was summed up quite well by Lady Tweedsmuir, who was one of the British delegates and who spoke extremely well. She used these words:
We believe that our conception of a working partnership in Europe is right, not only because we face adversity now, but that it is right forever. We put our trust not so much in treaties, because history has shown that these can be broken. What really matters is whether Britain will share with all her friends both good days and bad in the time to come, and I can say that we shall be there.
As I said, there was some disappointment that the British were not prepared to accept unconditionally the proposals of a European army or of the federation of Europe. Mr. Paul Reynaud spoke and said he was profoundly disappointed that the United Kingdom would only associate herself with this movement. The result of this disappointment so openly expressed tended towards a revival of the idea of a limited continental federation which would be limited to those European countries which were anxious and willing to federate. The trend towards this limited federation was encouraged by the attitude of the United States of America.
The United States of America had, as you know, backed the Schuman plan from the beginning, and had given much support to the Pleven plan. Furthermore, this summer a number of congressmen had visited a committee of the council of Europe at Strasbourg, and had come out very strongly for European federation. I refer you to the description I gave earlier of Strasbourg. There were these slowly moving canals. We on this continent come from a land where there are turbulent mountain streams. However, over the centuries those slow moving canals have delivered their barges, shall we say, on the ocean of achievement. The idea of the United States congressmen for immediate federation of Europe represented, I believe, the hurry and rush of a mountain torrent trying to reach the sea. As you know, mountain torrents splash up some water on their banks before they reach their goal.
However, the debates that followed in the assembly made it quite clear that the group of representatives from those Scandinavian countries, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland, were not prepared to accept any
The Address-Mr. Pearkes closer ties with continental Europe than those which the United Kingdom was prepared to accept. Furthermore, the Benelux countries, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg, also found it difficult to accept federation unless the United Kingdom was a full partner and thus able to provide a counterpoise to what might eventually become a French-German struggle. This impasse emphasized the necessity for the consultative assembly to make a new effort this year to try to find a practical, even if partial, solution which would enable the council to gain some ground in the direction of its ultimate goal. Those are the words which were used in a report from the political committee. The goal, namely of building that unity of Europe, was the raison d'etre of the council.
There was a feeling frequently expressed that, while the desirability of the closest association with the United States was quite self-evident, yet Europe would become more a partner and better able to negotiate with the United States on an equal footing if the countries of Europe were more united. I am not suggesting that there is not gratitude from the countries of Europe for the vast amount of aid which has been given to those countries by the United States. I am suggesting that those countries are anxious to have a say in how that aid will be distributed amongst them. They feel that if they were a united group, then they would be able to negotiate better with the United States. For this reason urgent appeals were made to the United Kingdom once again to participate not only in the European army but in the continental community.
I also heard Mr. Paul Reynaud declare that without Britain the European army plan could not pass the national assembly in Paris. These anxieties which were expressed at the end of last year have to some extent been smoothed over, and the government of the United Kingdom has promised close co-operation with the continental defence community, if and when it comes into being. Mr. Eden has made it quite clear that Britain cannot join a European federation. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether some practical alternative to a limited continental federation can be found. From all that I heard at Strasbourg, I suggest that the crux of the problem is to keep Germany on our side without subjecting Europe to German domination. Despite assurances of close association given by the United Kingdom there were in France, in the Benelux countries and elsewhere, widespread feelings that without
318	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearkes actual British participation Germany would soon become the dominating partner in any purely continental federation.
Many examples were given of the amazing resilience of the German people and of the industrial recovery which has already taken place in western Germany. It was stated that the general production of industries in western Germany today was almost 150 per cent of that of pre-war days. Later I had an opportunity of motoring for some 200 miles down the Rhine valley and through the great industrial area of the Ruhr. There cities which are connected with the coal and steel industry-such as Essen and Dusseldorf and which we knew had been nearly destroyed during the last war-were now giving visible evidence of the way in which the new plants had risen on the very rubble which was all that had been left of the factories of pre-war days. Everywhere one saw tall chimney stacks belching out smoke. All down that high road one saw a great movement of commercial supplies being moved by tractor, drawn by diesel-driven lorries, sometimes with one or two trailers behind them. To give some idea of the financial recovery of Germany I should like to read a paragraph from a report of a survey which was made for the Council of Europe by the organization for European economic co-operation, and dated November, 1951. This is to be found at page 13:
The German position has improved so fast that by the end of May she had repaid the whole of the special credit granted to her by E.P.U.-*
That is the European payment union.
-and by the end of December her cumulative deficit with E.P.U. has been reduced to some $106 million as against the peak of $469 million at the end of February.
That is February, 1951.
Consequently, it has been decided that the special arrangements under which her trade with member countries is now carried on shall cease at the 1st January, 1852, and that she will proceed to a substantial degree of liberalization as from that date.
I think that brief quotation and that brief description of what I saw personally in the Ruhr valley will give some idea of this amazing growth and recovery in western Germany. The one thing which stood out, however, in all the statements made at Strasbourg by representatives of west Germany was the determination of the Germans once again to become a united nation. As hon. members know, they are divided at the present time, with their eastern provinces taken away from them and handed over to Poland, to Czechoslovakia and to Russia, with Russia occupying the central part of Germany between the Oder and the Elbe, with Berlin an island in the centre of that territory, and with the occupational forces of the west in the part


between the Elbe and the Rhine. I heard the leader of the west German republic delegation-his name was Heinrich von Brentano- say that the division of Germany was one of the main causes for the present disturbed conditions in Europe, and presented a constant threat of war. Then he concluded by saying that the unification of Germany is an imperative necessity.
There is no doubt about it that, amongst many people in Europe, there is a fear that Germany may once again, almost inevitably, become the dominating factor in any European federation. It is for that reason that various delegates advanced the idea of some form of commonwealth relationship for western Europe which could possibly include the United Kingdom rather than having the idea of a limited federation.
Events are moving so rapidly in Europe and they have such a profound influence upon the lives of the people of Canada that I feel it is of great importance that we should take every opportunity to keep in touch with those events. The meetings of the consultative assembly, as I have said before, provide for any member of this house who might be sent there a unique opportunity to meet the leading statesmen of many countries of Europe and also the opportunity of feeling the pulse of Europe. I am most grateful for the opportunity which was afforded to me to attend those meetings at Strasbourg last year. I would strongly recommend that Canada accept, in future, any invitation which may be sent to her to send observers to meetings of this assembly. I know of no better way of ensuring harmony between this country and the countries of Europe than to interest ourselves in their problems. The council of Europe provides the fundamental framework for political and economic co-operation. When these invitations are extended in future, I hope it will be possible for observers from all parties in this house to accept them.


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that we were going to go on until six o'clock and that my turn would come after eight; but since there is yet ten minutes to go until six o'clock, rather than ask for the indulgence of the house I should like at least to start on my comments concerning various problems of the province of Nova Scotia. These are problems which have arisen because of the severe storm damage which took place in that province in the months of December, January and February. It was just prior to Christmas that I first brought to the attention of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) the severe losses that had been suffered by the lobster men, and I asked

that some investigation be made as to the damage that had been done. When we came back for those few days between Christmas and New Year's I again asked a question, and I asked how much had been done towards starting this survey. He told me then that it was being investigated, and it would be some time before they had a report. I know that during the month of January the local fisheries officers and the economist from the department district office of Halifax were in the counties of Digby, Yarmouth, Shelburne, Queens, Lunenburg and part of Halifax, the counties which suffered very heavily, to make a careful survey of the losses. I have on various occasions interviewed officials of the department and the minister concerned, and written them concerning this matter, and I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the time has now come when it must be said on the floor of this house so that the people at large may have some idea of the immensity of the losses suffered by these hard-working independent fishermen of Nova Scotia.
We find that in those five and a half counties of Digby, Yarmouth, Shelburne, Queens, Lunenburg and part of Halifax-these counties compose the lobster district, generally known as district No. 4-the loss in damage and ruin of lobster traps alone amounted to some $750,000. The loss of $750,000 by individual fishermen of five and a half counties is a severe loss. I do not believe very many people have any idea of the work or the cost of building a lobster trap. For the benefit of those who do not come from fishing constituencies I am going to outline just briefly what a lobster trap consists of and why it costs as much as it does.
The ordinary lobster trap which is used in our waters is approximately four feet long and is composed of laths. Many of them are four bowed traps in the construction of which are used nails, sills, shoes, bows, twine, oil and paint, three nozzle rings. They also use marline, spindles, bait bags, ballast, swivels, staples, half-way buoys, and buoys on the top of the water. Then there is a galvanized ring and a twenty-five fathom mooring. The cost is approximately $7. I say that, Mr. Speaker, realizing that that does not take into consideration the cost of the labour involved.
These fishermen are financed or outfitted by the dealers in the area in a great many instances. The situation has arisen this last fall, during December and during the months of January and February, that the losses are such that many of these dealers cannot advance any further credit to the fishermen concerned. Therefore the time has now come when the fishermen in the area cannot get financial assistance, and a good many
11,	1952
The Address-Mr. T. A. M. Kirk of them have not the funds of their own in order to build further traps. In other words, no finances, no funds, no traps. They cannot go fishing, and of course they cannot make any income if they cannot fish.
I have been told .that there is no statute at the present time under which this government can give any assistance to the fishermen. I know that there is no vote in the estimates to cover losses of this kind. I shall refer a little later, Mr. Speaker, to these lobster fishermen's losses again.
May I refer now to the government structures, the wharves, the breakwaters and the skidways that have been damaged not only during the last three months, but particularly in the storms of February 27 and February 28. On that occasion wharf after wharf, breakwater after breakwater, skidway after skidway was damaged and severely damaged. Wharves and breakwaters were so damaged that there is now no protection for the fishing fleets in the area. Without giving the name of the village I am going to mention one where there is a small fleet of 18 or 20 lobster boats and where 75 feet of the end of the breakwater went in a matter of a few hours; that is, the outer end. The upper end was severely damaged. The concrete protection wall was damaged and rocks were spilled on the skidways so that the boats could not be hauled up.
I should like to say it is a matter of regret that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is not in the house at the moment. I have the greatest admiration for his departmental officials in the district of Nova Scotia. I also at the same time appreciate the difficulties under which they operate, and furthermore I appreciate the difficulties he must have in trying to keep men of that calibre working for his department at the salaries that they are being paid, when young graduates of technical colleges or universities, just coming out this spring, have already been offered and signed contracts to be paid at much higher salaries than are being paid these engineers, who are expected to go out at all hours of the day and night to examine these structures at low water and make the reports, investigations, and so on. I sympathize with him. May I say this to the minister? Only two or three days ago I drew his attention to a particularly severe case in the area of Digby Neck. At the present time emergency repairs are being made, and I appreciate it, and I know the people do also. I should like to ask that instruction be given to his officials, in these cases where there has been severe damage, that emergency appropriations and repairs be made so that those in the fishing

The Address-Mr. T. A. M. Kirk industry in Nova Scotia will not be held up two, three, or four months because of the lack of protection for their fishing boats.
Before I go on to the other two points leading to my main remarks I would ask you to call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for the dinner recess I had just finished attempting to explain something of the severity of the losses which have been suffered by the fishermen in Nova Scotia. I mentioned that the loss in lobster traps alone amounted to three quarters of a million dollars. Perhaps many hon. members have no realization of what that loss means. It is not just in terms of dollars. I had referred to the material that goes into lobster traps, to the value of $6 to $7 apiece. When 125,000 traps are lost that represents a loss of three quarters of a million dollars. In order to give you an idea of the actual material involved, if those four-foot traps were placed end to end you would have them strung for one hundred miles along the coast.
This loss is of great concern to the fishermen because it represents their means of livelihood. I maintain that their loss is so great that it cannot be overcome without some assistance. I mentioned also the damage to government-owned structures and I should like now to refer briefly to the damage to privately-owned structures in Digby-Yarmouth. I have received innumerable letters, telegrams and petitions outlining the problems which have been created by this disaster and pleading for assistance. I should like to read three paragraphs in one of these petitions, as follows:
We, the undersigned, fishermen, fish processors and fish buyers of East Ferry, Digby county, Nova Scotia, do hereby petition both the federal Department of Fisheries and the Department of Trade and Industry of the province of Nova Scotia for assistance to help in the rehabilitation of the fishing industry of East Ferry which was totally destroyed in the disastrous storm which swept this coast on February 27, 1952.
Appended below will be found a list of the above mentioned fishermen, fish processors and fish buyers together with statements of the loss suffered by each of them. This loss has resulted in the total destruction of the fishing industry of East Ferry and has created a situation whereby assistance must be forthcoming from some governmental agency if the industry is to be rehabilitated and the people of the community of East Ferry prevented from undergoing severe hardship
We urge your prompt and favourable consideration of our petition. Our case is desperate and assistance is urgently needed.

The village of East Ferry suffered the greatest loss, but the villages of Tiverton, Freeport and Westport also suffered considerable loss. In the village of East Ferry the fishing plants, the equipment, the stock in the plants, the wharves upon which the plants were erected

everything was damaged and washed out to sea. The result is that that area has practically no means of making a living. I should like to read in part a letter which I received from one man who is very much concerned:
This community of East Ferry, Digby county, suffered a very severe blow during the gale of February 27 and 28, when in the screaming blizzard which took place at that date, nearly all the fish processing plants, fish houses, freezer plant, lobster car, traps, boats and gear were swept away or smashed into kindling wood and torn metal and debris.
These plants and1 equipment represent the work of a great many people of this community over the past twenty years and under the circumstances as exist today, and through their own efforts at this time, are to all intents and purposes practically irreplaceable. These men who have undergone this severe loss simply have not got the dollars to rebuild and replace.	.
All these letters set out the facts. They are all of the same tenor. They are all written in the finest tone and in the most courteous language. They all plead for assistance. I mentioned plants, wharves, equipment in the plants, but in addition these men have lost their boats. In that same storm on February 27 and 28 one 60-foot dragger was lost as well as several 40-foot boats. Dozens of boats were severely damaged, some of them beyond repair. At least ten lives were lost. My sympathies go out to the families of those who met this terrible fate, and particularly to a lady in one village in Shelburne county who lost her father, her husband and two brothers.
I have talked with fishermen in the area and to those who are interested in the fishing industry. That is our basic industry, it is an industry that affects practically everyone. I find it hard to explain to these people that we are able to provide assistance for other areas, for other communities, for other basic industries, but find it difficult to provide assistance for this industry. I am not going to go into the details, but I have been asked by these people to explain how it is that in the case of the fire at Cabano an amount of $300,000 was provided. It is true that that was provided 50 per cent by this government and 50 per cent by the Quebec government. Then $2,500,000 was provided in the case of the Rimouski fire by the federal government, with an additional $330,000 for the Rimouski schools. Assistance was granted in the case of the Fraser river and Red river floods. I do not know just how many millions it has taken to repair dikes and other damage. Not

for one moment do I object to any of these expenditures, and neither do the people in my constituency; but they do find it hard to understand why assistance is given to these other areas when it seems so difficult to engender any sympathy for their plight or to obtain the assistance which I contend is so urgently needed.
It might well be that we should have something similar to the P.F.A.A. whereby a certain percentage of the value of the catch would be placed in a special fund to provide for these cases, just as is done in the case of crop damage or crop loss in the west. Only last week we were able to change the order of business in this house and spend three days debating the severe outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I have not one objection to that; but I do submit, and I hope during the course of this debate other hon. members from the maritimes who are familiar with this problem will support me, that in view of the severity of this problem some assistance should be given.
As far as Nova Scotia is concerned there is what you might call a short-term problem as well as the long-term problem. The longterm problem I suggest can be met by some form of insurance. The short-term problem is the one that at the present worries most of our people. Fishermen do not have unemployment insurance nor do they come under workmen's compensation. During the thirties when other areas were receiving direct assistance or relief the fishermen of Nova Scotia received nothing from the federal government or any other government. They struggled through because they are hardy and independent. Now they have suffered a loss which I feel makes them entitled to some assistance.
We had a somewhat similar situation in 1938 when very severe losses occurred. At that time the federal government made loans to the provincial fishermen's loan boards, which in turn made loans to the fishermen. Therefore they were able to have the necessary funds to repair their damaged boats, to replace boats that were lost and to replace gear which had been damaged or lost. In reading earlier debates having to do with this line of thinking I have found statements to this effect time and time again-that federal assistance has been granted when the problem was beyond the financial or administrative competence of a province. Those who were in the house this afternoon when questions were asked on the orders of the day will recall that I asked the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) if a request had been received from any province in the maritimes or any department thereof for assistance in 55704-21
The Address-Mr. T. A. M. Kirk this particular loss but apparently up until 3.15 this afternoon such a request had not been received.
The situation is serious. Many of these fishermen now have no means of earning their livelihood. Many of them have not the finances and they are not able to get credit to buy the necessary gear and equipment so that they can go fishing again this spring. I urge, I plead for a meeting of the minds at various levels of the government to evolve some plan or some form of assistance which will rehabilitate the fishing industry of Nova Scotia, and particularly in the southwestern part of the province.
There is one other matter to which I should1 like to refer this evening, and that is the proposed ferry which is to operate between Yarmouth and a point in the New England states. For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the geography of the coast of the New England states and the coast of Nova Scotia, and who are not familiar with the history of the steamship service we have had, may I say that for over fifty years we have had a direct water connection summer and winter between Yarmouth and the port of Boston. At the beginning of the last war as the result of the need of ships for war purposes it was not possible to maintain the service. During the war we had no service but immediately after the war Eastern Steamship Company, which had been operating the service for some years, put on one boat which made three return trips a week between Yarmouth and Boston.
Some years ago this same company announced that at the first opportunity they would sell their ships and when they sold them they would wind up the Eastern Steamship Company. Each year the people of Nova Scotia have been worried and have wondered if this was to be the last year this particular ship would run and this service would be in operation. During the last week or ten days there has been a great deal in the Halifax papers, in the local papers in Yarmouth and in the Boston papers to the effect that Eastern Steamships had sold their ships to a Brazilian company and that there would not be a service between Yarmouth and Boston. However, the Canadian maritime commission and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) have received word from Eastern Steamships that the ships have not been sold but that negotiations are in progress and that if the sale goes through there will not be a service this summer.
You can imagine what that is going to mean to the people who want to travel to Nova Scotia, to the people in Nova Scotia
322	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. T. A. M. Kirk who want tourist business, to the people of the Annapolis valley who want to ship farm produce to the New England markets, to the people all along the south shore of Nova Scotia, to the people of Halifax, to the people of Cape Breton island who want to ship their fish by trailer truck from Nova Scotia. They realize they cannot make any definite plans. They can make neither long-term nor shortterm plans because they do not know whether there will be a service operating.
On December 7, 1949, the Minister of Transport announced in the house that a mutual arrangement had been arrived at whereby an automobile carrying ferry would be built to run between Yarmouth and a port in Maine. This ferry was to be paid for by the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government. The share of the province of Nova Scotia was to be $1,500,000 or half the cost of the ferry, whichever was the lesser. In the fall of 1950, some three or four months after the outbreak of the Korean war, the steel shortage became so acute that the Minister of Transport was forced to announce that the building of the ship would be delayed. During the last few months the arrangements that have been made to increase the production of steel in the United States and Canada have caused the people of Nova Scotia particularly to hope sincerely that within the very near future it will be possible for the Minister of Transport to announce that the steel shortage has eased to the point, where he can say that tenders will be called for the ship, the plans for which have already been completed. Only today I read in this morning's Halifax paper that the Nova Scotia legislature, which represents the people of the province of Nova Scotia, unanimously passed a resolution urging that a start be made immediately on the Yarmouth-New England ferry. We realize, and I think all thinking people realize, that at the present time the international situation is such that steel is most urgently required for defence. Far be it from me or any other individual, who may not have the complete facts at his disposal, to decide when the situation is such as to allow for the building of the vessel. However, I have talked to the various ministers concerned time and time again, and very frequently during the past week, and I sincerely hope, and I know the people of the province of Nova Scotia hope, that before too long the Minister of Transport will be able to stand up in the house and say that the steel situation has improved, and announce the caHing of tenders for the building of the Yarmouth-Maine ferry.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate speeches have been made on a great many subjects. I hardly think there is anything in the speech from the throne which has not been dwelt on at some length during the debate. Nevertheless, in looking over the speech from the throne one of the things that attracted my attention was something mentioned in the very first part o. the speech namely, inflation. That is one of the matters about which I wish to speak for a few moments. It seemed to occupy the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) probably more than anything else. The speech from the throne refers to inflation in this way:
Inflationary pressures are still being strongly felt and require the maintenance of anti-inflationary measures.
One of the things which the government has recognized at the very beginning of the session, one of the things first mentioned in the speech from the throne, is the continuance of the government's anti-inflationary measures. I think I hardly need remind the house and the people of Canada that the anti-inflationary measures presented to the house in the last budget were not as effective as was expected by the people of Canada and were not as successful as was expected by the government. In speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne the Prime Minister had this to say, as recorded at page 171 of Hansard for March 6:
May I say that we have been endeavouring to deal with the high cost of living, particularly since the outbreak of the Korean war which, as the hon. gentleman has said, put a pressure upon prices, not only in this country but in all the free nations of the world, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the methods that we have adopted to combat that inflation we have been as fortunate-I will perhaps not say as wise-as any others anywhere in the world, although we have not been able to do as is suggested, namely, devise anti-inflationary measures that would be sufficient to outbalance the inflationary pressures. What has happened here is what has happened everywhere else in the world. Again I am not boasting.
Then he goes on to say:
For the last couple of months there has not been anything startling in the cost of living index issued by the bureau of statistics, but there appears to be a trend that indicates a stabilization.
I want to refer again to one sentence of what he said and remind the house of it. He said:
. . . we have not been able to . . . devise antiinflationary measures that would be sufficient to outbalance the inflationary pressures.
I am not surprised that we find that the cost of living index has practically remained stationary since it reached an all-time high. In fact the only change in the cost of living

index has been a fraction of one point, seven-tenths of a point. The Prime Minister points to that with some pride and satisfaction, and says it is an indication that at last we have achieved some measure of stabilization. But when he frankly admits that the government has no device or method which will offset this inflationary trend, at least I think we can say in his favour that he has been frank enough to admit that the government has not found a solution to the problem.
Of course the Prime Minister referred to the other countries of the world and says those other countries have been affected just as we have. That is not the case, however. In the United States there has been a greater reduction in price levels than we have seen, and when you compare the wages paid in the United States with the wages in Canada you find a great difference. When you look at the standard of living of the people of the United States and compare it with the standard of living of our people there is also a great difference.
There are at least some in Canada who realize that this drop of -7 in the cost of living index is not an indication of a downward trend, and that it does not mean the situation is stabilized. Under the heading "Nice if it lasts" the Ottawa Citizen of Thursday, March 6, had this to say:
It is cheering news for Canadians that the monthly official cost of living index figure has dropped by seven-tenths of a point, the second time in three months that the index has varied its monotonous upward march. The fall is from a record mark of 191-5 to a figure as at February 1 of 190-8.
Many people, however, will restrain their jubilation. They have been caught before. Several times during the past few years the course of inflation appeared1 to be arrested, with the appearance of a fractional drop in the cost of living index, but presently it was on its merry way again. It may also be that the decline of seven-tenths of a point is the biggest decrease in the index in nine years. Encouraging though it is, however, this figure of minus 0-7 does not look quite so impressive alongside the monthly record for the year 1951. Until December, the changes were all plus: 2-7 points, 4-5, 2-1, 0-2, 2-1, 3-5, 1-3, 0-9, 0-6, 0-8 and finally minus 0-1. In January the index moved up again, the change being 0-4 points. It will be time to rejoice when the official index shows a constant downward curve for several successive months, and with the changes expressed in more than fractions of a single point.
I think that is probably the correct view; and while the Prime Minister seems quite jubilant over the fact that there was a drop of -7 in the official index, that is no assurance that we are beginning a downward trend.
The measures adopted by the government in the last budget brought down in this house are quite well known to the people of Canada. In the first place the sales tax was increased by 25 per cent. By that 55704-21J
The Address-Mr. Johnston means the government hoped to drain off any surplus purchasing power in the hands of the people and halt the pressure that was causing prices to rise. That did not happen; as a matter of fact the result was exactly the opposite. Then they increased the excise tax from 15 per cent to 25 per cent. Then, not satisfied with that, thinking the standard of living of the people was still too high, they imposed a surtax of 20 per cent. These were tremendous increases in taxation, particularly when the people were already faced with overwhelming bills every time they had to pay their income tax. That might not have been so bad if it had produced the desired effect, but it did not. The evidence is quite clear that even while those measures were being put into effect the cost of living continued to rise.
In a radio broadcast to which I listened some two or three months ago, the Prime Minister appealed to the people of Canada to increase production, saying that was the thing which would cause a lowering of prices. Well, strange as it may seem, that is exactly what the people of Canada did. Speaking from memory I believe there was an increase of something like 16 per cent in the over-all production of manufactured articles in this country. When we look around we see evidence of that fact. In every store we find goods that could not be sold. Washing machines and refrigerators were piling up in the stores; so were automobiles, to such an extent that the automobile industry bad to lay off workers. Yet the -cost of living continued to rise. Businessmen were not able to sell the goods they were producing, so we had a surplus of goods and a deficiency of purchasing power. If the program brought in by the government -at that time had been effective surely we would have seen a drastic drop in prices, but such was not the case. Throughout the year prices continued to rise, and now we have a drop of seven-tenths of one point. Surely that is indicative of the lack of success of the measures applied by the government in an attempt to halt inflation. The Prime Minister acknowledges that fact when he says, "We have not been able to devise anti-inflationary measures that would outbalance the inflationary pressures." Surely when the next budget comes down we may expect the government to have devised some effective anti-inflationary measures. If they have not, this country will have something to really complain about.
I am not at all surprised, though, that the government's program did not offset the increase in living costs. Not only did they increase the sales tax and excise tax and impose a surtax; they put on credit restrictions so people would not be able to buy the

The Address-Mr. Johnston goods which were being produced. The Prime Minister appealed tor production. He got production. But at the same time he made it impossible for the people of Canada to buy the goods that were being produced, and thereby created surpluses of all goods.
These measures taken by the government were not only sufficient to meet the requirements as far as revenue was concerned; as has been indicated on other occasions there is a grand surplus of nearly $722 million. If the government sincerely believed that would offset the increase in the cost of living then it might have been worth while, but the fact is that it did not; and of course the people suffered. The government says the people who have this money-and mind you it struck the poor harder than anyone else-really do not know how to take care of their own purchasing power, so the government took it away from them by way of taxes, I suppose in the belief that they knew better how to deal with it than the people who had earned it. So this tremendous surplus of $722 million was piled up. Then the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) says we are going to use some of that to reduce the national debt. When I listened to that statement the other day it made me laugh. The federal government has no intention of materially reducing the national debt. A few years ago the governor of the Bank of Canada made a reference to that in the banking and commerce committee. He said that any nation that would do away with its national debt would be foolish. Without a national debt no nation is prosperous, and the governor of the bank referred to Africa as an example. He is the outstanding financial spokesman who backs up the government's program.
I often thought that if the Minister of Finance were serious in his desire to reduce the national debt he would have introduced a piece of legislation which would have laid plans for effectively reducing and eliminating the national debt. We now pay in taxes close to a half billion dollars every year for interest charges on that national debt. If the debt were eliminated I think that would be an effective way of saving the people that amount in taxes every year. I know some hon. members will refer to the fact that this debt is owned by the people of Canada. That is a lot of rubbish, because by far the great majority of the people in Canada do not own these bonds today and have no share in the national debt. Some people may own $100 or $200 worth of bonds, and there may be the odd one with $500, but very few have more than that. If the government were sincere about eliminating the national debt to save

this country a half a billion dollars every year, they could very well take Alberta as a pattern.
In 1935 the little province of Alberta, because it was a small province then, paid 51 cents out of every dollar of taxation in interest charges. They have reduced that to the point where they now pay 7 cents out of every dollar, and legislative provision has been made whereby in the matter of twenty-two or twenty-three years that provincial debt will be wiped out. The people of that province will be saved half their taxes, and that money can be used, as some of it is now, for social services and other benefits. If this government were really interested in reducing the national debt they would introduce legislation which would make that promise effective. But of course they do not mean any such thing.
I want to refer to this inflationary measure from another point of view. Of course, what I say probably will not have any effect upon the members of this house, but I should like to read an article which was published in the Calgary Albertan of Saturday, September 8, 1951. It is a good Liberal paper, by the way. The Albertan is a Liberal paper, and the Calgary Herald is a Conservative paper. Premier Manning was speaking, and I think he is recognized throughout Canada as being one of the experts when it comes to discussing matters of economics. He has demonstrated that beyond any doubt. In the address which was reproduced in this article Mr. Manning was speaking during the Calgary West by-election. He touched upon this question of inflation and rising costs, and had this to say:
Premier Manning attacked the Liberal propaganda barrage saying "the wise men from the east were most anxious to let it be known that the people of Alberta were not responsible for their prosperity but owed it to the benevolence of the Liberal government in Ottawa." He added that the barrage took credit for social welfare and carefully evaded the question of whether the government was doing anything about the No. 1 problem-the cost of living.
Then, down further he goes on:
After charging the government with doing nothing to keep down the rising cost of living, he said, "I have no hesitation in saying the problem can't be solved under the existing financial set-up."
When you realize, Mr. Speaker, that the present financial system is one which demands debt for its very existence, then you cannot expect any other result than the one the Liberal government achieved in their anti-inflationary measure brought down in the last budget. You cannot expect any more beneficial results from the legislation they will bring down in their next budget; make

no mistake about it. This is one of those systems which always run into a depression or period of inflation, followed then by another period of depression. Throughout our history the only way we have ever gotten out of that mess was by war or preparation for war. Incidentally, it is only preparation for war which gives us this little period of false prosperity now.
But lest some people think that Social Crediters are the only ones that take this view, let me read a short editorial. On many occasions since 1935 when I, along with most of the Social Crediters here, first came to Ottawa, there have been many occasions when members of this party, particularly' the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and the leader of this party, the member for Peace River (Mr. Low), have put forward in clear and unmistakable terms those devices which would have solved our inflation had the government seen fit to carry them out. Not only are Social Crediters interested in this principle, but others are as well. I want to read an editorial from the Western Producer. Probably that paper is one of the most widely circulated of any weekly paper in Canada, certainly in the west. This editorial on inflation reads:
Inflation is a visible symptom of the sickness of our economy. It is evidence, which everyone can see, of the breakdown of finance. The decay has been developing for a long time practically unnoticed except by the acute observer. But under pressure of the present critical period the money system is cracking under the strain and it is quite possible that it may crash completely with consequences for society and the individual impossible to foresee.
Last week a prominent American economist stated publicly that in a decade or so the United States dollar may be worth only five cents in terms of present-day values. We are not among those who accept the word of an economist as the word of God. Some of them have said very foolish things in the past and are capable of being just as foolish again. Nevertheless, allowing full scope for exaggeration and error, the forecast of a five-cent dollar by a responsible professional man cannot be disregarded.
If an individual-any individual-were convinced that he was about to be robbed he would certainly be on the alert and would take every possible precaution to prevent the theft and bring the thief to book. There would be no need to rouse his interest in a matter of such personal concern to him. Yet inflation is just such a thief, more insidious and subtle, but every bit as effective. Unless the rank and file of ordinary people become fully conscious of the threat which hangs over them, unless they come to recognize inflation for what it is, they will almost certainly pay a heavy penalty for their ignorance or complacency.
Now, that is someone who is not classified as a Social Crediter; it is the opinion of someone who has followed economics very closely.
Following that up, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the permission of the house to
The Address-Mr. Johnston put on Hansard two very short tables. The first one consists of ten lines and the second consists of five. They are tables which tell the story of a $75 savings bond bought in the United States in 1940. The value of the dollar at the time of purchase is taken at par. The first column in this table shows the cash value of the bond which it will be seen increases each year, and the last column shows the actual purchasing power of the cash value which decreased most rapidly. The next table, Mr. Speaker-and these figures are all based on the Bank of Canada statistics-will show plainly that the steady rise in the cash income of workers and others in Canada was merely a mirage. The real income has declined consistently as inflation robbed the dollar of its purchasing power. They are short tables, Mr. Speaker. May I have permission to have them printed in Hansard?


Mr, Speaker:: Is it agreed that such permission be given?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr, Johnston:: The tables are as follows:
Dollar Value Purchasing of Bond Power of With Interest Same Dollars
1940	
$75.00	$75.001941	
76.00	70.891942	
77-00	65.751943	
79.00	63.831945	
83.00	65.151946	
86.00	63.461947	
90.00	58.501948	
94.00	57.431949	
98.00	60.661950	
100.00	57.00Per Capita Cost of Actual Cash Living Purchasing Year	Income Index Power1946	
$786	123-6	$6361947	
822	135-5	6071948	
919	155	5931949	
935	160	5821950	
962	166-5	578
In the first table reference is made to a $75 bond which was bought in 1940 and was kept until 1950. I am referring to the table prepared from United States government statistics and in which reference is made to a United States bond. It was bought in 1940 for $75 and kept until 1950 when it was cashed for $100. It is true that when people bought that bond in good faith, they were told that they would get $100 for that bond if they held it for the ten-year period. They did so. They obtained the $100. But what happened to the $100? It is shown that in 1940 the purchasing power of that $75 bond was $75 but that in 1950 the purchasing power had actually dropped to $57.

The Address-Mr. Johnston
We well recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the war the same picture was painted in Canada. The same appeals were made to the people of Canada. I recall quite well when those campaigns were being carried on. People were told then to save their money to buy a government bond. They were told: If you buy a government bond, in ten years you will be able to buy that fur coat for your wife. They were told: Put your money in government bonds, a gilt-edged security, and you will be able to buy that new car in ten years. People took the government at its word and they bought the bonds. They even went into debt to buy them. The government knew quite well at that time that a great many people who bought those bonds would not be able to hold them for over a week or a month, because provision was made, right at the very outset, for the chartered banks to take these bonds back again. I recall quite well a man coming to my house to sell me a bond on one occasion. When I told him I did not have any money he said: You do not have to have any money; go down to the bank and they will lend it to you. What happened? When people who honestly and sincerely believed what the government told them about the gilt-edged security invested their money in those bonds they found, to their sorrow, that in ten years they had just lost money. They found that they had lost about one-third rather than gained a third. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was only about two or three weeks ago that the city of North Bay published a letter'-and a copy of this letter was sent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)-in which they claimed that they had bought $100,000, I think it was, worth of bonds and that when they came to sell them they lost $5 on every $100. They had lost over $5,000 by taking the government at its word. The extraordinary statement made by that city was that they were giving the Minister of Finance their promise on that occasion that they would never buy another government bond and, furthermore, that they would never advocate any other person's buying them either. That is quite a condemnation and it is something which the government should take into consideration.
I do not want to spend any more time on that matter other than to say that if the government persist in trying to bolster up this old, outworn financial system, and if they continue to bring in the type of legislation which they have in the past brought in, they will not be any more successful in combating inflation. Then the Prime Minis-

ter's words again will be only too true, when he says, as reported at page 171 of Hansard:
. . . we have not been able to . . . devise antiinflationary measures that would be sufficient to outbalance the inflationary pressures.
I want to say a word or two about the foot-and-mouth disease. I expect that the government has done everything it can to combat this disease. In fact, I will go so far as to say in this case they have probably been as successful as any others would be under the circumstances. They have now brought down legislation which will be an improvement on that which was contained in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act previously, and by which they are going to give fair and reasonable compensation to those who suffer loss; that is, to those who suffer direct loss. But I am going to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the compensation which the government will give will not reasonably compensate those people for the losses which they suffered. For instance, if a man has a beef herd and those cattle or some of them are ready to market, it may be fair treatment to give him their economic value plus $100 or whatever is fair and reasonable along that line. But if he has a -purebred milking herd, how are the government going to compensate him adequately by giving him its economic value plus a small cash supplement? It just cannot be done, in my opinion. I think there may be occasions when the people who own these cattle may be satisfied with that sort of an adjustment; but I think that in this legislation there should also be provision whereby a man who suffers a loss may require the government to replace that loss. It seems to me that the government can do that, that by so doing they can compensate him much more fairly than they can by giving him a small cash compensation above its economic value. If a man has a milk cow-that is, a registered milk cow-with a high production, you cannot very well put an economic value on that. But the government could and should, in all fairness, replace that cow for that farmer. The same should be done if he has other purebred cattle. Those cattle can be replaced or those sheep can be replaced. If this were done the farmer would be put in the position where he would be restocked; he would be ready to go back into the market again when the period of quarantine had ended.
Then, too, Mr. Speaker, I think the workers who are being affected by this foot-and-mouth disease-and there are many of them despite what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) had to say today-those men who lose their jobs directly because of this foot-and-mouth

disease, should be compensated in some way. I quite realize that you cannot compensate everybody who may be indirectly affected, but these workers who lost their jobs are not affected indirectly; they are affected directly. Certainly the unemployment insurance which they receive will not be sufficient to carry them for long. This quarantine may last for six months, a year or maybe two years. Those people who are working in the packing plants and who are displaced because of the foot-and-mouth disease should have some adequate consideration in this regard.
I want to speak for a moment about war veterans allowance. War veterans allowance has been $40 a month for single men and $70 for married. But, as I indicated a moment ago, because of the inflationary trend, because of the depreciation in the dollar, which is the direct result of government policy, the government must share some responsibility in the lowering standards of living which these veterans are forced to undergo. The sums of $40 and $70 are definitely not sufficient. I understand there is another $10 for those who are in need, but even that is not sufficient. The government should have some consideration for these people who are suffering as a direct result of government policy. They should at least take into consideration the Legion's request and make it $50 for single men and $100 for married men. Even that amount would not give them a decent standard of living, but it would certainly be some compensation.
There is another class of people who need assistance, and need it badly, namely, the old age pensioners. I know that during the last session we passed an old age pensions bill which extended the old age pension to everyone over seventy without a means test. That was a great step forward. It took the government a long time to take that step. The opposition on this side of the house certainly deserves some credit for putting on the pressure; but $40 a month certainly is not sufficient to give these people a decent standard of living. I just received a resolution from the old age pensions association in Calgary. Miss Ethel Baker is the secretary. They are asking for an increase in the old age pension. They are grateful for the old age pension without the means test-of course they would be. We are all grateful because it was given, but certainly we have not anything to stick our chests out over. We say we have given them $40 a month, but we recognize that that $40 is not any more than $20 used to be. I suggest to the government that if the province of Alberta can increase provincial old age pensioners'
The Address-Mr. Johnston receipts by $10 a month, then this federal government could very easily increase the federal old age pensions by another $10 a month. The province of Alberta has gone a step farther. They are now giving $40 a month pension to widows from 60 to 65. They have also extended the benefits from 65 to 69. If the government of Alberta, which is just a province, and has not the means of getting the money that the federal government has, can extend pensions to people aged 60, then surely this government can do likewise. Not only are they extending the pensions in the province of Alberta, but they are giving medical and health services. The federal government is paying $40 pensions to people 70 and over, and the provincial government are giving those same people health and medical benefits plus an extra $10. Can it be that the federal government is so poor, with a $722 million surplus, that they cannot adequately take care of our aged citizens? These are just a few of the things that I should like to mention.
I should like to have mentioned the pressure groups that the Minister of Finance spoke of the other day. I recall something along that line that happened just a little while ago. I went into one of the chain stores in Calgary where we do our buying when we are in Calgary, the Jenkins groceteria, because it is right near our home. On many occasions I have gone into that store when they did not have Imperial Player's cigarettes. I have asked them why and they have told me that they cannot get them from the manufacturer. They could get only a very small supply of canned Imperial Player's tobacco for exactly the same reason. That bears out exactly what the Minister of Finance was telling us the other day in regard to pressure groups. I hope that the Minister of Finance does not become scared too easily.
I should like to have spoken at greater length on it because I know of many other cases which are exactly the same, but my time will not permit me. I think I shall close my remarks now and bring in any further references that I have regarding these matters when they come up under the estimates.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply. I listened to them both and they did very well. They were an honour to their constituencies.
I should like next to express my views about the proposed redistribution measure that is mentioned in the speech from the throne. While I endorse wholeheartedly the

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on this matter of redistribution, I am one of those who believe in the constitution. It is proposed that Saskatchewan will lose five seats and Manitoba two seats under the new measure. Parliament should now take into consideration the matter of a constitutional amendment. If the government so desired, they could assure fair and proper representation to those areas upon the prairies which are now to be depleted because of the population there.
There is a principle in the constitution now recognized in the maritime provinces. Regardless of population, the representation of those provinces shall not fall below a certain level, without in any way interfering with the necessary increase that will fall to other provinces in this dominion by reason of the increase in their population. It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a dominion-provincial conference should be held to decide on a proper guaranteed basis of representation. Failing this, parliament should make the desired amendment to the constitution. That is very important because, as has been pointed out in previous debates here, the centralization of industry has drawn a great many people from these prairie provinces. Notwithstanding that, the greatest part of the necessary food for consumption in this country and for export is produced in those provinces.
Those areas are large for a member to cover and to properly represent the people. It is a very important matter, and parliament should deal with it along the same lines as those that have been suggested by the hon. member for Lake Centre and myself. I am sure that, as he said, there is wide support for this, irrespective of party affiliation, everywhere throughout the country.
I should now like to say something about the loss of markets for our agricultural products, and the plight of Canadian agricultural producers, and I think it is rapidly becoming worse. For six years after world war II the problem of expanding supplies of agricultural products was one of primary importance. In that regard we have made very little progress. I followed closely the reports of those attending the FAO conference held in Rome last November. The need of greater production of food was stressed time and time again at that conference. It was pointed out that in the last fifteen years there had been an increase of 12 per cent in the population of the globe, but no more than a 9 per cent increase in the production of food. Many peoples in the world are greatly underfed. That fact is recognized around the world. Our Minister 
of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated that there had been a falling off in the production of milk, pork and beef in Canada since the end of world war II. He said that he thought there would be no increase in the production of meat unless some assurance could be given to farmers that a market would be found for that increased production.
The minister stated that the position in regard to cereals was somewhat better. I listened to the report of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he spoke to the convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture held in Montreal last January. He stressed the need for an expansion in the production of food, but admitted, on the other hand, that there was a serious problem in regard to distribution. He argued that an increase was necessary in order to promote peace in the world. But the Prime Minister did not give any kind of assurance to the farmers of Canada that if they did increase the production of food there would be a market for it.
At this same farm gathering the Minister of Agriculture pointed out that the question of international exchange was a matter for the different countries to settle. He wanted to see larger export markets, but he said that the farmers might as well face the facts as they existed. The government by its policies can cause either a decrease or an increase in production and therefore it is in a position to maintain support prices.
Support prices should be established on a parity basis. The present support prices under hogs, eggs, cheese and other dairy products are not based on parity and are much too low. I have often heard it argued in this house as to just what parity meant. I have here a quotation from a statement made in 1939 which I think applies equally to the present time. This reads:
The speaker was talking where his words would do most good-within full earshot of St. James street. He said:
"In my business I am very much worried about this lack of price parity and what I can do with it. I know, for example, that our biggest single block of customers-the farmers of western Canada [DOT]-are not getting enough for their goods to enable them to buy what other people have to sell, and my company cannot hope to prosper unless this exchange of traffic goes on. If we are to have profit, then the farmer must sell wheat and buy other goods as well. It is difficult for him to do that in any volume at the present level of income which he enjoys.
That leads me to think that, unless the price of what the farmer produces is going to rise very rapidly, the rest of us will have to set our minds very seriously to reducing the price of what he buys."


Mr. Gibson:: What year was that?


James Arthur Ross: That was in 1939, as I stated. The speaker was no other than Sir Edward Beatty, G.B.E.


John Lambert Gibson: Both dead.


James Arthur Ross: I admit all that, but the plight of the farmer still lives. I realize that the bureau of statistics indicates the great income the agriculturists of this country are receiving today, but those are gross figures. I should like to see the net income from various farm products worked out. This inflationary period has created difficult circumstances which must be faced by the agricultural producer.
The economic division of the Department of Agriculture pointed out last October that farm production costs will be further increased during 1952. I think that is acknowledged by all people. The costs entering into agricultural production are increasing and will continue to increase during the present year. In the past the Canadian farmer has been asked by the government to make sacrifices totalling many hundreds of millions of dollars in order to subsidize the people of Canada and Great Britain with cheap bread. This matter has been discussed in former debates in this house.
Today these same wheat farmers are subsidizing the consumers of 37 nations besides this country to the extent of 59 cents per bushel under the international wheat agreement. On the day this present session opened the quotation under the international wheat agreement, and this applies to domestic consumption as well, was $1.80J per bushel. Class II wheat to other countries was quoted at S2.39g. You could see the difference between the markets. On that same day the price of eastern wheat, basis Montreal, was $2.56 per bushel. This is an inferior grade of winter soft wheat. Those figures indicate the great disparity that exists.
I believe that the wheat agreement will be renegotiated during the coming year and, if so, I urge the authorities to place in the new agreement an escalator clause to overcome this unfair disparity in the prices of Canadian wheat. The Canadian farmer should not be called upon to subsidize the consumers of Canada, Great Britain and many other nations. I know there are people who will argue that he has been subsidized. I would point out that everything he sells must be sold less freight at the marketing point, while everything he purchases must be purchased plus freight at the purchasing centre.
According to the Sanford Evans bureau of statistics, in the period of the first full year following the termination of world war II, that was during 1946, as a result of embargoes 55704-22
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross and controls imposed by our Canadian government, the difference between the prevailing United States market price and what the Canadian farmers received for his livestock and coarse grains amounted to $378 million. There was that great loss of revenue in that one year. That will give hon. members some idea of the plight in which the livestock producers may find themselves during the coming twelve months. I do not blame the government directly for the situation that exists, but it does give some idea of what these producers will be up against. They have lost an opportunity to obtain that revenue in a time of declining markets.
The success of the Canadian farmer is dependent upon export markets. On February 28, 1950, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) moved as follows:
This house is of the opinion that the government should take immediate steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth and the countries of the empire to devise policies to restore our lost markets and thereby to provide jobs for our Canadian people.
Following debate the question was put to a vote but was defeated by the solid vote of government supporters against the vote of the combined opposition parties. Since that time the position with respect to export markets has become much worse. We are now faced with unemployment and breadlines in this nation of ours. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) dealt at some length yesterday with the loss of markets and what the government should be doing to revive markets in the British empire. I am sorry the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) did not agree to the extent that he should have.
From the remarks which were tossed across the floor yesterday at the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), I gathered that a united opinion does not prevail amongst the federal cabinet today on the matter of trying to obtain the overseas markets which are now so greatly desired. We face difficulties as a result of other governments placing embargoes and restrictions against our livestock and meat products because of the foot-and-mouth disease in Canada. I hope that when the standing committee on agriculture is called to investigate the actions of the officials of the health of animals branch, with respect to their handling of the disease and the fact that some three months elapsed from the first outbreak before it was termed foot-and-mouth disease, the terms of reference will be broad enough so that officials of the immigration branch may also be questioned on the possibility of this dreaded disease being brought in by immigrants from Europe.

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
I know that a statement was made yesterday by the parliamentary assistant exonerating one Willi Bruntjen, who has been under examination at the Hull laboratory. This news has gone throughout the country and it certainly leaves the impression that he could not possibly have brought the virus or disease to Canada. I may be wrong but I do not believe that the test would prove any such thing. It proved there was no virus to be found on his clothing or his body at this time. On the other hand, if they had found the virus I do not believe that would have proved that he had brought it from Europe or had picked it up on the farm near Regina where he worked and where the first outbreak took place. I think it is rather important that the people should understand that. This chap has stated that where he last worked in Europe the entire herd of cattle had gone down with foot-and-mouth disease. I believe that some forty people from the same area in Europe came to Canada on the same boat, and the information I have received indicates that proper inspection and fumigation of their belongings and so forth did not take place. In my opinion this matter should also be thoroughly investigated when the officials of the health of animals branch are being examined.
Some of the forty people I mentioned took employment at the same time in the province of Manitoba with livestock people there. I am very happy that there has been no outbreak of the dreaded disease there yet. However, I think we all must keep our fingers crossed. Yesterday there was word of three new outbreaks in the quarantined area near Regina, and this after the disease was pronounced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as being entirely under control. I know when the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to this statement last night several ministers and others queried him and called upon him to quote the remarks either from Hansard or some other published statement. I have a number of newspapers here containing a Canadian Press dispatch of an interview obtained from the Minister of Agriculture in Regina when he arrived there last Friday. I have the Ontario Intelligencer of Belleville of Saturday, March 8, the day after the interview, in which there is the following:
Federal officials believe they have the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in southern Saskatchewan stopped, agriculture minister Gardiner said Friday night.
Further down there is the following:
Mr. Gardiner, who flew to Regina Friday, said "We don't think foot-and-mouth disease is going to spread. We think it is absolutely under control."

I do not blame the minister for making that statement if he believed that to be the fact, but I think that the people cannot be warned to too great a degree as to how bad the spread of this dreaded disease may become. In the debate on March 3, as found in the first column on page 69 of Hansard, the minister also said:
... by some means or other there had entered the Burns plant at least one animal, if not more, that had the disease. The information we have is to the effect that the disease had gone out from that plant.
Then he spoke about Wascana creek and so on, and I think this view was substantiated by the parliamentary assistant, if I heard him correctly, in answer to a question today. On page 1 of the Winnipeg Free Press of March 7 there is a report of a statement made by Mr. R. Pearson, manager of the Regina plant of Burns and Company. It reads as follows:
R. Pearson, manager of the Regina plant, Burns and Company, said Thursday, "No evidence whatever has been disclosed that foot-and-mouth disease was first discovered in or spread from the company's Regina plant."
The article goes on to report him at some length. These are very conflicting statements and would lead us to believe that the members of the committee on agriculture will have quite a chore to perform when they sit to hear the officials of the health of animals branch. As I said, I hope the government will also allow us to hear officials of the immigration department. On page 3 of the Winnipeg Free Press of March 7 there is an article with the following:
Mr. Connor, Manitoba livestock commissioner, said his department has tried to get some definite direction from authorities at Ottawa regarding the holding of shows and sales without success. He stated further the disease will not likely spread until after the spring break-up when flies and birds will have a chance to carry any live virus which may still be around in the infected areas.
I think that is very important. There will be a few weeks during and after the break-up which will be a serious time. If we get by that period without a further spread of the disease we shall be exceptionally fortunate. With respect to Mr. Connor's statement, one of the first questions asked the minister at the opening of the session by myself was with respect to the Brandon, Regina, Calgary and other fairs, because the purebred breeders were very much concerned. I was most disappointed with the answer I received from the Minister of Agriculture. He certainly gave no lead and left the inference that it was entirely up to those people.
This situation is very serious. It is the first outbreak we have had in Canada. The loss of the infected herds will be bad enough

but the effect on the livestock industry of this nation, which has been developed to a high degree, will have an impact upon the economy of the whole nation. That is something that is very important. Therefore no stone should be left unturned to find out what we can about the entire outbreak.
I should like to refer for a few minutes to the question of inflation and overtaxation. 1 listened closely to the Minister of Finance last Friday setting up what I rather thought was a smokescreen when he applied the term "lobbyist" to the automobile and tobacco associations, and intimated that they had gone beyond any reasonable bounds. Like every other member of the house, I do not believe in lobbyists who are only out for their own particular interests and are not concerned about the well-being of the nation as a whole. However, I think the automobile industry has a just grievance. I have never been able to understand why there should be such a great difference with respect to the taxes and the ultimate price of an automobile in the United States and in Canada. There is altogether too great a difference and has been for some years. On farms and in many other places an automobile or truck is an essential requirement. I should like to refer to certain figures cited by the Canadian automobile manufacturers research service comparing the price of a Chevrolet sedan in 1939 and in 1951. Excise taxes jumped 7,305 per cent in that period, or from $4.81 to $356.22, while sales taxes increased from $59.70 to $142.49, an increase of 138 per cent dollarwise. Then there were the credit restrictions which made it very difficult for many people to purchase a car at all although they needed one in their daily vocations. I think much of the taxation imposed in the last budget was unjust and unfair. We have had cited in detail the case of the electric iron imported from the United States, where the factory price was $5. When you added the duty, the excise tax, the sales tax and the various mark-ups it brought the retail price to the consumer in this country to $14.86. Many people do not realize just what these sales taxes and mark-ups amount to. They are hidden taxes, and constitute a system of taxation which I deplore and very much dislike.
These increased taxes have added to the cost of production and the cost of living in this country. This increased and unnecessary taxation leading to a surplus of some $721 million has increased the difficulties of a great many Canadian citizens beyond all reason. I am surprised that the Minister of Finance takes the matter so lightly. It is very serious for many people who are finding it extremely difficult to provide for them-55704-22i
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross selves and their families. I was disappointed the other day to hear the Prime Minister say the people could not expect very much in the way of tax reduction at this time. I believe the economy of this country is getting far out of balance as a result of the taxation system brought in by this government.
Now there is another matter I should like to refer to, and that is the international peace garden; I am happy to see the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) in his seat. This is an area consisting of 2,340 acres, 1,452 acres in Canada donated by the Manitoba government and 888 acres on the United States side donated partly by Washington and partly by the state of North Dakota. This garden is situated in the Turtle mountains, a range of hills rising to some 2,500 feet above sea level and extending 45 miles east and west and 20 miles north and south. They are also located midway along the great undefended 3,987 miles of boundary line between Canada and the United States, and on the boundary of the constituency I have the honour to represent in this house.
The international peace garden is incorporated under the laws of Manitoba and North Dakota, and has been recognized by the governments of both Canada and the United States. Further work on this project should be the responsibility of the federal government, in the first place because the whole proposal is international. The dominion government has already expended considerable money on this area, through the government of Manitoba.
It is interesting to recall a paragraph in the speech from the throne at the opening of the Manitoba legislature on February 29, 1932, at about the time this garden was opened. It stated:
A memorable event of the past year is the provision made for the peace garden in the Turtle mountain region of Manitoba and North Dakota.
This international project ought to have a prominent place in the peace chronicles of the present era, when every thinking person in the world is compelled to realize that one of the most important questions facing our civilization is that of world peace, friendship and co-operation.
An editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune of that date said:
It is a worthy, a splendid project, and one that has the enthusiastic approval not only of the people of Manitoba and western Canada but of other millions in both countries. Some of the most magnificent monuments in the world have been erected to commemorate lost causes, vanished glories and ruined hopes. A peace garden, let us hope, will symbolize in its own living beauty, ever more cordial relations between the two great countries.
On July 24, 1932, the official opening of the garden took place and people were

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross assembled from great distances in the central west, both Americans and Canadians. Two great world wars and the economic and financial problems arising therefrom, together with possible military requirements in the future, are drawing these nations into continuous and closer collaboration and co-operation. This practical demonstration is proof positive that peace between nations is more than an idle dream. It is an accomplished fact.
Some of the reasons these sites were selected were: First, the natural scenic beauty of the area; second, the wide variety of trees, shrubs and wild flowers found growing there; third, the abundance of wildlife including birds native to the district; fourth, the large number of small lakes located in the Turtle mountains; fifth, the fact that the location is almost the geographical centre of the North American continent; sixth, the fact that it is located on the only hard-surfaced highway running north and south, from northern Manitoba through the United States down to Mexico and into the countries of South America; seventh, the fact that no physical barriers, such as rivers, mountains or gorges, stand in the way of free movement of people across the boundary in the designated area. A plaque has been erected upon which the following appears:
To God in His Glory
We two nations dedicate this garden and pledge ourselves that as long as men shall live we will not take up arms against one another.
The plans contemplate the erection of an international peace tower as a symbol of peace between our two great nations, and a suitable war memorial to the thousands of young men and women who give their lives in the last two world wars in the defence of everything we hold to be dear in life. Associated with this memorial js to be a little chapel where friends of loved ones may seek comfort and consolation. Plans are being made for tourist accommodation, picnic grounds, public assemblies and recreational facilities. Customs and immigration offices are to be erected on the site to facilitate the movement of people across the boundary.
A great deal of public support is already manifest. Women's organizations, churches, service clubs, boards of trade, returned soldier organizations and many similar bodies as well as a large section of the public are showing a desire to help in the promotion of this worthy project. More and more will United States tourists be drawn northward by the magnetic attraction of our national parks; and these tourists spend a great deal of money while travelling. May I emphasize the intriguing fact that instead of being situated

in the far east or in the distant west, this garden is actually located within 30 miles of the exact centre of the North American continent. Surely that is a fitting place for it.
A good deal of money is yet required for the work to be done in this garden. The government of the United States has voted $100,000 for this project as compared to $15,000 annually by the Canadian government. Now the Minister of Resources and Development has stated that no money will be made available for this project during the fiscal year 1952-53. Many organizations such as women's institutes, the I.O.D.E., the Eastern Star, chambers of commerce and so on wholeheartedly support this worth-while project. This was very dear to the late J. E. Matthews of Brandon, because the city of Brandon is only some 60 miles to the north and it meant a good deal to those people. I well remember going with Mr. Matthews to interview the then Minister of Mines and Resources in 1949, I think it was, when the government agreed to put this item in the estimates. I believe the late Mr. Matthews also accompanied a delegation to Washington when the government of the United States decided to make its appropriation. I have a resolution which is typical of many I have received from different organizations. This comes from the horticultural society of Manitoba and reads:
Whereas, the international peace garden is a living memorial in a sadly troubled world to the practicability of peace between neighbouring countries; and
Whereas, the governments of both Canada and the United States have given financial support to this project; and
Whereas, it has been publicly announced that, notwithstanding the continued support by the United States government of this project, the government of Canada has decided that no money will be made available for the fiscal year 1952-53, despite the fact that billions have been appropriated for war preparations:
Be it therefore resolved, that this 54th annual convention of the Manitoba horticultural association express our very great disappointment at this decision by the government of Canada, and respectfully request that the matter be reconsidered;
And be it also resolved, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada, to the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, and to the members of parliament for Manitoba; and that a copy be forwarded also to the minister of agriculture for Manitoba.
Now, I fully realize that members have interviewed the minister during the past year when it was learned that there would not be provision in the estimates this year for this garden. I believe the president of this organization is an able and outstanding man, Mr. D. G. McKenzie, who has been chairman of the Canadian board of grain commissioners and a past minister of agriculture in Manitoba. I believe that, as president of this

organization, he interviewed the minister. As is pointed out in this resolution, the minister has not seen his way clear to providing a grant. I would hope that even during these troubled times, when we are spending such gigantic sums for national defence, the minister would yet reconsider the matter and make provision in the supplementary estimates for a grant for this very worthy project.
I think it is important because the people in Washington will wonder why, if Canada cannot provide anything, they should be expected to vote continued grants. I really believe the amount we have received has been a token grant; it was not a great deal of money. While I know the minister has to pare his expenditures, I hope he will reconsider and give heed to the representations he has had from all of these very worthy organizations and officials. While the estimates are prepared for this year, I hope he will yet see his way clear to providing a sum in the supplementary estimates for this worthy cause.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate at this stage for the special purpose of supporting as strongly as I can the remarks made this afternoon and this evening by the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk). However, Mr. Speaker, I first wish to express my congratulations to the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. George), and the seconder, the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier).
The hon. member for Westmorland is a member of this house who has distinguished himself not only in speaking in this chamber but in the work he has done in connection with committees. He certainly has earned for himself the honour of moving this motion, and the manner in which he carried out his responsibility added to his prestige and I am sure was a great satisfaction to his constituents.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my sincere congratulations to the young member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) who spoke with such eloquence and ease in both the official languages of our parliament.
He gave us a good description of the Lake St. John district which he represents with such distinction in this house. He did not fail to mention the blueberries of his district which are so well-known everywhere.
While I am speaking in French, I wish to congratulate also the Speaker of this house on the great success he achieved last year
The Address-Mr. Dickey as a student in the French summer courses at Laval university. We English-speaking Canadians are proud to learn that the Speaker of this house devoted a good deal of his holidays to the learning of the French language and we are very glad of the progress he has made.
(Text):
I also wish, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) on the very fine speech that he made in this debate this afternoon. The importance to this nation of the maritime ports is so fundamental that it is most important that the attention of this house be drawn to the need of maintaining and expanding the port facilities in our maritime provinces. I am sure that not for many years have the needs of the port of Saint John been so eloquently or so completely placed before this chamber.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the member for Digby-Yarmouth has, with eloquence and great effect, discussed a matter of serious and immediate concern, not only to him and to his constituents, not only to the members representing the maritime provinces, but to all the members of this house and the country as a whole. Fisheries is one of the basic industries of our national economy. It is important in the martimes. It is important on the Pacific coast, and it is of growing importance in the central part of our country in the great fresh water lakes, and in the salt water of Hudson bay at the north of Ontario and in Manitoba.
However, the fishing industry is of special importance and interest to the maritime provinces because it is such an important part of the livelihood of such a large number of our people. The fishing industry has many difficult problems to meet of a long-range nature, and I am glad to say that much progress is being made in tackling those problems in a scientific and constructive manner. We can all be delighted with the progress that has been achieved. The immediate and present problem relates to the tragic effects which have resulted from a series of very destructive storms which have swept the maritime provinces over the last few months. As a result of these storms, the shore fisheries and the shore fishermen have suffered very grievously. The term "shore fishery" is used to distinguish operations close to the ports and to the shores of the maritime provinces as compared with the deep sea operations on the banks which are farther removed from our coasts.
Generally speaking the people engaged in the shore fisheries use small boats. They use the traditional means of fishing, such as moored nets, trawls, lobster pots and the like. In addition to going down to the sea
334	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dickey to fish, in a large part they manufacture their own equipment and completely maintain it through their own labour. For the most part these shore fishermen live in small coastal towns and villages. Many of the members of this house will have, through personal knowledge, a realization of the beauty and charm of many of these delightful communities.
I am sure there is not a member in this house who has not seen, through photographs or paintings, some of the charms of those communities that dot the shores of the harbours, coves and bays of our maritime provinces. In good times the life of those living in these fishing villages is as happy and contented as is the life of any Canadians, no matter where they may be found; but the tragic fact is that the economy of these villages is completely dependent on the prosperity of the shore fishing industry. When losses are suffered, such as those which have been suffered over the last few months, the effect is felt not only by those who are actively engaged in the fisheries but by the entire population of those villages, from the eldest citizen to the youngest child; and in many cases it is the children who suffer most.
This succession of storms has been without precedent for many years. The last storm involved the tragic loss of a number of lives of men actively engaged in fishing. This loss of life emphasizes not only the hazards of this occupation but also the exceptional violence of the storms. I am sure that all the members of this house will join in an expression of sincere sympathy to those who have been so sadly bereaved.
In addition to this loss of life, however, crippling loss of equipment has been suffered by many of the fishermen and also-as was pointed out by the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth-a loss of wharves and factories by small fish operators. I will not bore the house with figures or any suggestion of the total of this loss of equipment; because even the total figure would not tell the whole story. It is the loss of even the meagre resources of many of these men which creates a situation which, I submit, demands an immediate and effective solution.
The hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth properly drew a parallel between the situation which is facing many of the fishermen in the maritimes at the present time, particularly those in Nova Scotia, with the situation which faced the residents of the Fraser valley when they suffered so grievously from floods, that of the residents of the Red river valley and the city of Winnipeg when they suffered so grievously from
[Mr. DickeyJ

floods, and that of the residents of the town of Rimouski and the town of Cabano when they, in their turn, suffered disastrous fires. He also pointed out the further parallel between the situation of the fishermen and that facing many of our livestock operators and the farmers who get a large portion of their living from the raising of beef and pork by reason of the threat of the plague of hoof-and-mouth disease.
It might be well, Mr. Speaker, just to outline three points which indicate how close this parallel is. Those farmers who have been affected by this hoof-and-mouth disease have lost, through destruction, their property and their very stock in trade. In the second place, they have lost for the time being their means of livelihood. In the third place, they are faced with the problem of rebuilding their livestock herds from the very beginning. Those things are recognized-and properly so, I submit-as requiring for the people who suffered those losses some compensation and some assistance. The fishermen for whom the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth spoke and for whom I am speaking throughout my constituency, throughout the province of Nova Scotia and throughout the maritimes, have also suffered the loss of their property and the loss of their stock in trade. They too have lost, not only in the last week or so but to a large extent over a period of several months, their very means of livelihood; and they too are faced with the necessity of rebuilding their equipment or replacing their nets and their traps and, in many cases, their boats. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that parallel is complete and that this situation, equally with the other, should be recognized as requiring some compensation and some assistance for those who are suffering.
What can be done about this situation? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that so far as the federal authority is concerned we should be ready and willing to co-operate with such provincial and municipal authorities as may be appropriate to work out a reasonable and effective program of immediate compensation. Second, from the federal point of view immediate consideration should be given to a program of public works. Many of the protective works, wharves and facilities which existed in the fishing areas of the maritime provinces have been either damaged or destroyed. Immediate steps should and must be taken to repair and rebuild those structures. This work will have a double value, in replacing needed facilities and also in providing work which will be a measure of direct relief to those who now need it so badly.

I have made these remarks with the express intention of supporting the stand so eloquently expressed by the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth, in order to bring to the attention of this house the actual situation which now exists and to bring it to the attention not only of this house but of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and his colleagues in the cabinet, for the purpose of enlisting their sympathetic interest and their consideration of immediate remedial action.
I should like to conclude, as the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth concluded, by pointing out that this is not the first time that the fishing industry has suffered grievous difficulties. In common with most other people in Canada, the shore fishermen of the maritime provinces suffered grievously indeed during the years of depression, the years of the hungry thirties. It should be remembered that in those difficult days the fishermen, particularly those of Nova Scotia, did not ask for relief. Not one cent of federal relief was paid in the province of Nova Scotia in those exceedingly difficult times. Now that a need, a definite, obvious and immediate need, has arisen, they deserve the very best consideration that can possibly be given to them.


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure that I can take part in this debate tonight as the representative of Kingston City. To begin with, I wish to express congratulations to my two good friends who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Kingston is very proud of its historical background and institutions, educational, military and penal institutions. As I have said Kingston's history is great, but we have reached the stage now, Mr. Speaker, where we must look to the future and plan for the future. I give a great deal of credit to the local planning board and development associations that now have a situation on their hands to deal with, because Kingston is similar to other Canadian citizens that are expanding and growing as a result of Canada becoming a manufacturing and industrial nation.
We have reached the stage where Kingston needs the assistance and co-operation of all governments, federal, provincial and municipal, in order to overcome its growing pains. Kingston needs assistance in planning. I wish to refer to a public address which was made by one of Kingston's local citizens, Mr. T. A. Andre, a short time ago, when he brought up the point that Kingston needed some knowledge and some assistance in its arteries of traffic. That expression of thought carried with it a great deal of foresight. Let us take
The Address-Mr. Henderson it step by step, by land, by sea and by air. If we take it by land first we will find that the railways which run into Kingston have been there for many years in their present locations. The city of Kingston has outgrown its station.


Mr. Fulford:: It is not as bad as the Brock-ville station.


William James Henderson: I expected that from my friend.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: Or the Windsor station.


Mr. Bater:: Or North Battleford.


William James Henderson: Owing to our development in Kingston we must have a plan and an eye to the future with respect to the nature of the alterations that will be made in the railway and the station there. That should be known to the citizens in order to encourage industry planning so that industry and housing can be properly accommodated in the industrial growth which has lifted the face of our old city. The same thing applies to highways also. Let the responsible parties tell us where and when this artery of traffic will be constructed.
With respect to Kingston harbour, we are most fortunate in having a natural harbour which could very well be developed further with the advent of the seaway and the dredging of the Cataraqui river north of the LaSalle causeway.
With respect to air, it is hoped that the Norman Rogers airfield will have scheduled flights after successful negotiations have been carried on between the Kingston Flying Club, which is a very aggressive club, and the corporation of the city of Kingston and the officials of the Department of Transport. With the combination of arteries of traffic planned, settled and developed, our city will be in an excellent position to provide the facilities to be available to industry, both light and heavy, which will go hand in hand with the development of the St. Lawrence waterway, which project I have already spoken on in this house.
This house might be interested in knowing why I mention these matters at a time when a great deal of conservation is being put forth for defence and our fight against communism. I think it is a fact that if all our governments would continue to plan for future expansion and tell our municipal authorities what their plans are so that our progress will not be retarded and restricted it will be for the good of all. If we do not do that then the communists will have achieved a partial victory without a battle.

The Address-Mr. Henderson
I refer to the expansion of our services in the city of Kingston because I am glad to inform the house that on January 1, 1952, Kingston annexed an area of some 10,900 acres, including a population of approximately 10,000 people. That gives Kingston a population now of 42,000 instead of 32,000 as it formerly was. As a result of these newly annexed areas, certain problems of facilities and services are coming to the surface, with which we have to deal. I am not including the normal municipal services in this remark. I refer particularly to mail delivery service in the new area, which in the long run adds a greater burden on the central postal services. I refer to assistance in housing development and in the planning of educational conveniences. In Kingston we are always very anxious to have the citizens from the islands which are out in lake Ontario and in the St. Lawrence come to our city and do their trading and commercial work. I refer particularly to the need of docks on Howe island and on the mainland so that these citizens may have proper transportation to our city.
Since I represent a city close to the United States border I make a special plea to our neighbours to the south that if they are coming in on the seaway plan to make up their minds as soon as possible one way or the other so that we can get on with the job.
I wish to congratulate our government on their financial policies, and although others may have some criticism at times, it is the long-run policy that counts. We can best be judged by others and not by ourselves. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the New York Times and was under a Canadian Press dateline of January 28. It reads:
The New York Times says that the rise of the Canadian dollar to full parity with the American dollar was not just another fluctuation on the foreign exchange market but an accomplishment "well merited by the facts."
"Economically, it represented a well-justified recognition of the enormous productive gains made by our great northern neighbour", the Times says in an editorial.
". [DOT] . From an overwhelmingly agricultural country, Canada has been transformed into one of the great industrial countries of the world . . ."
I can assure hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that we in Kingston who are dealing with the people of the United States have great appreciation of parity of the United States and Canadian dollars.
I wish to congratulate the Department of Justice, the minister, the commissioner and his colleagues, and also the efforts of Warden Allan of Kingston penitentiary and his staff on' their opening of the penitentiary staff college. The college is to be opened in the next couple of weeks. I had the good fortune on


Sunday last to inspect this college with Mr. McCulley, deputy commissioner, and I can assure hon. members that we will be proud of our department when we review the curriculum of training of officers there and when we inspect the furnishings and fittings and realize that they were all manufactured by prison labour throughout Canada, and we will conclude that our institutions are training the unfortunate inmates to live a better and a more useful life in society. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that, regardless of press reports, the people of Kingston appreciate the establishment of the penal institutions in that area.
I was very pleased to read in the speech from the throne that there is to be amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Veterans Benefit Act at this session. I agree with what the hon. member for Saint John-Albert said this afternoon in regard to the need of amending these two acts.
For the next few moments I should like to deal with another matter which perhaps is a little different from what has been dealt with to date. First of all, I should like to inform the house that Kingston has been honoured by being chosen as the site of the international hockey hall of fame. The county of Frontenac has been kind enough to grant land for this purpose just west of our beautiful courthouse overlooking the cricket field which has long been known to Canadians as the park where many sporting activities have taken place.
This hockey hall of fame will be as famous in the sporting world as the baseball hall of fame in Cooperstown in the United States. The hockey hall of fame will be a memorial to those great men who made and developed hockey as our national sport. It is appropriate that it should be located in Kingston, which has always been known for its hockey, because it has as one of its most highly respected residents Captain James Sutherland, known far and wide as the granddaddy of hockey. The importance of this hockey hall of fame cannot be better expressed than by quoting an excerpt from the report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, page 123, as follows:
If Canadians are to know "as much as possible about their country, its history and traditions," the proper preservation of our ancient monuments and historic sites is a matter of first importance.
As I say, hockey is our national sport. The wealth of our country is not to be found only in our natural resources and our industry; it is to be found also in our youth. Hockey is a great sport and a sport in connection with which Canadians are known throughout the world. But its greatness has developed far

beyond the point where it should be controlled by persons and executives not responsible to the elected representatives of Canada or to a board responsible either to the federal or to the provincial governments.
Why should our youth, of whom we are so proud, be told that they shall or shall not play on this team or that, with no reasons being given? Why should their name be placed with a professional club while they are still mere boys, and they can do nothing about this if they wish to pursue this sport.
I should like to refer particularly to a case which occurred last fall and which was in the news across Canada. It was labelled a hockey scandal and involved several boys from Kingston. So-called sentences were handed out by a subcommittee of the Ontario Hockey Association, which subcommittee was not even properly formed in accordance with its own constitution. At the time I made a search but I could not find that the Ontario Hockey Association was ever incorporated federally or provincially, although it claims it was incorporated on December 19, 1896. I ask, what control have the citizens of Canada over such an organization? I am sure the same question can be asked with regard to other provincial athletic associations.
The names and pictures of these boys, who never had an opportunity to properly defend their rights, appeared in the press with captions stating that so and so received one year, so and so gets two years and so on. Those sentences of suspension were not given by a judicial body or a properly appointed board; they were given by people who had been fortunate enough to become members of an association and who felt they could inflict upon other citizens of Canada a restriction of their rights with no responsibility for their actions to the citizens of Canada.
These boys-, and many others like them, have been prevented from participating inorganized hockey because -they have not been able to obtain a Canadian Amateur Hockey Association certificate because a provincial hockey association has refused to grant one to them. According to section 21 (d) of their manual, "the executive of a provincial hockey association may at its absolute discretion issue, revoke or refuse to issue such certificate." I realize there is a section of the British North America Act dealing with property and civil rights, but I -contend -that it is time our governments reviewed the whole situation of our national sports and saw to it that -citizens are not denied the right to participate in a game which should be for the good of our youth and our country. Such
The Address-Mr. Hees athletic activities should be supervised by a body responsible to the government, which in turn is responsible to the people.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) is in the house this evening, because what I have to say particularly concerns him and his department. Last Friday the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) very ably outlined a number of the problems which are facing the textile industry of Canada. As there are a number of textile mills in my riding, I should like to add my voice in asking the government to take steps to alleviate what amounts to a real depression in the textile industry.
The main cause of this depression is legalized dumping of American textiles. I shall explain what I mean. Mills in the United States supply a market fifteen to twenty times the size of the Canadian market. They make very large runs in order to take full advantage of mass production methods. As they cannot forecast exactly the yardage of a particular pattern or material that will sell, they make sure to over-run, rather than incur the high cost of setting up their machines a second time. The yardage in excess of what the United States market can absorb, at regular prices, must be disposed of. If it is sold at bargain prices on the United States market, it will slow down the absorption of new lines. It is therefore desirable to dispose of this excess yardage in outside markets; the closest of these being Canada.
In order to get around our anti-dumping laws, the United States mills make one small sale at a price far below the price at which the goods are regularly sold on the United States market. The goods are then disposed of in the Canadian market, at an artificially low price, which is usually well below the cost of production of the Canadian mills. The over-runs, which may be small in terms of the United States market, usually represent a large percentage of the Canadian market. It is this flooding of the Canadian market with dumped United States textiles that has caused Canadian textile workers to be laid off in very large numbers.
These unemployed textile workers cannot be re-employed until the mills which formerly employed them are once again able to compete on fair and even terms with the United States mills. That time will not come until the government makes sure that the prices of the United States textiles entering Canada are the regular prices at which the goods were sold on the United States market, and not a fire sale price, offered to clear out over-runs.

The Address-Mr. Hees


Mr. Benidickson:: Would the hon. member define dumping for us?


George Harris Hees: I have just defined it. If the government will stop this legalized dumping of United States textiles it will go a long way toward restoring the textile industry, and employment in that industry, to a normal level. If it refuses to take that step; it must take the full responsibility for keeping an increasing number of textile workers out of work. I sincerely hope the government will take that step without delay.
The fact that legalized dumping exists is recognized by the departmental officials responsible for the actual administration of our existing anti-dumping regulations. As evidence, I submit the reports which were carried in the press on January 23 following a meeting between representatives of a joint labour-management committee of the textile and needle trades, and government officials, headed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), and including officials from the Department of National Revenue and Department of Defence Production.
Following the meeting held in Ottawa on January 22 it was reported in the press of January 23 that government officials had worked out a course of action to meet this dumping. This plan was submitted to the Minister of National Revenue. So that there may be no doubt about the matter, I should like to quote one short paragraph from a Canadian Press report appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of January 23.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it has just been brought to my attention that he has already spoken to the amendment to the amendment.


An hon. Member:: We were thinking that.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the main motion. The first amendment to the amendment and the first amendment were voted on, and then I spoke.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: The
Hansard I hold in my hand indicates that after the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) moved his amendment to the amendment- and that appears at page 219 of Hansard- the following speakers took part in the debate: Mr. Catherwood, Mr. Gillis, Mr. Hees. The speech of the hon. member for Broadview is recorded at pages 229 and 230 of Hajisard of March 7. Therefore the hon. member will understand that he will have to wait until this amendment to the amendment is disposed of before he can make another speech.
[Mr. Hees.)


George Harris Hees: It seems that it was my error. I am practically through and if I might finish-


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I know the hon. member did not do this intentionally. If it had been brought to my attention earlier I would have immediately told him he was not in order in making a speech at this time. However, the way the rules are construed no member can speak twice on the same amendment, and I will have to ask the hon. member to resume his seat at this time.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry that the hon. member was not able to finish his speech because he was doing an excellent job of showing the house and the country one of the confounding perplexities that face men in our generation, that a great neighbour nation with 150 million people and the ability to produce almost every kind of commodity it needs, with no real need under the sun to export goods, should deliberately dump its goods into the economy of a friendly nation like Canada with only 14 million people, thus threatening to destroy its economy; and should look upon that as being commendable behaviour in the international field.
At the present time that same nation is perambulating all over the world trying to tell the people of the world how to conduct their affairs in a more becoming manner so they will be able to live, and yet it is doing this outrageous thing right next door and we do not know what to do to stop it. Not only that, we have Japan penetrating our market with textiles. We have Germany ready to do so and other nations wanting to do so. All we need to do is to open the floodgates a little bit and we shall have competition with respect to pretty nearly every commodity we produce, competition so strong and effective that our own producers will be utterly unable to survive.
That poses a problem that has got to be answered by the people of this generation or they face disaster. There is no question about that. I submit that there is not a member on the Liberal side of the house, and as far as I know not a member of the Conservative party, who can give even a hint of a way around that difficulty. Yet they strut around, throw out their chests and think they are able to do a good job of governing the country in these times which are perhaps the most dangerous in the world's history. I am sorry that the hon. member did not have the opportunity to finish his excellent speech.
The subject to which I wish to address my attention for the few minutes available to



IX. 1952

[Stage Direction]
me tonight is a question which is in the mind of practically everybody in America and I suppose pretty well all over the so-called free world. I wish to say something about Canada and the struggle against communism.
We Canadians and the other peoples of the nations who are pleased to call themselves free nations of the world are committing two appallingly dangerous blunders. We are basing our economics upon two major fallacies. The first is the false assumption that supply creates its own demand, in other words, the utterly erroneous notion that whenever goods like potatoes, shoes or lumber are produced, there somewhere automatically comes into consumers' hands money or effective demand sufficient to buy and consume those goods.
Second, there is the equally false and perhaps even more dangerous assumption that competitive international trading, no matter how free or non-discriminatory it may be, can satisfactorily distribute among the peoples the goods and services mankind is now able and willing to produce. These two fatal fallacies have in our own generation plunged us into two calamitous world wars and dragged us through a disastrous depression. These two iniquitous doctrines have, in eight short years after world war II, driven us to the very verge of either a third world war, ghastly beyond imagination's power to envision, or a second great depression too revolting to contemplate, or both the war and the depression, only to be followed, if not accompanied by, a world wide all-engulfing dictatorship of communism, a communist dictatorship, if not in name, at least in substance.
I do not know how a more disturbing picture could be drawn. Yet this is exactly what we have to look at this present moment of time in the year of our Lord, 1952. They are two utterly fallacious principles. I would like to know, if there is any way of finding out, just how many members of this house would agree with me in calling these principles fallacious, how many times they have to see these principles fail before they are convinced that there is something wrong with those principles.
Now may we take a look at some of the signs around us of conditions now prevalent among men, constituting highly suitable ground for communist seed. In the first place there is scarcity in whole areas of the world, scarcity so dangerous that we almost hold our breath lest the people involved shall go behind the iron curtain of their own free will and choice. While the figures I am going to give do not exactly indicate the scarcity presently existing, they certainly do indicate scarcity in the offing unless something substantial is done.
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
According to the figures I have there are 2,400 million people in the world today, and they tell us only about one billion of those are able to get anything like what they need to live on. According to the figures I have from the FAO 75,000 people are born every day; that is the margin over deaths. This means the world's population is increasing at the rate of 27 million a year. Yet here we are not only failing to adequately stimulate our production; we are allowing practices to continue which are threatening to destroy that production. For example, the export of textiles from the United States to Canada is threatening the destruction of the productive capacity of Canada in respect of textiles. Those textiles should be going to Java or Malaya, or some other country where they do not have textiles. The question is how we are to get them there; and if we cannot get them there, are we going to allow these United States people to destroy part of the productive capacity of Canada and indeed part of the actual production which is now going on in the world? Surely all that is necessary is to state that tragic absurdity to impress it upon the mind of any thinking person. Something is radically wrong with the way we are managing trade in the world.
At the same time we have this rapidly growing population, here is a picture of what is already actually taking place today in certain parts of the world. Paul Wiley Gordon, assistant executive director of CARE, speaking before a banquet of the 43rd annual congress of the Co-operative Union of Canada in Ottawa, is reported in the Ottawa Journal of March 6, 1952, as using these words:
Saying that the past decade had brought the "awful cycle of arms to armistice to arms again," the speaker declared that a direct fight against the causes of war to be waged on "a personal level" was needed, and that the peoples of countries with an abundance of goods must share that abundance with countries not so fortunate.
Further on he is reported as saying:
Warning that the world food picture was still poor, he outlined conditions in many parts of the world. India, in 1952, is threatened again with famine that will be even worse than last year, when thousands were reduced to eating leaves and grass. England, rationed to meagre austerity levels for more than a decade, still has no prospect in sight of being able to eat better. More than half the human race goes to bed hungry every night. Hunger is the fundamental fact that colours their thinking and rules their lives every day they exist.
May I add something I know does not need to be said, that hunger is the richest seed bed for communism. Every day we permit hunger to exist in the world when we have potential abundance we are deliberately contributing to the spread of communism, while we are supposed to be fighting it.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
Now let us get some idea as to how abundant the possibilities of production really are. In 1942 at Great Falls, Montana, if I remember correctly, there was in convention a chemical organization that spreads right across the United States. That convention was addressed by Dr. Charles M. A. Stine, vicepresident of the E. I. du Pont Nemours Company, who used these words among others:
Under pressure' of the necessities of war, the inconceivables of only two years ago are today s realities. American chemists are discovering new continents of matter, and the world of 1940 has already become an antiquity. When the war is won we shall have at our command ten to one hundred times what we had before in raw materials. New and more versatile plastics ... high pressure syntheses of ammonia . . . fertilizer of such capacity that the trends of agriculture may be changed . . . glass that is unbreakable and will float . . . wood that won't burn . . . hosiery from air . . . window screens without wire . . . the war is compressing development.
It would be most impressive if we could have Dr. Stine bring us up to date since 1942. All of which goes to show that the capacity of the world, with the resources available to the world and the chemical skills which have been developed in the world, are such as to justify us in believing that more goods can be produced than all the people in the world could begin to consume; and that with the rapid development of scientific progress, together with our knowledge gained from the atomic bomb, we shall be able to produce rapidly enough to keep abreast of any increase in population which may occur throughout the world. For us to contemplate limiting production as we are scandalously doing in Canada is for us to commit crimes of the very first magnitude against our generation and those to come.
I have here a statement which I believe rather points up what I have just been saying. It pertains to the sugar industry. I am taking it from "Sugar Facts" of March 3, 1952. It is entitled "World sugar pact is under discussion at London, England. Canada is observer at international meetings."
Representatives of governments in the sugar industry from all over the world are attending a meeting of the international sugar council in London this week. They will discuss creation of a new world convenant to avoid a world sugar surplus, similar to that which prompted the first and only previous international sugar agreement in 1937. Canadian representatives are only observers at meetings of international sugar council. At several conferences held since world war II Canada has refrained from taking a stand pro or con proposals of large exporting countries. Estimated world sugar production this year will be 41,300,000 short tons, compared with 34,516,000 in the crop years 1936-37, when the first treaty was born. Sixteen years ago Java was one of the world's greatest sugar producers, but today it is of no account. Expansion elsewhere in the same period has more than offset Java's decline. Cuba has come up from a yearly output of 3,379,000 tons to
[Stage Direction]

7,000,000; Puerto Rico is now a world exporter; Mexico formerly produced only her own needs but now exports.
"So far, increased population has been a factor in absorbing increased production," Lamborn and Company, New York sugar brokers observe, "but sugar exporters are anxious to develop a workable plan before production outdistances consumption. They want to hold output within such limits as will permit a remunerative price for sugar sold in the world market."
Lawrence Myers, director of U.S. government sugar branch, and president Robert H. Shields of U.S. Beet Sugar Association are attending the meeting. They are definitely interested in world production because of its effect on sugar market levels at home.
Current U.S. refined sugar prices are about $1.50 per hundred pounds less than what they should be, to maintain the 1947 relationship between sugar prices and consumers' price index. U.S. department of agriculture has deliberately set a low sugar import quota for 1952, to strengthen prices at home.
Here is an industry, the sugar industry, which is able to produce abundantly, but we find the representatives of the sugar producers of the world meeting together to contrive ways and means of preventing increased production while the population of the world is increasing by 25 million a year. Surely, anyone viewing this world's proceedings from Mars would wonder if we had all gone completely lunatic. Yet, we calmly contemplate things of that sort. We simply must, as a generation, solve the problem of distribution, both nationally and internationally.
May I read a quotation from a man who I think must be looked upon as an authority. He is R. F. Irvine, for twenty-five years professor of economics at Sydney university, Australia. In his work entitled "Afterthoughts", he uses these words-this was about 1933:
I believe that the principles put forward by C. H. Douglas are not only sound, but that they provide the only practical way of escape from the tragic fate which otherwise awaits the whole of western civilization.
After twenty years, have we got right up against that tragic situation? Are we now right in it? Was Professor Irvine too pessimistic a prophet when he foresaw the disastrous conditions we are facing right now? Not by any means. Back twenty years or more he warned that we would have to introduce the principles set forth by Major Douglas, which are the social credit principles.
I read again from his article:
The reason that most economists have scouted the Douglas diagnosis is that it calls in question the most fundamental doctrine of the classical school, and the later schools that have grown out of it. The doctrine asserts that "supply creates its own demand."
As I said at the outset of my remarks, the first major fallacy upon which our whole economic thinking is based is the utterly
[Stage Direction]
erroneous notion that when goods are produced the purchasing power or money to buy the goods is automatically produced and put into the hands of the people who would buy. No amount of talk, no amount of persuasion seems to serve to get into the hard heads of the men who are in control of our affairs the ghastly absurdity of that fallacy.
These representatives of the sugar industry should not be meeting to consider how to shrink the world supply of sugar to conform with the world's ability to buy sugar. They should be meeting to try to ascertain how to enable the world to buy the additional sugar they can produce. In other words, they should be contemplating how to create additional financial purchasing power, and how to put it into the hands of would-be consumers so that they could buy sugar. Now, that is as simple as A, B, C. You would think a ten-year-old child could understand that. Yet, I shall wager dollars to doughnuts that you could not get that into the head of our Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in ten days, nor our Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). Certainly the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is just about all the way around the world from contemplating that idea. Yet we cannot begin to solve the problems that confront us in this day of potential plenty until we all do realize the fallacy of the notion that when goods are produced, automatically the purchasing power to purchase them is produced. In the case of sugar, if the classical idea is sound, the mere production of the sugar ought to produce the purchasing power to buy the sugar. These men readily recognized that such is not the case.
We are dealing with this first major fallacy and where it leads us. According to the interpretation of the passage I have just read, we must artificially create effective demand. Professor Irvine's belief is that we must create effective demand, that is money, artificially to balance the production we are able to bring into existence. Then, we must provide for the equitable distribution of that purchasing power in the hands of the people who desire to consume the goods. It will not help to put the money into the hands of millionaires who already have all the sugar and boots they wish. We have to put it into the hands of people who do not have all they want.
Now, I believe it would be well for me to outline once more the principles set forth by Major Douglas, clearly, simply and comprehensively so that everyone who desires to get the facts can do so. Major Douglas set forth three major principles. The first one was that it is sound and it is practicable for the state to create money free of debt and free of interest in accordance with the surplus of goods and services available in the state.
11,	1952
The Address-Mr. Blackmore Second, it is sound and valid to use some of that money to bring about a just price structure by compensated discounts and by subsidies. Third, it is sound to use some of that money to finance consumption by granting dividends to consumers.
Now, if we were to apply those principles to a world-wide situation we would see that where we can produce a superabundance of sugar it is sound to have some agency in the world creating the money which would be necessary to buy that sugar, and putting that money into the hands of the people who would desire to buy it. They might be in India or in any other country that lacks sugar. It is simple enough.
Which one of those three principles will we find most disputed? The social credit principle about which the most contention prevails is No. 1, the creation of money by the state free of debt and free of interest, and the spending of such money into circulation. The minute we advocate that in this house ninety per cent of the members immediately say that that will cause inflation, that will be inflation. Now, it does not necessarily constitute inflation. If there is a surplus of goods that are not being bought with the money now in circulation, the creation of more money and putting that into the hands of poor people like old age pensioners or the permanently crippled so that they can buy potatoes, canned goods, milk and other things which we can produce abundantly, does not constitute inflation in accordance with any intelligent definition or understanding of inflation. I can see three or four members with supercilious smiles. They think that they know more about this thing than I do, after spending all these years in study. They think they know more about this than does Major Douglas, who was an excellent engineer. They think they know more about it than Professor Irvine, whom I have quoted. They think they know more about it than Mr. McKenna, whom I am going to quote. To that extent they are betraying the people of Canada by not grappling with the problem that is confronting our nation and other nations right now.
I should like to quote from the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, chairman of the Midland Bank, who was speaking to his shareholders in 1936. Hon. members who desire to check this quotation can do so by going to the January 30, 1936, issue of the London Times which may be found right down in the library here, and reading from page 23 the following words:
Additional currency, however, can now be furnished by the authorities, if they choose to exercise
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Blackmore their powers, without reference to the central bank's holdings of gold. Thus the nineteenth century, which brought into general use a means of payment hitherto scarcely known outside London, brought also the machinery whereby it could be subjected to intelligent control.
In the same article he used some other statements which I think it is fitting to read into Hansard at . the present time:
The major tests of sufficiency are to be found in comparative stability of the price level and the extent of unused productive capacity, of which the number of unemployed may afford some indication.
May I stop and comment on that statement. What we have already been talking about thus far indicates the tremendous scope of productive capacity which in Canada is idle. We have not a great number of unemployed but we are not using the people we now have employed to much more than about half their efficiency.
A little further on there is another statement to which 1 wish to refer. First, may I say that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) points out to me that we are getting more unemployed all the time; but of' course the Minister of Finance will say that it is just seasonal. That may be so. May 1 read this quotation:
For money to be truly "sound" there must be enough of it to finance an ordinarily growing volume of trade, yet not so much as to give rise to an inflationary movement of prices.
Major James William Coldwell: Is that quotation from the Midland Bank report?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. It is in the January 30, 1936, issue of the London Times. I would suggest that instead of using the word "trade", the president might have more appropriately used the words "production and consumption". It is not only a matter of trade. It is a matter of putting the money into circulation in order to enable the people to consume a growing degree of production.
I think some of the Liberals will be a little bit surprised to learn that their beloved leader, Mackenzie King, was right on the verge of teaching this very doctrine. I read from his book "Industry and Humanity", published in 1918, at page 103, the following:
Man, not nature, is now in control. The problem of the possible production of all but unlimited wealth is already solved.
That was in 1918. To continue:
Growth in human intelligence has wrought this achievement. Surely human intelligence may be relied upon to see that the problem of distribution, to which the production of wealth is a necessary preliminary, will also find an equitable solution.
The brilliant successors of Mackenzie King have not begun to nibble at the problems yet, and they are not even disposed to confront them. Again on page 130 he says, dealing with money:
Money and credit are sometimes spoken of as capital. They are such, not of themselves, how-

ever, but in virtue of what their possession commands; they indicate power of control because exchangeable for desired commodities or services. So far as the actual processes of production go,-
Here he is dealing with money.
-money is a matter of figures in books, and insignia and figures on metal and paper.
Whoever is close enough to the Prime Minister to get his ear might suggest that he give some thought to those passages from the book of his illustrious predecessor.
Last year I spoke several times, to the great annoyance of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), on the feasibility of state-created, debt-free money. I felt last year that the information pertaining to that subject ought to be put before the members of this house, so that the responsibility from that time on might lie with the members of the house and not with me. I have put the information on Hansard. If hon. members do not get it, they are answerable to their constituents and their constituents' children who will be killed in the next war. The thing is just as simple as that.
I spoke on April 19, April 30, May 1, May 3, May 22, May 23, June 4, June 20 and June 30 during the 1951 session. On June 20 I discussed the Bradburys, and that night we endeavoured to engage the Minister of Finance in an intelligent discussion of the feasibility of state-created money; but after he had tried to answer about three questions, he got to his feet and left the room. Then on June 30, when we tried to engage him once more, he did not appear. He left the chore boy or the office boy to come in and do the job. That fact indicates quite clearly that the Minister of Finance in this house simply cannot and dare not try to answer the questions concerning social credit. He knows positively that social credit is right; but rather than acknowledge that fact, he would lead this country into any kind or degree of disaster, and the people around him who trust him implicitly are prepared to let him do so. I believe, however, that up to the present I have done my part.
I now turn to the matter of trade. As we carry it on today, trade is not the solution to the problem of international or national distribution. What the United States is doing to our textile industry this very day constitutes conclusive proof of that statement, as does what the Japanese are doing to our textile industry, the fact that Britain has limited imports this very day, the fact that France has limited imports and the fact that Australia has also done so. All these facts show conclusively that orthodox trade as a means of distribution of goods has broken down dismally and the whole fundamental

idea underlying the United Nations, ITO and Bretton Woods is a monstrous fallacy.
The question is this. Is the Canadian government going to face that fact and modify its behaviour in accordance with the facts? That is the question. On their decision depends the fate of hundreds of thousands of Canadian youth.
Trade must toe made co-operative and mutually constructive, not competitive, predatory and mutually destructive, as it has been for centuries and still is, as witness the United States efforts with respect to our textile industry. How to make it co-operative and mutually constructive is the problem. No member in this house, outside of Social Crediters, as far as I know, has any idea how to go about it. Yet it evidently can be solved if we attack the problem honestly and humbly and not with such a smart Aleck attitude that we cannot be reached even with a shotgun.
The most important facts to be borne in mind are that it is possible to solve the problems of scarcity and of distribution of abundance. It must be possible, as Mackenzie King well said in his book in 1918. The methods employed must be in some respects fundamentally different from those relied upon heretofore. I have not time to go into all the details with respect to the differences, but I have discussed them to some extent, particularly last fall when I advocated the advance of a billion dollars of credit to Great Britain for each of five years. On that occasion I spoke on November 12, November 20 and November 22. On November 22 I advocated that Britain be made a clearing house because Britain has developed to so high a degree the wholly successful device of the pound sterling which can be used as an international currency.
On those occasions I pointed out that the advance of $5 billion in five years could be made to Britain without additional taxes, without additional debt and without additional inflationary pressure in Canada. As evidence I pointed out the fact that $50 million worth of wheat was purchased with created money by the Canadian treasury in world war I and lent to Britain, and I read from the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada the words in which that transaction is set forth. On page 22 we read the following words:
In 1917 an emergency issue of $50 million of dominion notes was made to finance war purchases in Canada, by the British government. The notes were secured by imperial treasury bills. In due course, this indebtedness was liquidated by payments from the British treasury and all of this issue had been redeemed by 1927, No changes have
11. 1952	343
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
since been made in the Dominion Notes Act except that by a statute passed on 30th March, 1933, the governor in council was empowered to suspend the redemption in gold of dominion notes, and an order in council to this effect was made on 10th April, 1933.
Last year when I was talking about this matter I pointed out that if the Bank of Canada today is unable to do this thing which the dominion treasury was in world war I able to do without the Bank of Canada, then the sooner we abolish the Bank of Canada the better, because it stands today as a hindrance to us in the performance of necessary duties. No one has been able to answer that argument yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


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


Major James William Coldwell: May I move the adjournment of the debate?


Mr. McCann:: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Major James William Coldwell: I did it first, but I am quite willing to bow to the minister, but I should like to go next.


Mr. Fleming:: You cannot stake claims like that.
On motion of Mr. McCann the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I move that the house do now adjourn. Tomorrow we will continue this debate. May I leave this thought with hon. members? If we conclude this debate on Thursday evening many people will be pleased, and I can assure the house that on Friday and next week we can have very interesting speeches on important questions that were mentioned in the house this week.


Mr. Green:: What ones?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Friday of next week?


Alphonse Fournier: Friday and next week.


Howard Charles Green: What subjects?


Alphonse Fournier: They were mentioned, and they were of much interest to hon. members, and we would be anxious to please them all.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.





Wednesday, March 12, 1952