1952-03-06

Mr. Speaker:: May I be permitted to make a short statement at this time? Yesterday, when the house was considering third reading of the bill in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease, Mr. Diefenbaker moved an amendment. The Minister of Agriculture contended that the amendment was out of order. However, I allowed it to stand.
Since that time I have given further consideration to the amendment, and although it may have been technically in order I am rather doubtful of the practical result which would have followed if it had carried. The committee would have reconsidered an amendment which would have necessitated an expenditure of money. But the committee could not have taken any action on the matter without a motion by a member of the government. The government had intimated that it would not propose such an amendment. Accordingly I am doubtful if any useful purpose would have been served by referring the matter back to the committee.
The purpose of this statement is to advise the house that, for the reasons which I have stated and for other reasons, should a similar amendment be moved on any future occasion, I would not feel myself bound by the ruling which I made yesterday.



CONFEDERATION DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Introduction of bills-Mr. Arsenault-Bill intituled: An act respecting Confederation day.
Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure):: It is
not my intention to move the introduction of this bill at this time, Mr. Speaker. I should like to have your consent, sir, and that of the house, to withdraw this notice.


Some hon. Members:: Good.


Bona Arsenault: I have come to the conclusion that the proposed bill should be redrafted, and that it will be opportune to postpone consideration of its subject matter to some future time.


Mr. Casselman:: Who talked to you?


Mr. Speaker:: The bill is withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.



INTERNATIONAL PEACE GARDEN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development? Can the minister say whether further consideration has been given to the matter of continuing the $15,000 grant to the international peace garden, and whether or not such consideration has been favourable?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: The answer to the first question is yes; the answer to the second is no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Too bad.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES PRESS REPORT AS TO RESTRICTION OF MOVEMENT OF CANADIANS AT BUFFALO AIRPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am not too sure whether this comes under his department, the Department of National Revenue, or the Department of Defence Production, which supervises some of the work of Trans-Canada Air Lines. My question arises out of a news-item which appeared today in a reliable morning newspaper in Toronto, and which indicates-


Some hon. Members:: What paper is that?


Gordon Graydon: It relates an incident where some sixty Canadians were held, with a cordon of police around them, at a Buffalo airport, in a sealed plane for several hours. Several complaints have been made, including a complaint from two prominent public men in Toronto. I ask the minister whether he has made any investigation of this incident, and what is the story behind it?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I have also seen the report, but in another newspaper. We are already making inquiries of the United States authorities as to the accuracy of the report.
156	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



CO-OPERATIVE ORGANIZATIONS REQUEST FOR INCORPORATION OF NATIONAL SOCIETY    PROCEDURE IN QUESTIONS ON THE ORDERS OF THE DAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.\nOn motion of Mr. Abbott the debate was adjourned.']
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Have co-operative organizations asked the government for permission to incorporate a national co-operative credit society? Will the government approve the incorporation of such a national co-operative credit society?


Mr. Speaker:: Before the minister answers the question, may I say that it occurs to me this is the type of question that should appear on the order paper. I am not so sure that the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should not also have appeared on the order paper.
While I am making these remarks may I also say that questions put to the ministers should be questions, and should be brief. As the house knows, an hon. member should not quote what is heard outside, whether it be from the press or otherwise. Under our practice questions may be put to the ministers, but I would ask hon. members in future to try to abide by the rules of the house and when they put their questions on the orders of the day to be sure to put them in the form of questions.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, with all deference I believe my question was a proper question. It arose out of-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now referring to a report from which the question arose. I do not think that is proper. This is a departmental matter, and the minister would necessarily have to inquire in his department. Practically no time would be lost by putting the question on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the suggestion which Your Honour has just made? In order that we may place questions on the order paper in the anticipation of getting them answered at an early date, could it be arranged that answers to questions on the order paper be given say at least one day a week? As it now stands, none of them will be answered until after the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has been concluded.


Mr. St. Laurent:: This is a matter which concerns the whole house. I shall be glad to confer with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and with the leaders of other groups to ascertain what they may feel would accommodate the house in that regard.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) asked a question concerning the issuing of lists of the names and businesses of the manufacturing industries in a particular community by the dominion bureau of statistics. I have had the matter looked into and find that the information being sought cannot be given, as the publication of such information is prohibited by section 15 of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Act.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 29, 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.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of this resolution in no merely formal spirit, but in the belief that they have very com-mendably accepted the responsibility imposed upon them. Each of them naturally dealt with the great advantages of his own part of the country. That, I think, is a healthy example of the kind of faith in one's own community which collectively builds a strong country. Naturally they would not expect every other hon. member to agree entirely with their estimate of the advantages of their own communities as against other communities in the country, but I do share with others who have expressed the same opinion that their task was performed in a manner that does credit to this house.
When this session opened a few days ago we paid our respects to the memory of a greatly loved king. We expressed our sorrow and sympathy for the members of his family in his sudden death, and we expressed our loyalty to his daughter who has now become our queen. It is a period of mourning and also of dedication. As we remember the fortitude, simplicity and kindness with which he undertook his many and heavy duties, we are reminded of the strength of those virtues which he exemplified and of the immense power exercised by the unquestioned goodness of this saintly man. By the unselfishness and devotion to his own tasks there

comes to each one of us a challenge to dedicate ourselves to the task of maintaining and strengthening in every way within our power, by thought, word and deed, those cherished institutions which he served so well.
It is in this solemn atmosphere that we now examine the first speech from the throne delivered to the parliament of Canada in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. The solemnity of the occasion and its historic significance in no way change the recognized fact that the speech from the throne is simply the statement of the government which outlines its plans for the coming session. It is read by Her Majesty's representative in the exact form prepared by the government itself. It is in that light, and in that light alone, that it must be examined today as it has been the custom to examine the speech from the throne in this and other legislative assemblies which follow the same parliamentary practices.
The members of this house will all give their enthusiastic approval to the expressions of loyalty which it contains. There are other announcements also which will be welcomed. All members will indeed agree that the Canadian forces in Korea are serving in a manner which gives Canadians today new reason to be proud of the character and fortitude of their young men and women.
While the road to general peace and real international security is bound to be long and hard, there have been encouraging signs that the free nations, and particularly the nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, have been working in closer harmony and with an increasing sense of reality.
The Lisbon conference may well have been a turning point in history. The decision to have one integrated army, which would wear the same uniform as the evidence of its unity, may well prove decisive in the years ahead. It would also seem that a much more realistic atmosphere pervaded the meeting than has been apparent at any time in the past.
If the meetings were realistic, however, the statement issued by the meeting was the very contrary. It was bad from the international point of view; it was bad from the point of view of our own people, and, above all, it was bad because it gave assurances which were not based on facts. It is difficult to understand what would prompt those responsible for such a statement to announce that there would be fifty divisions in the European army by the end of this year. If we were to accept a statement of that kind we would simply be deluding ourselves. Most certainly it will not fool the Russians.
The Address-Mr. Drew
Bad though that statement is, it justifies in no way the amazing declaration of policy issued the day before yesterday to the press by the socialist party. Having very correctly pointed out the unsatisfactory nature of the statement issued from Lisbon, there can be no justification for the suggestion that Canada should oppose the armament goals set at Lisbon. Those who have been reading press reports of numbers of communist divisions, the quality and numbers of Russian jet aircraft and the new Russian jet bomber, to say nothing of their more recent advances in tank design, should be well aware that our sights must not be set lower, but much higher in terms of real hitting power. What we need, and need desperately in the shortest possible time, is some rationalization of military contribution to the common cause which will make the maximum use of the tremendous industrial potential on this continent and at the same time make effective use of the vast pool of available manpower in Europe. In this there is no suggestion that Canada should in any respect shirk its duties and its responsibilities. But transportation over thousands of miles, and the feeding, equipping and maintaining of armed men, does suggest the application of simple military logistics to this problem. These are subjects, however, to be discussed in detail at another time.
I did not think I should let pass unnoticed this unfortunate declaration of policy by the socialist party, which combines anti-American sentiment with anti-military demands in words which have a surprising similarity to those employed by the irresponsible element of the socialist party in Britain. It is reassuring to know that those dangerous policies were so decisively repudiated by the socialist party in Britain the day before yesterday. I earnestly hope they do not represent the attitude of the socialist members in this house, because their statements in the past have expressed a different point of view.
Even though the statement issued from the Lisbon conference so obviously overstates the extent of our combined arrangements for defence, this is more than balanced by extremely reassuring news of another kind. Very much more important than these overstatements, to which unfortunately we have become accustomed here in Canada, was the recent announcement that Britain has for some time been building and has completed a number of atom bombs. This will make a profound impression on the men in the Kremlin, and will overweigh many, many times the phantom divisions paraded at Lisbon.
Remembering that it was British research and British scientists who made possible the
15$	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew construction o f the first atom bombs, and that those same scientists are now back in Britain and have for some time been working on this project there, we need have no doubt that this new contribution to the military strength of the democracies is one which may well weigh the scales decisively on the side of peace.
I have mentioned this subject today for another reason. I trust that there is no thought that the statements in regard to the Lisbon conference and defence will be given by the ministers responsible, within the framework of this debate. The discussion of the Lisbon conference should be a separate debate, following the introduction of a resolution calling for approval of whatever it was the Canadian government agreed to undertake at that conference.
The discussion of defence, which will bring us up to date-or we hope it will-and also make it possible for us to discuss those aspects of defence outside the scope of the North Atlantic treaty organization, should be a separate debate. Both these debates should come on as soon as possible. If some indication were given of the time and the manner of their introduction, I am sure that the debate on the speech from the throne might be comparatively short, because the members would then know that we would soon be discussing subjects that are very much in their minds.
Now I shall refer to the speech from the throne itself.
The fact that the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Veterans Benefit Act are to be amended will be welcomed by those members who have long been pressing for improvement in this legislation, so that the veterans who depend upon the payments provided by those acts may receive some measure of that assistance which is long overdue in meeting the difficult financial position in which they have been placed, by events beyond their control.
Members on both sides of the house will also welcome the opportunity to bring our Criminal Code up to date and to carry out the adjustment of representation in the House of Commons, which is the obligation of parliament after each decennial census.
Beyond that there is nothing which appears to be of particular importance, and certainly nothing which has not already been indicated for some time in the discussions as to what we might expect at this session. It is as lean fare as has ever been placed before the members of this parliament.

It is to be most earnestly hoped that no legislation which the government now contemplates is being held back at this time to provide an excuse for a second session again this year. The effectiveness of this parliament will be greatly injured if that practice continues. The people of Canada are not unwilling to recognize the fact that members of parliament living away from home are put to unusual expense, and that in any event their membership in the House of Commons does impose heavy financial obligations upon them. But I am sure that the people of Canada, whose servants we are, would prefer to see that fact recognized in an appropriate manner, rather than to adopt a device which discourages many people from offering themselves for parliament because of the amount of time which must now be spent in Ottawa and the sense of frustration created by the planned ineffectiveness of extra sessions of that kind.
As an agenda of government business it is a most discouraging and uninformative statement. In fact, even in those cases where there is some appearance of an assurance of things to be done, there is no real information. We are left to guess that the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Veterans Benefit Act will provide those increases in payments which we have been urging for so long. We are also left to guess what revisions there will be to the Immigration Act and to the Canadian Citizenship Act. May I say that we have an example before us at the present time which indicates that important and far-reaching amendments are actually needed. Even recognizing the practice of employing somewhat general statements in the speech from the throne, this speech must constitute an unchallenged record for ambiguity. Its importance lies not in what it says, but in what it omits to say.
If the government is planning any measures in keeping with the seriousness of the situation with which we are confronted, then the speech from the throne is hardly in keeping with the responsibility of the government to parliament and the people of Canada. If ever there was a speech from the throne which deserved severe criticism from both sides of the house, it is that now before us. The solemn events which we have already recalled in this house are no reason for limiting in any degree the vigour of the criticism which should be expressed. On the contrary, those events themselves, which have served to remind us of the strength of our continuing parliamentary institutions, should remind us also of the extent to which the strength of our democracy depends upon criticism. To

those who disapprove of criticism may I point out what has been said on this subject by the greatest living parliamentarian and perhaps the greatest parliamentarian who ever lived. These are the words of Winston Churchill:
Criticism in the body politic is like pain in the human body. It is not pleasant, but where would the body be without it? No health or sensibility would be possible without continued correctives and warnings of pain. It is in the fear of criticism that . . . dictatorships run their greatest risk. They silence all criticism by the concentration camp, the rubber truncheon, or the firing party. Thus the men at the top must very often only be fed with the facts which are palatable to them. Scandals, corruption, and shortcomings are not exposed, because there are no independent voices. Instead of being exposed, they continue to fester behind the pompous frontage of the state.
I trust that we shall always be found willing here in this house, no matter what party forms the government of this country, to co-operate in every way with the government in advancing legislation, or in any other parliamentary duty, where it appears that the government is acting in the best interests of the people of Canada. Here, as in other free lands, the opposition must insist upon its right and duty to penetrate and examine behind the pompous frontage of the state. What is sometimes forgotten by those who too readily criticize criticism itself is that in every session of parliament there is a very high measure of co-operation in regard to many of the matters that come before parliament. I think hon. members will agree that we have already seen an example of a practical measure of co-operation during the present session.
But at a time when the very existence of an opposition is in itself the clear hallmark of our parliamentary freedom, it is the duty of all members who do not agree with what the government is doing, or failing to do, to exercise their right of criticism. That applies to all members of the house, on whichever side of the Speaker they may sit. Some of the finest examples of parliamentary oratory and democracy are to be found in speeches made by those who have spoken from conviction against a government formed from the party to which they belong. There are no better examples of speeches of that kind than those of Winston Churchill himself. In recent years this house has not been furnished with any very striking examples of speeches of that kind. It would be refreshing and extremely helpful if we heard speeches during this debate, informing the government in the clearest possible terms that many of its supporters in parliament believe that their constituents want positive and immediate
The Address-Mr. Drew action to deal with subjects which are not given the respect of a passing glance in the speech from the throne.
What member of this house can be unaware that the people of every part of Canada are greatly concerned about the high cost of living, continuing inflation, crushing overtaxation, unemployment, and the loss of markets for our agricultural products? Yet where is there any reference to these subjects in the speech from the throne?
Inflation continues to mount, with resulting losses to the savings of our people. The heavy burden of overtaxation is felt indirectly or directly by all Canadians, and yet this, and the inflation which it helps to produce, receive only a passing reference in the casual statement that "inflationary pressures are still being strongly felt and require the maintenance of anti-inflationary measures". That is all. There is nothing more. No assurances whatever of any positive measures which might offer some hope of relief to our people at this time.
What about the very serious unemployment which is developing in some areas, and particularly amongst immigrants for whom no satisfactory placing arrangements have been made? No plans are indicated. This subject is completely ignored. In fact it is disregarded in the bland comment that "generally speaking employment remains at a high level".
What of the plight of our farmers, and particularly our dairy farmers, who now find their traditional markets greatly reduced, if not entirely closed? There is no indication of any plan which will give assurance to those farmers who depend upon export markets at a time when they are planning their production for the coming year. They are simply told that external trade has reached a record level.
If the speech from the throne is in fact an indication of the government's program for this session, it constitutes in itself an unanswerable indictment of this government's failure to meet the most urgent problems now confronting our people.
At the end of 1951 the cost of living in Canada had reached the highest figure in all our history. This is something of very real concern to every Canadian. It is a tragedy to a very large number of people on small fixed incomes or pensions. The few dollars available to them will buy considerably less than half the food the same number of dollars would have bought just before the war. And yet that was the time at which the level of a large number of these small incomes
160	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Drew
was fixed. Many of the people in this unfortunate position are feeling the pinch more severely now than at any time in the past. A great many of them have sold their bonds or realized upon other savings which they had expected would protect them in their old age. Some of them have learned for the first time that the bonds which the government encouraged them to believe were the best and safest investment of all are now worth substantially less than their face value in dollars, and in real value perhaps no more than half of what they put into them.
Inflation is still the greatest challenge that we face, next to the possibility of war itself. From this side of the house we have been emphasizing that fact over and over again, and especially since the outbreak of the Korean war. Over and over again we have introduced resolutions demanding action by the government to hoi 1 down the cost of living and check inflation by every means within its power.
There was never any doubt about the inflationary pressures that would be created the moment it became necessary for us to divert large sums of money and resources, as well as manpower, for military purposes. In that respect the situation in Canada is not unique. The same thing happens in every country, because the withdrawal of manpower, of resources, and of industrial effort from peacetime activity invariably creates shortages which in turn bring with them inflationary pressures. But it is the duty of the government to take the appropriate steps which will check the inflation which is created by the very things that it is doing to defend our country and our economy. What we have urged over and over again is that, with their own officials and all the expert advice available to them in Canada, this government should take every possible step to balance the inflationary pressures with anti-inflationary checks and balances. That they have not done. Inflation has reached its highest point and the end is not yet. The welcome drop of a fraction of one point in the cost of living index announced the day before yesterday does not lessen the seriousness of the situation.
We have the unqualified statement of Mr. James Muir, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, in the annual statement to the shareholders of that bank on January 11, that "the third wave of inflationary pressure will come in full force upon us only when the rate of armament spending reaches its height". Those were the words of one of our most experienced and wise bankers.

We know that we have not yet reached that point. Effective steps have not been taken to deal with the inflation which we have already felt. This is not a statement made in this house merely for the purpose of seeking to cause discomfiture to the government. It has been made by many of the greatest experts on finance across Canada during the past few months. The speech from the throne offers no hope that adequate measures will be taken to meet this new and still more dangerous threat which could set off chain reactions which would be most difficult to control.
The government has been directly responsible for much of the inflation which we have already felt. The government has added to the great burden of our people by overtaxing them above the already heavy taxes by almost $700 million in the first nine months of the present fiscal year. Their own figures show a surplus for three-quarters of the year of $721,600,000, as against the $30 million surplus estimated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) when he obtained authority from parliament last year to impose the taxes for the current fiscal year.
There might be some thought that this is a subject to discuss when we have the new budget before us. I submit, however, that it is not only appropriate but our duty to deal with this subject now and not wait for the next budget, because the Minister of Finance has already made it clear that he does not regard overtaxation of this kind as inflationary. In fact he tells us that it is a splendid thing. That being the expressed opinion of the Minister of Finance, it is urgently necessary tc do our utmost to impress upon the government the need for a clear and positive declaration that it will abandon this strange and offensive policy, a policy which suggests that it is wise for the government to overtax our people so that the people may be protected from their own folly and the foolish spending of their own money.
Canadians are called upon to pay so much of their tax contributions in hidden and disguised forms that it is necessary from time to time to remind ourselves just what we actually are paying in taxes now. The current budget calls for tax levies of $3,730 million. So that we may realize in understandable terms what this means, it is well to remind ourselves that this is considerably in excess of the total gross value of all the products from our farms, forests, mines, fisheries and electric plants in the whole of Canada during 1950. When one thinks of all the human energy that went into production of that kind, the great basic production of the country, and sees that the

total value of all that production is less than the amount of taxes levied under the budget passed last year, one begins to realize something of the real load of taxes that our people are called upon to carry. That is the extent to which the money earned by our people is being withdrawn from their own control and channelled through- this vast bureaucracy.
To illustrate in the simplest way what this means to the individual, may I remind their representatives here that this amounts to more than $265 a year for every man, woman and child in Canada. To put it in another way, it means that through all the open and hidden forms of taxation the average payment of taxes called for by the current budget from the head of a family of five is now $1,325 for the one year.
On top of that Canadians have been overtaxed by approximately $700 million during the first nine months of the fiscal year. This amounts in overtaxation, above the figures of taxes I have given, to $50 a head, or $250 for the head of a family of five. That is what Canadians are now paying. If the government want to know where to tackle inflation first, let them cut off that overtaxation and reduce inflation by letting the people handle their own money with the wisdom that people have who know how hard it is to earn that money. That is the crushing load that should be eased. It is the crushing load that must be eased if the first and obvious step towards checking inflation is to be taken at all. At a time when unhappy events are making so many Canadians uneasy about the immediate future, -and we have been discussing some of those within the past few days-the government should give assurance without delay that this crippling load of taxation will be reduced. I hope we will receive that assurance from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) when he rises to speak in the house this afternoon.
That is the truly serious aspect of this question. Not only has it added directly to inflation; not only has it greatly increased the cost of living; not only has it hindered our export market by adding to the cost of our products, but it has been done without any authority from the people's representatives assembled in parliament.
The Minister of Finance told the people of Canada over the radio two weeks ago that he has used this overtaxation to make substantial payments on the public debt. He has pointed out that if no such surplus of this kind had occurred he would have been unable to make those payments. Does that mean that he thinks he was bound to make those payments? If it does, then it means that he did not disclose his plans to the members 55704-11
The Address-Mr. Drew of this house at the time he was asking permission to levy taxes on the people of Canada. It may be a fine thing to pay off debts at the appropriate time, but if it is the intention of the Minister of Finance to raise taxes for that purpose, it is his bounden duty to explain that fact to the members of parliament before a budget is passed which provides taxes of that kind.
This unauthorized overtaxation does not check inflation; it aggravates it. That has been stated by those who are responsible for the direction of some of our greatest financial institutions. This overtaxation is an inflationary time bomb with a delayed action fuse waiting to be touched off by the pressure of political advantage. Unless the government reconsiders its dangerous decision and acts immediately to withdraw the fuse the bomb could explode at a time when it would do irreparable damage to the economy of this country.
As we meet in this new session it is our urgent duty to insist that the business of the people be returned to the real control of the parliament of Canada. The last budget represents the worst miscalculation in Canadian history, which would for all time challenge the accuracy and reliability of any future financial statement of this government. Or on the other hand it was a defiant deception of parliament. It was one or the other; it could be nothing else. The statement of the Minister of Finance over the radio two weeks ago almost sounded as though at all times he had recognized the need for such a surplus. Surely he is not suggesting that he came before the house last year knowing he was going to need money for this purpose, and hid this information from the members of parliament without whose authority he has no right to levy a single cent in taxation. Unfortunately it reminds us of a statement which cannot be easily forgotten: "If we want to get away with it, who is going to stop us?"
One of the things which makes the present total of overtaxation so inexcusable is the fact that during the budget debate last spring the minister was warned over and over again against the effect of the regressive sales tax, which he increased by twenty-five per cent, and also the serious effect of the present excise tax on such essential household requirements as electric stoves, refrigerators and other things of that kind. The minister was also warned of the effect of the unnecessary taxes he was imposing on automobiles, cigarettes and other things which may be regarded by some as luxuries but which are now in such general use that the effect of

The Address-Mr. Drew such taxation inevitably results in a very substantial over-all increase in the cost of living. In fact it would appear that his own constituents have indicated to him their views about some aspects of taxation of that kind. In view of that fact, even if the minister may not become more responsive to the views expressed in this house, we hope he may give appropriate recognition to the expressed opinion of the constituents whom he is called upon to serve.


Mr. Abbott:: Now return to the text.


George Alexander Drew: It is a great advantage to the Minister of Finance, of course, that he has been permitted to read an advance copy of my text. Otherwise, with his usual airy treatment of the affairs of parliament, he probably would not bother to follow what was being said.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I have not seen a copy of the text.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On a question of privilege, if my hon. friend is suggesting that he sent me a copy of his speech, he did not do so. I have not seen his speech.


George Alexander Drew: One of the things which makes this overtaxation so inexcusable is the fact that when these warnings were issued last year he treated them with an airy disregard and made no attempt to bring forward sound arguments against the constructive proposals and resolutions that were put forward.
There has never been any argument from this side of the house that some credit restrictions were not desirable. But there is a vast difference between credit restrictions which reduce unnecessary purchases when there is a shortage of materials, and credit restrictions so severe that they prevent the purchase of things which have become essential requirements in our complex daily life. There are medicines which may be very, good for particular ailments, but which taken in excess may kill the patient. To some extent that is what has been happening in a number of cases, having regard to the way in which the government has handled credit restrictions. Those restrictions have been made so severe as to create unemployment simply by blocking sales.
While it is in the budget that we shall receive an explanation of the details of taxes for the next year, we should have had assurances at this time that the government does intend to remove some of these wholly unnecessary nuisance taxes which have created unemployment, hindered the building of new houses, increased inflation, and in many cases prevented the purchase of things

that are now regarded as necessities and for which there were adequate supplies of raw materials.
Moreover, there is no assurance of any real attempt to check government extravagance and reduce non-defence expenditures. Last year the Minister of Finance told us the government was reversing the upward trend of non-defence expenditures. The fact is that for the first nine months of the fiscal year, instead of the promised reduction of some $35 million in those expenditures there has been an increase of $37,400,000.
In the case of defence expenditures there is much to be explained. The men and women in the uniform of our army, navy and air force give us good reason for pride in the spirit and character of young Canadians; but what have we to show for the enormous expenditures which have been made? There will be other opportunities to discuss this question in detail, and, as I have said before, I hope it will be in a separate debate on this subject where the discussion can be integrated. But if the added commitments undertaken at NATO are approved, and we consider those expenses on top of what is already being spent for national defence, we must ask ourselves what would happen to our economy if we became involved in any more extended commitments and expenses increased on a proportionate basis. For that reason I ask now, while I am speaking in this debate, that the committee on defence expenditures be set up immediately so that a real inquiry may be undertaken into those expenditures which are bearing most heavily upon the taxpayers of Canada.
I have spoken of unemployment. It is being greatly aggravated by unplanned immigration, by bringing newcomers to Canada without adequate organization to assist them in finding jobs. The large number of unemployed immigrants now gathered outside Toronto, Montreal and other large cities are not only adding to our unemployment problem, but, as the weeks and months drag by without an opportunity being afforded them to obtain steady jobs, the seeds are being sown for future discontent and bitterness in the minds of people who were encouraged to come here in the belief that they 'would have work as soon as they arrived. I am sure those people are people who can and will make as fine citizens as this country wants. But we ourselves must not be those responsible for planting in them the seeds of suspicion and distrust of this democracy of ours.
What has happened to the manpower committee, the committee that was supposed to deal with all these things? Manpower,

employment and immigration are all directly related. That committee is so loaded with government officials that the businessmen who were asked to serve on it seem to have had little opportunity to make any effective plans for the full use of the manpower of this country. If they have had the opportunity, then it has not been put into written form at any time.
That committee, I submit, should be reconstituted with no government officials on it. The officials-men who are fully capable of giving the information required and of supplying the necessary details-should be available at all times, but they should be available for that purpose and should not be the ones to decide what the committee will say as to the manpower situation in this country. The duties of that committee should be extended to the general problem of unemployment and the consideration of plans for properly selecting, screening and placing immigrants coming into this country. May I say that although I have advocated immigration, and sought to assist immigration of a selected type at the time I had some responsibility for that matter, I have always emphasized the need for its being placed on a planned and selective basis. The present method is only creating a difficult unemployment problem in addition to that which already exists.
As it has been discussed so extensively already, I do not intend to speak further of the disaster which has struck the farmers of this country and which is referred to briefly in the speech from the throne. I will only mention the seriousness of the impact upon our whole economy of the dreadful foot-and-mouth disease which is now epidemic in one area of Canada, and I will seek to emphasize its importance to our export trade.
Our exports to the United States have been very high. Now an important part of that export trade is threatened. A very important part of that export trade has been completely stopped for the time being. At the same time we appear to be in danger of losing our historic British markets. In spite of the seriousness of the situation there is in the speech from the throne no suggestion that anything effective is being done to find some way to continue that vitally important export trade to the British isles. The extent of the threat to agriculture generally can be illustrated by the fact that we have been selling large quantities of cheese to Britain for nearly one hundred years. It has been our main market for this very important industry which is vital to the dairy industry of this country. So far this year, so far as I have been able to ascertain, no orders from Bri-55704-11J
The Address-Mr. Drew
tain have yet been placed for cheese, and doubt has been expressed that the British will be able to buy our cheese. This would be an extremely serious blow to the dairy industry in Canada on top of the grave and serious blow it has received from another source and from which it is now suffering. This is merely another example of the dangers confronting all branches of agriculture because of the failure of the government to retain our British markets.
I have touched on matters that are causing great concern to the people of Canada at this time. These things that I have mentioned were some of the things in regard to which the people of this country have been demanding action. Instead of meeting those demands, this government has taxed scores of thousands of Canadians out of employment. It has taxed many of our industries into stagnation. Its overtaxation has been a compound of fraud and futility. It has directly increased inflation in many ways to which I have already referred.
May I remind this government and the members of this house that while this was being done, religious, labour, agricultural, social, commercial, manufacturing, mining and other well-recognized organizations across Canada were asking in the clearest and most expressive terms for relief from the crushing load of unnecessary taxation. Instead of dealing with any of these urgent problems the government made a great show of giving Canada some new status of maturity.
To many Canadians this all seemed1 very strange. They thought Canada had grown up long ago. Many Canadians were not aware that we needed any evidence that we had grown up. Many Canadians remembered their own history. They remembered that Sir John Macdonald had introduced a national policy which asserted, without any reservation, Canada's complete sovereignty and Canada's unchallengeable right to protect its own interests, even if that meant the disadvantage of the people of Great Britain, the United States, or any other country in the world. Long before the turn of this century, Sir John Macdonald said that, whatever sympathy and affection he might have for the people of Britain, his first concern was not for the unemployed of another country but for the unemployed here in Canada. In that declaration he asserted his belief, which was the accepted one, that Canada was a nation of full maturity with full sovereignty over its own affairs. Other Canadians remembered that the status of the dominions defined in the Statute of Westminster was not drafted or devised at that time, but was merely a restatement, in statutory form, of the Balfour

The Address-Mr. Drew declaration, years before. Word by word it followed that definition of the equality of the nations within the commonwealth which had been found necessary because of Sir Robert Borden's insistence that Canada sign the treaty of Versailles in 1919 as a nation sovereign in every respect.
There were many others who remembered that the pomp and circumstance of the Department of External Affairs which we see today was no newly discovered expression of Canada's place in international affairs but that it was also Sir Robert Borden who initiated the policy of diplomatic representation at Washington which began our formal representation outside of Canada throughout the world.
Many Canadians were under the impression that we had grown up to reasonably advanced maturity when, of our own free will, Canada made its own declaration of war on Germany in 1914 in order to protect the freedom of the Canada we knew.
To many Canadians who thought we had grown up long ago and .to whom it never occurred: that any steps were necessary to define or to declare our national maturity, it seems possible that some of the things that have been happening were for other reasons than those which were explained at the time. They have been asking if it is possible that it was done to divert attention from as grave and difficult problems as any that have ever confronted this nation.
In any event much time and effort were devoted to matters in regard to which there has been no evidence before this house of any extensive demand, while at the same time the government ignored the widespread and urgent request that something be done in regard to the high cost of living, inflation, overtaxation, employment and the assurance of continued export markets. Not for the first time in history people were offered shows and banners to divert their attention from their immediate and urgent needs.
It makes no difference what the intention was. We all know what impression has been created in the minds of a very large number of our people. No matter how much any one of us might feel that it was desirable not to bring this subject forward for discussion at this time, it is not possible to ignore the resolutions forwarded to the government, copies of which have come to me and have been sent to other members of parliament, and also the very large numbers of letters from every part of Canada expressing the fear that Canada's ties with the crown and the commonwealth have been weakened by some of these events.
May I emphasize the fact that I am simply referring to opinions which have been expressed by responsible organizations as well as individuals. Members of parliament cannot disregard those opinions, whether any member of the government or of this house may think that they are right or wrong. May I point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) recognized the fact that this concern was in the minds of many of our people. He indicated that, in his opinion, it had reached the point and had reached proportions which called for a statement from him. It was obviously for that reason that he discussed these matters at a press conference on January 25 last. Some of the subjects to which reference was made at that time are now by tradition and the rules of parliament no longer subjects for discussion here. I trust that our traditions and our rules will be respected in this regard.
One subject which the Prime Minister did discuss, however, on January 25 can and should be discussed and does afford a very clear example of the kind of uncertainty which is bringing uneasy thoughts to the minds of many of our people in every part of Canada. The Prime Minister, members of the government, and in fact I am sure all the members of this house are well aware of that uneasiness which they have seen expressed in the resolutions and letters which they have received.
I refer particularly to the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the word "dominion". At the press conference to which I have referred, the Prime Minister had this to say:
We are a dominion and there is nothing I or the government or parliament can do about it so long as the British North America Act is in force. Canada is a dominion and Ottawa is a city. We do not always refer to it as the city of Ottawa and the imperial conferences' documents refer to this country as Canada.
He also made this very positive statement:
The government does not deny, nor have we any desire to deny, that Canada is one of the king's dominions.
Just as the Prime Minister thought it necessary to deal with this subject on January 25, because of the uneasiness which had been expressed, and which he expressed, so also I believe it is my duty to refer to it today at the first opportunity which presents itself to discuss the subject in this house during the present session.
I do not see how it would be possible for anyone who recognizes our constitution for what it is to disagree with the words of the Prime Minister which I have quoted. Nevertheless, something has been happening which

has made people uneasy and in some way changes have occurred in the use of the word "dominion" which have resulted in an apparent attempt to lessen its use. Now some new confusion has been caused by the use of the word "realm". The word was used in the proclamation of the accession to the throne of our new queen as a word which would embrace the nations and territories within the commonwealth. They include the United Kingdom, the dominions, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Republic of India and all the other territories under other names which give allegiance to the crown.
There was no suggestion that this proclamation substituted the word "realm" for such varied descriptive names as United Kingdom, commonwealth, republic or dominion. They all continue to bear the description given to them in their own constitutions.
Our constitution still describes our federated nation as a dominion under the name of Canada. To every Canadian who respects the constitution that must remain the name unless it is changed by such procedure as is provided in the constitution itself. That act has not been amended. Therefore, the question before us is not whether the word "dominion" or "realm" or any other word is preferable in referring to Canada. Other names have been suggested, as other names were suggested both at Charlottetown and Quebec before confederation. We all know that Sir John Macdonald wanted this nation to be described as "the kingdom of Canada". That suggestion was not accepted. The unanimous decision was to call Canada a "dominion" and the word "dominion" is still embedded in our constitution, as the Prime Minister has so correctly emphasized.
The question therefore is not the desirability of one name or another. The question that each one of us must consider is whether this government has any authority to do anything to substitute in government documents, communications of any kind, or anywhere else, another word for any word contained in the existing constitution, without the consent, not only of this parliament, but of the provinces, which have a very great interest in the constitution under which they carry on their affairs.
If the principle be accepted that the government has the authority to change the use of one word, it would have equal authority to change the use of any other word, with all the consequences that would flow from the change and the use of that other word as well. That is something which should be remembered by everyone who regards that constitution as a document of the utmost importance to all Canadians.
The Address-Mr. Drew
No matter how innocent of any attempt to destroy the sanctity of the constitution the government may be, the opinion that the government has been tampering with the constitution has been expressed in too many resolutions and by too many individuals throughout the past few months to leave any doubt that large numbers of Canadians, whatever those numbers may be, have reached the conclusion that the government in this case had adopted the attitude which was expressed on another occasion to which I have already referred, when the house was told by one of the senior members of the government "If we wanted to get away with it, who is going to stop us?"
May I repeat that the statement made by the Prime Minister on January 25, which I have already quoted, would seem to answer this uncertainty which has been expressed by so many of our people, but the uneasiness still persists, as is known to the government and other hon. members, and it has been strengthened by the fact that no matter what explanation may be given of the constitutional position, it has been a matter of general and public comment that in statements and public documents issued by the government the word is being used less and less. In fact this has been so noticeable that at least one magazine with a very large circulation in this country which has been in the habit of reviewing Canadian events under the heading of the word "dominion" has now substituted the word "realm".
This is not a healthy state of affairs. The very fact that we are told on the one hand that Canada is a dominion and that there is nothing that the Prime Minister, the government or parliament can do about it until there is an amendment to the British North America Act, while at the same time things are being done which leave the impression that the name is being discarded, produces an atmosphere of uncertainty, confusion and frustration, which could have very unhappy consequences.
One of the difficulties in trying to remove the uncertainty which exists is that the Prime Minister has left the impression on other occasions that he did favour the dropping of this name because of the sincere belief by many loyal Canadians in all parts of Canada that the word "dominion" implied dependence or submission. The Prime Minister also pointed out that there were those who regarded the word as having the very opposite meaning in its application to Canada and that it conveyed the impression of complete authority and sovereignty over our own affairs.

The Address-Mr. Drew
There is no doubt that this difference of opinion does exist and that both views are held and have been expressed by men and women whose loyalty to the crown, the commonwealth and Canada cannot be questioned in any way. The question, however, which I believe to be far more important than the definition or use of the word is the constitutional effect of any attempt by this government to change or diminish in any way the effect of a single word or sentence in the British North America Act, which is our basic constitution. No matter what point of view may be held about the use of the word "dominion", respect for the integrity of the constitution is something in regard to which all Canadians should be in agreement if they understand the possible consequences of accepting the proposition that this or any other government could have the right to usurp the power to change the constitution in whole or in part.
So that we may consider this from the strictly constitutional point of view and the importance of this subject to those who regard our constitution as the sacred charter of the rights of the people who live in the ten provinces of this vast nation of ours, I propose to read the opening sections of the British North America Act, as now amended and as they now stand in the statute, so that we may all recall the manner in which the name came to be used:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to he federally united into one dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom:
And whereas such a union would conduce to the welfare of the provinces and promote the interests of the British empire:
And whereas on the establishment of the union by authority of parliament it is expedient, not only that the constitution of the legislative authority in the dominion be provided for, but also that the nature of the executive government therein be declared:
And whereas it is expedient that provision be made for the eventual admission into the union of other parts of British North America:
I.	Preliminary
1.	This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1867.
2.	Repealed.
3.	It shall be lawful for the queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable privy council, to declare by proclamation that, on and' after a day therein appointed, not being more than six months after the passing of this act, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be one dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after that day those three provinces shall form and be one dominion under that name accordingly.
After these opening declarations come the operative sections defining the legislative and
executive powers, the setting up of the Senate and the House of Commons, the constitution of provincial legislatures, the reservation of special provincial rights, and so on. That was and is our basic constitution. Some insist that it was a pact. Some contend that it was merely a statute and should be placed at no higher level. Whatever it may be called, the fact remains that it was a statutory interpretation of a solemn agreement, arrived at by the consent of the representatives of the four original provinces, with the authority and approval of the people whom they represented. Without agreement as to the details of the British North America Act there would have been no Canada as we know it today.
It was only upon the basis of that solemn covenant that this nation now embracing all the territory north of the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and to the Arctic ocean on the north, is united under the single name of Canada.
Unless it had been understood that this statute could only be amended by the decision of the parliament of Canada and the provinces where their common interests were affected, then there would have been no agreement at all because those who cherished ancient rights, customs and laws in the different provinces looked to that constitution as the firm guarantee of those rights, no matter what government might be in power in the future.
The wording represented a meeting of minds of the representatives of the two great races which joined to form one united Canada. That part of the British North America Act which I have quoted recites the fact that the provinces, through their representatives, had expressed their desire -and it was their unanimous desire-to be federally united into one dominion under the crown. The words and form of the statute were approved by the representatives of the provinces before it became law. It will be recalled that revisions were made even after the earlier drafts to meet the opinions of those representatives of what was to be Canada who were then in London. There were differences of opinion in regard to some of the words and some of the provisions. As I have already recalled, Sir John Macdonald preferred the word "kingdom" to the name "dominion". He also wanted a greater centralization of authority than was finally agreed upon.
Those differences in detail and principle were resolved by responsible and earnest men, anxious to ensure the unity of this great

experiment of Canada, one of the most exhilarating and hopeful experiments that men have ever made. Under that constitution, representing concessions and agreement so that cherished rights might be preserved and precious local traditions protected, that act became the charter of our own particular form of democracy. As responsible representatives of the people of Canada it is our duty today to remember the manner in which this constitution came into being and our obligation not to disturb it in whole or in part, unless and until this parliament and the provincial legislatures shall have agreed as to the manner in which it shall be changed.
The Prime Minister has caused some concern and uncertainty by statements he made in this house. In referring to the act he said:
It is drawn to describe this country not as the dominion of Canada but as a dominion under the name of Canada. For us that name is sufficient.
There are those who find it difficult to understand this fine distinction. If we are a dominion under the name of Canada, they still are of the opinion that it does not seem inaccurate to describe ourselves as the "Dominion of Canada", and have so expressed themselves. I do not wish to treat this very solemn subject lightly, but I must confess that the distinction drawn by the Prime Minister does seem a little like that put forward by Tweedledee in "Alice in Wonderland" when he said:
Contrariwise if it was so, it might be: and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't it ain't. That's logic.
Unfortunately, there are those, and they may be many, who are unable to see the logic of this contention.
Whatever the logic may be, however, my point is simply this. This, above any other time, is not a time to achieve by indirection anything that should be done by direct and open methods here in this parliament. This is not a time to leave any uncertainty in the minds of our people as to the designation and the constitutional position of this nation of which we are all so proud, and I emphasize the word "all". We all love the name of Canada. No country in the whole world has brighter prospects than those which open out before our eyes. But like every other country the very existence of Canada as a nation depends upon a constitution which defines the kind of nation that it is. If in the opinion of any of our people the names used, the distribution of power, the reservation of rights, or any other detail in that constitution may not be satisfactory, changes can be made by consent of the people through their representatives in the parliament of
The Address-Mr. Drew Canada and the legislatures of the ten provinces. But let there be no change, directly or indirectly, by the usurpation of unconstitutional authority by this or any other government.
If changes are desired, then in a spirit of good will, as responsible and reasonable human beings, recognizing that we are not here as individuals but simply as representatives and servants of the people, let us discuss what those changes should be. In that way and in that way alone should anything in our constitution be amended, either formally, or by the expressed wish of this or any succeeding parliament. The very fact that in the opening sections of the British North America Act which I have quoted there is one section which has been repealed strengthens the very point that I am making. The fact that appropriate steps were taken by constitutional means to repeal section 2 while the other words that I have read remained unchanged emphasizes the fact that it was not the intention of this parliament, at any time that this subject was before them for discussion, to change the word or form of that act except to the extent that the words and form have already been changed.
I have discussed this subject because not one of us can be unaware that many people's minds are greatly disturbed. We need not attempt to reach any arithmetical calculation as to how many people have expressed their uneasiness about this situation. The Prime Minister recognized that it had reached sufficient proportions that it was desirable for him to discuss the matter at a press conference which would carry his opinion and statements to the people of Canada. That is the reason I am discussing this subject here today.
At a time when this country stands before the whole world as a bright and shining example of the way in which people of different races and tradition can unite in harmony and good will, there is a solemn duty upon each one of us to do nothing that will disturb in any way the basis of that unity and understanding. As the Prime Minister has said, the law stands unchanged. That being so, I have no intention of dividing the house on this question. On the contrary, I hope that with the uncertainties that must be recognized we can all agree without any reservation that no doubt will be left in the mind of any Canadian that if there are to be changes we can discuss any proposal for any change which may be brought before this house in a sensible, orderly and friendly manner.

The Address-Mr. Drew
Whatever legal or other terminology we apply to the British North America Act, whether we call it a pact or call it something else, it was in fact a solemn agreement entered into by our provinces, ordained and established by their people, which brought into being this nation which now stands strong and united before the whole world.
It must follow that no change should or can be made in our constitution, not a word of it changed, not a principle or provision or implication of it altered, without consultation with or agreement by the representatives of the people themselves in this parliament and in the legislatures of the ten provinces.
It is their property, their protection, their safeguard, the ark of the covenant of their liberties and rights; ana no group of men, no single government, possesses the right, or ever could possess the right, to alter a word or a syllable in it which in any way or in the remotest manner might affect its guarantees, its safeguards or its principles. Here, in truth, we can say with Junius that when the constitution is invaded, when the first original right of the people, from which all laws derive their authority, is directly or indirectly attacked, then no right is safe for anybody. It is with that thought in mind and with great pride in the unity which has been achieved under our own constitution that I do so earnestly hope that, no matter what other differences of opinion may divide us from time to time, every member of this house will be of one mind in guarding this charter of our freedom.
This solemn declaration of unity, under which so many millions of Canadians have lived in harmony, peace and increasing security, tells us that this great and sovereign nation which bears the proud name of Canada is today a dominion within that world-wide fellowship of free men and women who express their common loyalty to Her Gracious Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Such at this time is the constitutional style and title of the great and beloved country that, with unswerving loyalty and fidelity, each one of us here is solemnly sworn to serve.
I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon):
That the following he added to the address:
"We regret that Your Excellency's advisers:
(a)	continue to impose excessive, burdensome and unjust taxation;
(b)	refuse to eliminate waste and extravagance and to cut down the cost of government;
(c)	fail to take adequate steps to deal effectively with inflation and the high cost of living."


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure

for me to join the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in extending 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. The hon. member for Westmorland and the hon. member for Lake St. John are among the newer members of the house, having entered parliament for the first time after the general election of 1949, but I believe we can all say to them that as their colleagues we are proud of the manner in which they acquitted themselves in the performance of what the leader of the opposition has referred to as a task imposed upon them. It has been my privilege for some sessions now to invite hon. members of the house to move and second the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and each time I have found that their reaction has not been that I was imposing a task upon them, but that I was extending to them a privilege which they were very glad to accept, and which in the years I have been here I think all members will agree they have performed in a manner that was a credit both to them and to the constituencies they represent in the house.
I am sure we agree with the leader of the opposition that the two hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred did credit to themselves and to their constituencies. They both spoke of the history of the regions they represent, of the natural resources of those regions, and of the industrial development that has recently taken place there. I also agree with the leader of the opposition that, though all of us may not accept their assertion that those two regions are among the most favoured in Canada, we all accept their assertion that they are very delightful places for human beings to inhabit. They spoke of the industrial developments of those regions in, I thought, a rather modest vein. They said they were referring to them because they realized they were typical of what was happening throughout the whole extent of this land from one ocean to the other.
I also wish to extend congratulations to the leader of the opposition for having communicated to us a very carefully prepared speech in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am not going to deal with all that was contained in his speech, and I must confess to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have not come here with any notes, and have only those I made during the course of the interesting discourse to which we have just listened.
Perhaps because it is rather fresher in our memories than other parts of the hon. gentleman's speech I might refer at once

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
to the statement he has made, and even repeated three or four times, that I recognized that there was uneasiness among some of our Canadian fellow citizens about the use of the word "dominion", and that if I had not recognized that I would not have mentioned it at a press conference which took place on the 25th of January. I am sure the leader of the opposition has had press conferences himself, and I think he realizes as well as I do that the questions dealt with at these press conferences are those that are suggested by the newspapermen who are there. They ask the questions, and it was in response to questions that were being put to me about this matter that I made the statements to which he refers.
I do not think it requires any long discourse to assure everyone in Canada that neither the government nor even parliament can change one iota of our constitution except as the constitution provides. If any changes have to be made they will have to be made in the constitutional way, and that constitutional way may not always be the way in which section 2 of the British North America Act was repealed. It was repealed merely in the process of the revision of the British statutes without any reference to the Canadian authorities at all. It was dropped because it was felt it was unnecessary. The publications we have containing the text of the statute also contain notes prepared by the law officers who edited these editions.
With respect to section 2 the note is:
Section 2 was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1893 (chapter 14).
Some of the repeals or changes that have been made by the statute revision acts have caused some uncertainty and embarrassment, and I understand from the law officers that after correspondence in that regard those who now prepare consolidations or revisions of the statute are more careful and do communicate with Canada about anything that is to be done to the British North America Act.
But that does not mean no change has in fact taken place since confederation. The Canadian nation has not stood still since 1867; and there is no doubt that without any change in the terms of the constitution, the position of Canada, and of the other dominions described as such in the Statute of Westminster, is recognized to be different now from what it was in 1867. While there will never be any attempt by this government, as long as I am a member of it, to have any change made by the government itself in the constitution, from time to time,
when proper occasion arises, it may be suggested that parliament make some changes in some statutes where "Dominion of Canada" is used as the name of the country, which under the constitution is simply Canada. That is all there is about that matter.
No doubt there will also be some change in the language each of us uses to express his concept of the position this nation now occupies in the commonwealth of British nations. In that regard the hon. gentleman referred to the use of the word "realm" in the proclamation that was issued in the United Kingdom on February 6 following the lamented death of our beloved sovereign George VI. I have the proclamation here. As I read it I did not take it that "realm" was intended to include the Republic of India, but that the inclusion of India was intended to be achieved by the use of the words "head of the commonwealth". We had no previous information about the description found there, with respect to which I may say here, so that there may be no doubt about it, I had no discussion whatever with the Right Hon. Winston Churchill while he was here. The only reference was that made in a jocular way during the course of his speech at the dinner given him at the Chateau Laurier, and that I understood was good fun, as a part of his speech, when he referred to his habit of using the word "dominion". I was quite surprised to find this description in the proclamation, but even if we had been given notice of it we would not have dared to use it ourselves in our proclamation, because we would have felt that it would not have been proper for us to presume to make any change in what is the legal royal style and title of the sovereign. That proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy our late Sovereign Lord King George the Sixth of Blessed and Glorious Memory by whose Decease the Crown is solely and rightfully come to the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary: We, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm, being here assisted with these of His late Majesty's Privy Council, with representatives of other members of the Commonwealth, with other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of London, do now hereby with one voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart publish and proclaim that the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary is now, by the Death of our late Sovereign of Happy Memory, become Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of all Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith . . .
When I read this I felt quite convinced that it was not intended to imply that India was one of the other realms and territories
170

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent of our gracious sovereign, but that, notwithstanding the fact that India had become a republic, the people of that republic still recognized the sovereign of the commonwealth as the head of the commonwealth.
I am sure we all agree with one statement of the leader of the opposition. Oh, there may be a few individual exceptions, but so few as not to be of serious import in that connection. We all agree in our firm loyalty to our monarchical institutions, of which our gracious Queen Elizabeth II is now the head and sovereign. That loyalty is all the more widespread and universal in this country because it is felt that it implies no acceptance of any secondary position, but an acceptance of the position recognized in Lord Balfour's declaration for which, with the leader of the opposition, I am quite prepared to give great credit to the late Sir Robert Borden who at an earlier time, as prime minister of Canada, was contending for the right of this country to sign the treaty of Versailles as a nation. I was saying that the unquestioned loyalty to the sovereign, to the crown and to our monarchical institutions is all the more universal and firm and sincere because it is recognized that the queen's subjects in Canada are the equal of the queen's subjects in any of her realms all over the world.
There is no doubt that there is uneasiness in some quarters because they have felt there was some desire to weaken these links between the free peoples of the commonwealth of British nations. But there is also no doubt that there was some uneasiness among others in Canada who felt that there was resentment over the attainment by Canadian citizens of equality of status with Her Majesty's subjects in any of her realms all over the world. No doubt that will continue to be manifested; but today I think we had a pretty good example of how careful Canadians wish to be to avoid anything that may create controversy between them in that regard, in what was done by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault)-and I can assure you it was not suggested to him as far as I know-when he asked for leave to withdraw the bill he has had before the house on two or twree previous occasions to change the statutory name of the holiday provided for on July 1 in our statutes. I think the hon. member deserves to be congratulated because, in spite of his feeling that it would be preferable to change that name, he has decided not to press it at this time and not to occasion unnecessary disputes about matters with respect to which-again repeating the language used by the leader of the opposition-all Canadians, loyal in their 

attachment to the crown and to our institutions, have diverging views about which they feel quite strongly. I think we can leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, and that it would be the desire of all hon. members of the house to do as the leader of the opposition said was his intention, namely not to attempt to divide us on matters of that kind but to attempt to continue, to enlarge and to strengthen the unity of feeling and purpose among all Canadians in their devotion and attachment to their democratic institutions, under their monarchical form, and under the constitution which was written into the statute books in 1867.
The hon. member has welcomed the statement in the speech from the throne that there would be amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Veterans Benefit Act, but he has stated that the speech from the throne does not disclose what those amendments will do. I think the hon. gentleman will agree that it is not usual to set out in the speech from the throne the details of legislation. I feel convinced that the recommendation which will be brought before parliament in that regard will satisfy a large majority of the members of the house that fair proposals are being put before parliament in order to deal with the difficulty that quite large numbers of those who have served their country and their fellow citizens so well were experiencing under the scales of allowances that have heretofore been provided.
The leader of the opposition says that it is also a discouraging statement because it does not say what the amendments will be and furthermore because, as he puts it, it does not disclose that the government has any cure-all for the ills of the world at the present time. That is unfortunate but it is true. The government has no cure-all for the conditions prevailing in the world at the present time. It may be that that is a fair subject of criticism.
The hon. gentleman has said it was the duty of the opposition to co-operate with the government when it felt that the government was doing something constructive and which would be for the welfare of the community generally. I thank him for the degree to which that co-operation has been extended in past sessions and in the present one thus far. I have no quarrel with him for his suggestion that it is also the duty of the opposition, and even of all members of parliament, freely to express their minds about the propriety or impropriety of the administrative acts that it is the duty and responsibility of the government, under the constitution, to have carried out in the name

of the sovereign. We will endeavour to meet, as best we can-I will not promise that the record will be any better than it has been in the past-the criticism that may be levelled against us in that regard.
Then the leader of the opposition spoke about the high cost of living. 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. It may be that it was our good fortune which was responsible, but our good fortune has been such that it has been favourably commented upon in the press of many other countries- a fact which perhaps is only another example of that human tendency to see the greener pastures farther away.
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. This gives some Canadians the hope that the peak has been reached and that the measures which the hon. gentleman has described as over-severe have commenced to produce the salutary effect for which they were devised.
The leader of the opposition spoke about crushing taxation. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) has been doing his best to collect the amount of taxes provided for by the rates of taxation fixed by this House of Commons. Had he not done so, he would have been derelict in his duty. It is not the government that imposes taxation. It is the government that recommends to parliament what the rates will be; but it was parliament itself that, in the last budget, voted the rates of taxation that had to be applied to the Canadian taxpayers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: The hon. gentlemen
opposite may laugh as they like, but they must not think that they alone are parliament. There are over 250 members of parliament, and the number who follow the leadership of the leader of the opposition is less than 50. Hence they are not, by themselves, 55704-12i
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent parliament. Every other member who has been elected and who sits here is the equal, as a member of parliament, of the hon. gentleman opposite who represents the county of Carleton.


Mr. Cruickshank:: More than equal.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: My hon. friend suggests some form of comparison. I think that here we are all equal to one another in our status as members of the House of Commons, and all equal to one another in our responsibilities to the Canadian people as members of parliament.


Mr. Ferguson:: Those equalities are not recognized by this government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Well, the only thing that is not recognized by this government is that there are not as many who are elected to oppose the recommendations of the government as there are elected to support the recommendations of the government. That is the only difference; but of course it does make a difference in the results.
As I was saying, these taxes were imposed by votes of parliament, made up of the votes of the individuals sent here by the Canadian people. The rates were based upon estimates that were submitted by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott).


An hon. Member:: That is the trouble.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: Well, if the hon. gentleman thinks that is the trouble I do not agree with him. I think it is very fortunate that the economy of the nation was more buoyant during 1951-1952 than the Minister of Finance dared to forecast when he made his budget speech. That may mean trouble for him and for me, but for the Canadian people it means something very different from trouble.
It is suggested that those rates are so extravagant that after nine months something like $721 million has been written onto the credit side of the ledger.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Peanuts to Abbott.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: If my hon. friend wants peanuts he knows where he can get them. I do not think he will find them in my speech.


George Alexander Cruickshank: All monkeys like them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very good.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: That matter was quite carefully and fully dealt with by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) in a broadcast which he made on February 5, and which was to be answered by the

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent Minister of Finance on February 12, but at that moment, because of the unfortunate circumstances, it was postponed for a week. It was quite fully answered by the Minister of Finance on February 19.
Well, I do not get time to read everything that is in all the papers, but I get many clippings which contain certain portions of what is published in the papers. I have had put before me clippings suggesting that-well, it would not add very much for me to try to expand the answer given by the Minister of Finance to the hon. member for Greenwood on that occasion. There the minister asserted that in the last three months of the year the entries on the debit side are not just the average of what has taken place in the previous nine months of the year, and that this $721 million will be substantially reduced when the accounts are closed after March 31; but there will be a surplus. I have heard from my hon. friend confidentially his estimate of what that surplus is apt to be. I am not sure that he is not still being a bit conservative about it, because there is no doubt-


Mr. Fleming:: There is nothing conservative about Abbott.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The word "conservative", you know, is like the word "dominion". There are occasions when it can be properly used.
There is no doubt that this thing which is described under the initials "G.N.P." is quite considerably larger than was forecast by the Minister of Finance last year. My own rough estimate is that that substantial increase is going to mean something not far from $300 million more revenue than was forecast on a smaller "G.N.P." That may be embarrassing for the Minister of Finance and those who helped him make his forecast, and it may entitle some to say:	"Well, you
are not a very good prophet"; but I think it is very fortunate for the Canadian people that their economy was that much more buoyant than had been forecast.
Then there was expected to be obtained from United States sources for the purpose of our rearmament probably not less than $200 million worth of equipment for which orders have been placed, and which will not be delivered, though it was expected to be delivered in the fiscal year 1951-1952, and will not therefore be paid for out of the expenditure of 1951-52. That again may be somewhat embarrassing for the Minister of National Defence. He had, I know, entered the fiscal period with grave doubts as to whether he would have enough in his appropriations to pay for what he was going to get

during the year; but he did not get it as fast as he hoped he would, and it has not had to be paid for, and that accounts for a substantial portion of what is called this overtaxation. I do not think there is anything more I can usefully say with respect to that matter. I repeat, embarrassing as it may be for the government, for those who made the forecast, it is very fortunate for the Canadian people that it happened. Had it gone to the same extent in the other direction it would have been most unfortunate also for the government and also for the Canadian people.
There is the suggestion that taxation has been inflationary. I think the hon. gentleman said that something of the order of $250 per family of five had been taken away from Canadians, which they themselves would have had available to spend had it not thus been taken. Well, I am not an economist, but I have always understood that the pressure on prices resulted from the disproportion between the purchasing power that was available and the amount of commodities that were there to be purchased. And if the amount of commodities had remained what it was, and there had been $250 more purchasing power for every family of five- well, in my simple logic I would come to the conclusion that that would have added to the inflationary pressure instead of the fact of its having been withdrawn as purchasing power adding to the inflationary pressure.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Well, the hon. member may be much wiser than I am in these matters, but I am not convinced by his interruptions that my reasoning is wrong. It is perhaps unfortunate that I am so thickheaded, but it happens to be so.
There is no doubt that we all deplore the fact that we have not here in this country, under present conditions where we have to take so much for rearmament, devised antiinflationary measures which would outbalance the inflationary pressure that has not been possible either in any other country of the world. We have not been able to do it, and I do not think we are going to be able to do it in the future. I think we just have to cope with those inflationary pressures as best we can, and keep them within bounds, to the extent to which that is possible.
I do not think this can be done by control measures. I think you have got to do it-if you are going to have any lasting results- by attacking the evil at its source. Hon. members I am sure would agree with that. The most effective way would be to make more commodities available to be exchanged for the purchasing power distributed-and distributed so widely-among the public. I

think everyone must agree that that is the only or, if not the only, certainly the surest way of combating effectively and of retarding inflation.
The hon. member says that there has never been any argument submitted by him or by those whom he leads in the house against the propriety of credit restrictions, but he says that our credit restrictions have been excessive. They were devised to serve a purpose which to a certain extent is recognized. I am not sure whether it is in Mr. Muir's address, but it certainly is in the address of the president of the Bank of Toronto, and certainly is in the address of the president of the Bank of Montreal. Those measures have been, to a certain extent, effective, and they have served the purposes for which they were devised.
I have been seeing for the last three or four days full-page advertisements addressed to Mr. St. Laurent telling him that it is very unfortunate that there are taxes on washing machines. I think it is unfortunate that there are taxes on washing machines. It is unfortunate that there are-well, as a matter of fact, it is unfortunate that there is any taxation at all. But no taxation is an ideal which it is not possible to achieve under conditions of human society as organized in our day.
The hon. member said that he hoped there would be a commitment by the Prime Minister this afternoon to remove this crushing burden of taxation placed on the Canadian people. Well, the Prime Minister can make no such commitment. There is no doubt that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and his advisers and colleagues will be looking at the whole picture and at each individual item; and it may very well be that there will be some adjustments. But so long as the world situation continues as it is, I cannot hold out any hope to the Canadian people of any substantial reduction in the scale of the rate of taxation in this country.
In spite of everything we try to do, all hon. members will bear witness to the fact that there are a great many things requested that are not done by the Canadian government, and that could not be done by the Canadian government with the present scale of taxation. I am sure we will hear during this session very earnest pleas for increases in several of the fields in which moneys raised by taxation are at present expended. We will nave to listen to them; we will have to give them careful consideration. But we will also have to bear in mind the fact that the government does not print money: The government taxes money out of the pockets of the Canadian taxpayers. And I think that most
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent Canadian taxpayers feel that under semipeaceful conditions, even under conditions of a cold war, taxation has just about reached as high limits as it is proper for the people to bear at the present time.
The hon. member said he would ask to have set up at an early date the committee on defence expenditures. I am sure he will have noticed that I have given notice to have that committee set up, and I shall bring on the notice just as soon as it seems convenient to do so; because I think it is quite proper that this committee should scrutinize the expenditures that are being made for defence purposes. I feel sure that the Canadian people want to be assured that these huge sums- because they are huge sums-are being properly expended, and that they are not being called upon year after year to bear this heavy burden of taxation only to be confronted with a failure to make proper provision for our share of this joint effort to preserve peace in the world, and to make it unlikely that aggression against us could be successful.
The hon. member has spoken about unemployment. There are certain regions where unemployment has developed. Possibly no region has been more seriously affected than the city of Toronto, and the surrounding area. There is no region to which people have flocked since defence production orders have commenced to be placed in greater numbers than they have to the Toronto area, because it so happens that there were more of these so-called war industries located there than there were elsewhere.
There is unemployment. I think it is seasonal unemployment. It is somewhat larger than it was in 1951. It is not as large as it was in 1950. And there are more employed at the present time than were ever employed before. It will be recalled that there was serious anxiety in 1950 about the situation. There was a pretty widespread feeling that the government should embark upon a plan of public construction to mop up the unemployment. Well, within months the manpower supply in Canada was being taxed to the very limits.
The hon. member has suggested that the number of immigrants who have entered Canada has added to the unemployment problem. The number of immigrants who happen to be unemployed or not to have been placed is a very small percentage of those who have come in. It may be that if others had not come in and taken jobs we would not have as many employed in Canada at the present time as we now have.
It is not an easy problem at all times to balance exactly these equations where the
174	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent human factor is of such great importance. Generally speaking, I think the Canadian public were glad to see the extent to which there was immigration to this country in 1951. Though there may be a small percentage who have not been absorbed in the Canadian population, I feel confident that that will be cured within weeks and that the over-all result will be beneficial to the Canadian nation.
These matters have to be under constant scrutiny. I can assure the house, that, as far as this government is concerned, they are kept under constant scrutiny. In spite of the suggestion in one of the leading newspapers this morning which rather shocked me, the government does recognize its responsibility to this House of Commons and the Canadian people. I can give you the assurance that as far as each one of my colleagues and myself are concerned we do not shirk any part of our work, and we do plenty of it. We realize that we are trustees for the Canadian people through their representatives here in this house of parliament. None of us wants to remain on the job unless he is doing it in a manner which satisfies his conscience that he is not lagging.
That is the only assertion that I can make about the results of what we may hope to be able to do in the future. We have not a cure-all for the ills of the present day, but we are going to attend to them as efficiently and as assiduously as possible. We are going to recommend to parliament every measure in which we can feel any confidence as to its likelihood to make for the general welfare of the Canadian public.
The hon. gentleman said that he did not want to deal with the difficulties arising out of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in a certain section of Saskatchewan. I suppose I am naturally inclined to be an optimist. I will confess that I derive some considerable satisfaction out of the fact that this is March 6 and there has been no further case found since February 19. That does raise one's hopes. I hope they will not be false hopes. I hope they will not be dashed.
The first thing that had to be attended to was the use of every means available to human ingenuity to eradicate this disease. Then means had to be taken to take care of those who had been particularly hit by the consequences of the disease. That is being done. I think there should be a most careful investigation of the officials who had to handle the situation which arose in and around Regina.
I still have confidence in the competence and efficiency of the gentlemen in the health of animals branch of the Department of


Agriculture. I think it would be only fair to them and to the public to have them come before a committee and be examined as to what they did, when they did it, why they did it and why they did not do something else. They occupy responsible positions. Should it be found that through lack either of knowledge or of diligence there was laxity, that should be brought to light and dealt with.
So far I think it would be wrong to the public and to them to prejudge until there has been this opportunity for them to make their full statements before this committee. I hope the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton) will be there. I was most interested in hearing him discuss this malady in the house. I hope he will be there in the committee to see that every angle of what should or could have been done is properly investigated. I hope it will be shown that the confidence we all have, the confidence which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) expressed in his first words when he spoke in this house on this problem on Monday last, will prove not to have been misplaced.
In general I think the civil service of Canada is performing an efficient and conscientious job of work for the Canadian people. It happens sometimes that someone does make a mistake or someone does show some laxity. Fortunately for the Canadian public those occasions have been quite rare. I hope they will continue to be rare. I hope that the confidence the government, parliament and the Canadian people have, and have had for years, in the competence, honesty and diligence of the civil service of Canada will continue to be justified.
The hon. gentleman spoke of, and I wish to leave this to the last, the loss of the British markets to Canadian agriculture. That is unfortunate. I do not know what the history books will have to say about the conduct of the people of the British isles during the two world wars, but it would seem to us of this generation that they literally stripped themselves of their resources in the fight for freedom in those two wars. Unfortunately they have to import large quantities of their foodstuffs. In the past they were able to do this out of the income of their investments abroad and out of their exports to foreign markets.
Having made the sacrifices they made during the world wars they had very little investment abroad left to bear income. It so happened that industries had been developed in other parts of the world which made it more difficult for them to export their products to those markets. North America, Canada included, has not been unmindful of the consequences of the

sacrifices made for freedom by that great country. During the war this small country made very substantial contributions which, although voted in money, were realized in kind, in things produced here and exported to them. After the war we continued to do likewise. The hon. gentleman will remember that a loan of a billion and a quarter dollars was made at the time the loan of three and three-quarter billion dollars was made by the United States.
It so happens, however, that the forecasts of that time were not realized. The United Kingdom felt that it was in honour bound to make unrequited exports to countries in which sterling debts had been incurred as part of the war effort, and they just have not the dollars that would be required to continue to purchase supplies from Canadian producers that they can in any way at all get along without. It is unfortunate. I think that under present conditions in this country it would be difficult for us to provide, by way of either gift or loan, additional sums to pay for Canadian produce that was exported and was not paid for by the importers. Our trade last year is going to show an over-all deficit in our balance of payments made up only by the capital investments from the United States which have taken place in the course of the year 1951.
There again is a situation in which the one partial remedy would be the additional absorption of British exports, or, from our point of view, British imports, in the Canadian market. We have had complaints from more than one quarter that some of our unemployment was the consequence of competition by imports from the British market that could not be met by our Canadian industries. That is also something that has to be taken into account. We have to look at the repercussions of these things on every segment of the Canadian economy. Can we increase our absorption of exports from the United Kingdom to any substantial degree without disturbing our own economy?
The hon. gentleman said that three-quarters of a century ago Sir John A. Macdonald stated that, in spite of his love for and sympathy with the people of the British isles, if there were to be unemployment he would prefer to see unemployment there than to have unemployment produced in Canada. Human nature does not change very much. Whatever be the labels under which political parties go, the way in which they envisage the repercussions of their actions on those to whom they are responsible is pretty much the same. We have to take the same general view that Sir John A. Macdonald felt he had
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent to take of his duty, and our duty is to be more considerate of conditions in Canada than of conditions anywhere else in the world.
The only other way of recovering the British market would be by increasing, either in the form of mutual aid or in the form of loans, the number of dollars that the British treasury might expend. But it is not just dollars. They would have to take the equivalent of those dollars out of the annual production of the Canadian people, and) as long as we are going along consuming as we are consuming and investing in capital development as we have been investing we just have not got the possibility of balancing our own foreign, trade unless we get something for everything that we export. I am sorry that I am not an economist. Perhaps my task might be easier if I were. I am not sure that it would be. I think that the realistic situation is such that it requires more than the additional capacity I might have achieved from long studies of economics to deal with these problems in any other way than they are being dealt with by governments all over the world.
If we are not doing as good, a job as is being done elsewhere we should be condemned for not doing so, but if we are doing as well here as is being done elsewhere, though it may not be ideal and may not be as good as any of us would hope it could or should-be, I think we have to be realistic enough to realize that it is as good as can be done under existing circumstances.
In conclusion, I can tell the leader of the opposition and the house that we have not got anything up our sleeves, and that in the speech from the throne we did describe the legislative program that we intend to put before parliament during this session.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 6, 1952
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today at six o'clock, p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to a certain bill.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance oi this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act for the control and extirpation of foot-and-mouth disease.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, if my congratulations to the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address are brief, they are nonetheless sincere. I join with others in the house in congratulating them. But, since my own time in the debate is limited, I do not propose to do more than to express to them my congratulations.
The speech from the throne, which very properly expressed sorrow at the passing of His late Majesty King George VI and expressed also our loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, mentions a number of matters which will be brought before the house. It expresses concern regarding the international situation, and this concern is shared very deeply by most citizens of our country. And because I wish to devote some attention to this tonight, I am taking this opportunity of saying that any criticisms that I make of policy generally in regard to international matters will be made after very careful consideration. While I know that some misconstruction may be made of my remarks, nevertheless I think they are remarks someone should make regarding these matters.
This afternoon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) referred to a recent statement that was issued by the national council of the C.C.F. I wish to say immediately that I was present when that statement was drafted, and that I approved of it. We have watched with a great deal of concern the recent developments in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Our statement says at the very outset that we continue to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and
we support all the commitments that were made on behalf of Canada in this parliament in 1951.
The leader of the opposition said this afternoon that we were taking a position similar to that taken by Mr. Aneurin Bevan in the British House of Commons. That is not so. Mr. Bevan was criticizing and did criticize what was done in Britain in regard to expenditures last year on rearmament. Indeed, Mr. Churchill paid him the compliment not long ago of saying that Mr. Bevan had disagreed with what had been done from the wrong point of view, but nevertheless that he was right in the general criticisms he had made in 1951.
"We think that the policies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have fallen too completely under the military, to the exclusion of social and economic considerations in the maintenance or the building of western collective security. We believe that this emphasis has been unwise.
And not alone do we hold this view. I have before me the Times of London for February 26, a week ago last Tuesday, in which it refers to a statement that was issued following the Lisbon meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The heading of the editorial in this well-known conservative or independent paper is "The Phantom Army", and it says this:
It is difficult to understand either the meaning or the purpose of the communique published by the council of the North Atlantic treaty in Lisbon. This states in words which seem almost to have been chosen for their ambiguity-they have no other virtue-that the member nations will provide this year approximately fifty divisions in appropriate conditions of combat readiness.
Then it goes on to discuss the present situation in regard to the divisions that have already been set up, and: then points out that only about half that number have at present been established by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations. It goes on to say this:
Presumably the announcement was meant to impress someone, but it will not impress the Russians, who know very well the true state of affairs, and who have the sense to realize that any real plans for real divisions would be kept secret. Indeed this imaginative total with the still more imaginative promise of 85 or 100 divisions in two years' time seems to contain the maximum amount of provocation with the minimum amount of deterrent effect.
The leader of the opposition this afternoon said that in mentioning the fact that we thought that this had been promoted by representatives of the United States we were open to criticism. But the Times of London says this:
Even if it is meant only to impress the American congress, and the whole communique has a very American ring, it may fail in its object . . .

And so I say that the criticism we have made is one that is shared not only by socialists, democratic, and otherwise, but is shared by many Conservatives-and otherwise- throughout the world. As the house will remember, we have always emphasized article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty, which called for the integration of the economies of the participating nations in order to maintain the economic base upon which the security of western Europe must depend. The recent announcements from Lisbon, if attempted, we believe, will jeopardize the economic base upon which all else depends. And this afternoon when the leader of the opposition was speaking he urged the house to look very carefully into the economic obligations that we might undertake in- this parliament in regard to further expenditures on rearmament, and so on. I took down his words when he said, "We should inquire what would happen to our economy if we accepted any further commitments" for NATO.
So we have the leader of the opposition, not in the same words, but expressing to some extent the idea that we have tried to place before the house and country. And yesterday in the House of Commons in London Mr. Churchill indicated1 very clearly that. Great Britain had been unable to carry into effect the commitments the previous government had made in 1951. Indeed he was challenged in the house because he said they could not carry those commitments into effect. He said the rearmament program already assumed and authorized by the British parliament could not be carried out in the time allotted.
His words as reported in today's press were diese:
The rearmament program is much more likely to be carried out in four years than in three.
It is therefore difficult to understand the decisions taken at Lisbon to provide approximately fifty divisions in western Europe by the end of this year, when we are told that no more than twenty-five divisions exist now, and to provide ninety to one hundred divisions by the end of 1954 at a total cost of $300 billion. Translate those $300 billion into the budgets of all the NATO countries and see what results you get. I know that in our own country one of the ablest commentators on international affairs, Mr. J. B. McGeachy, of the Toronto Globe and Mail, speaking in the special news of the week commentary on Sunday evening, characterized the fifty divisions as a phantom army. As the London Times stated the Lisbon provisions for this phantom army contained "the maximum amount of provocation with the minimum deterrent effect".
The Address-Mr. Coldwell
It seems to us that Canada should take a realistic attitude and when necessary vigorously criticize, as in this instance the armament goal set at Lisbon because it is unrealistic. We of the C.C.F. believe that an attempt to carry out an excessive military program will cripple the possibilities for the economic rebuilding of Europe and other parts of the world and lead us into an entirely false sense of strength and security which indeed do not exist.
It seems to us 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. The Canadian government itself should be criticized for agreeing to policies which if carried through to a logical conclusion will we believe endanger the economic and social welfare of the world. I believe that that is exactly what the Kremlin wants and what the Kremlin is banking on, the collapse of the western European countries.
Let me say that the criticisms I have made of Canadian policy and United States leadership in no way imply unfriendliness towards the United States people, for whom I think we all have a high regard and respect. However, there are times when the friendship which exists between our two countries should enable us to speak candidly to one another.
There is one other thing I should like to say before I leave this point. I have not seen the evening news, but I doubt whether France has yet a government. As we all know, this is due to the economic situation in France. France cannot bear the additional burden that would be placed upon her if the Lisbon commitments were carried out fully. Consequently we are daring to say what many people in Canada, not only in our own party but in all other parties, are thinking and saying privately.
I should like to say something about Korea. I think there is deep disappointment with regard to the negotiations in Korea and the fact that we have failed to reach a ceasefire. There is no doubt that many people share the view expressed by the commander of the ground forces in Korea on March 12,

The Address-Mr. Coldwell 1951. According to the 1951 report of the Department of External Affairs, General Ridgway predicted that a military stalemate appeared probable and then he added, and I quote from page 12 of the report:
It would be a tremendous victory for the United Nations if the war ended1 with our forces in control up to the 3Sth parallel.
That is a statement made one year ago by General Ridgway as quoted by our own Department of External Affairs. Most people hoped when on November 27, 1951, an agreement was reached on the principles which should govern the definition of a cease-fire line, and such a line was then defined, that speedy agreement would be reached. When the North Korea aggression occurred in June, 1950, there was virtually unanimous support for United Nations action to prevent its success. There was a determination everywhere to drive the invading forces back beyond the 38th parallel, which the communist forces had passed.
That objective was achieved in October, 1950. What I am about to say, I say advisedly, because I remember being at the United Nations. It was then believed that the United Nations action would end on a defensive line at or near, probably just beyond, the 38th parallel. Those hopes were rudely shattered when General MacArthur unexpectedly launched an offensive toward the Yalu river and the Chinese border. The result was that the so-called Chinese volunteer forces entered the war in considerable force and a much more threatening situation immediately developed.
In February of 1951, I believe under United States leadership and perhaps pressure, the United Nations declared China to be an aggressor nation. Before voting for that declaration our own minister of external affairs declared it to be "premature and unwise". At the time we of this group described that vote as a mistake, and I think subsequent events have justified and confirmed that opinion. We hoped however that steps would be taken to end the war and certainly to prevent it developing into a new world war, which probably would be the outcome if war were taken into China.
We welcomed the opening of negotiations for a cease-fire and armistice about eight months ago. In common with people who have followed events, we have watched with growing misgivings the course of those negotiations. But we were hopeful, when the Chinese agreed on November 27 to a ceasefire line just north of the 38th parallel, a line which the United Nations troops would hold pending armistice negotiations, that other


matters in dispute would be settled and a cease-fire arrangement and subsequently peace attained.
We were doomed to disappointment because new considerations were constantly introduced by both sides. I am not blaming one side more than the other in this respect. In relation to the big issue of the armistice and peace the matters which have been introduced since the line was agreed upon appear to be minor in character. When the United Nations had achieved the original objective named last March by General Ridgway there should have been no insurmountable difficulty in ending this Korean war.
In our opinion the matters which have been introduced and which are now largely under discussion are political rather than military. We have held the opinion for some time-I stated this in Regina the first week in January-that the time has come when they should be the subject of what we might term political negotiations. It has been growing clearer all the time that the military leaders in Korea have reached a stalemate and that the time has arrived when governmental or political representatives of the nations actively engaged in the Korean war should assume responsibility for direct negotiations between the United Nations and the Chinese government at Peking to end the hostilities and secure an armistice prior to a peace settlement in Korea. I want to urge our government to take the initiative to this end. I do not believe that the intervention of the United Nations assembly or security council in the negotiations is possible or desirable on account of the kind of prolonged discussion that would develop in the assembly and because of the veto in the security council. Indeed, unfortunately the United Nations assembly is assuming more and more the character of a sounding board for Soviet propaganda and an instrument of international policy for the United States.
I believe that the suggestion we are making should be considered. I believe that a proposal should be made to the Peking government for negotiations among the nations whose troops, I repeat, are actively engaged in the Korean war. I think that proposal might be made by the United Kingdom; for let us remember that the United Kingdom recognizes the Peking government as the government of China. Whether or not such a proposal would be entertained and negotiations entered upon thereafter I do not know, but the attempt should be made, and again I say that I think Canada might suggest it to our allies in the Korean affair.

Many statements made by leading United States spokesmen have created a very uneasy feeling that a powerful group in that country not only is not anxious to achieve peace in the Far East but is determined to enlarge the war against China. Is there any evidence of that? I think there is quite a bit. Recently, for example, Mr. Foster Dulles appeared before the foreign relations committee of the United States senate when the Japanese treaty was under discussion, a treaty which he formulated and for which he secured support among the nations. Mr. Dulles therefore is an outstanding United States ambassador-at-large. Before that committee he declared that the United States must secure the removal of the present Peking government, and I am going to quote his exact words from the record. He said:
We cannot expect a change to take place automatically. To realize such a change will require something besides a negative and purely defensive policy in Asia on the part of the leaders of the free world, notably in the United States.
Taken in conjunction with the decision of the Japanese government to recognize the Chiang Kai-shek government on the island of Formosa as the government of China, which it is well known the British government did not wish to see done, the protests that have been made by the Burmese government against the activities and arming of nationalist Chinese troops in northern Burma, and the rearming of Japan, Mr. Dulles' statement indicates clearly that if we, the United Kingdom and other countries follow United States leadership in the Far East without making our own opinions known and adopting our own attitudes in this regard we are liable to be dragged into a disastrous adventure which will enable the communist dictators to achieve all their objectives. What I think our United States friends and neighbours are overlooking is that the Asian peoples have awakened and are determined to throw off the yoke of their ruling powers, both western imperialist and domestic, and I say nothing will prevent this.
Unfortunately except for the farsighted statesmanship of United Kingdom leaders in withdrawing from India, Pakistan and Burma, the granting of dominion status to Ceylon, and the recognition of Indonesian independence by the Netherlands, the support for reactionary leadership and imperial interests elsewhere in Asia, has, I believe, alienated from western influence vast masses of the Asian people and, indeed, I fear has driven them largely into the arms of Soviet Russia. Yet I am convinced that neither China nor any of these Asians will become or remain a mere puppet of Russia or any other European or American nation whether it be communist or capitalist. Undoubtedly
The Address-Mr. Coldwell the present government of China is a communist dictatorship which has won the present support of the depressed masses of China because it has instituted the land and other reforms which a western-supported democratic regime should have instituted and might have instituted if we had encouraged its formation against the corrupt regime of Chiang Kai-shek. Hon. members will recall that a few years ago General Marshall came back from China and suggested that we do that very thing. He said there were democratic leaders in China and he urged support for them instead of the arming of Chiang Kai-shek, as was done.
Since the banishment of Chiang all parties in the United Kingdom, realistically and in accordance with international precedents, have recognized the new regime in China. They do not approve of its ideology but they recognize a fact. I think we should have done the same thing, and even now I have come to the conclusion that if we are going to negotiate it would be wise for us to do so, because, if negotiations with China for peace in Korea are to be undertaken, the very fact of negotiations among civil governmental leaders implies, and indeed requires, recognition of their governmental status.
Once peace was achieved, then Canada could support the admission of the Peking government to the United Nations, as I imagine other countries would, and urge a general settlement of Asian problems, including self-determination by the native population of Formosa, in the interests of the Asian people and the peace of the world. As a matter of fact, if you are going to negotiate a peace with the present Chinese government, if you recognize that government as you would do in fact, then under the charter of the United Nations someone when peace has been attained has to represent China in the United Nations assembly; and having recognized the new regime in China, as you would have to do if you made peace with it, it is that regime that would have to be given a seat in the United Nations.


Gordon Graydon: Can you recognize an aggressor?


Major James William Coldwell: Note what I said. Once peace has been attained you no longer regard the nation as either an enemy or an aggressor. That is shown in the case of Italy. It is shown in the case of Japan. It is shown in the case of other nations with whom we were at war and with whom today we are at peace. We are actively promoting the entry of these nations into the United Nations assembly.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: You said we should recognize China now.
180	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Caldwell


Major James William Coldwell: I said if we were going to negotiate a peace I thought recognition would have to be accorded now, but the entry into the United Nations should remain until after peace has been attained.


Mr. Slick:: May I ask a question? We are not officially at war with China, are we?


Major James William Coldwell: We are not officially at war with China?


Leonard T. Stick: Then how can we negotiate peace with them?


Major James William Coldwell: I do not think the hon. gentleman was following me. I am sure he knows that negotiations are in progress today between the United Nations and China. We are a partner in that war. I am suggesting that since there is a military stalemate in Korea, those nations which are actually suffering, losing their men and expending their treasure, should endeavour to negotiate an end to that stalemate. Then if peace were attained part of the vast expenditures we are making for war in the Far East could and should be used to provide economic and technical aid for the peoples of Asia. I want to say, as I have said so often before, that only in this way are we eventually going to defeat communism and communist propaganda.
Meantime we should not permit ourselves to be dominated by such policies as Mr. Dulles advocates for the United States. While it is difficult to say, as a matter of fact, what the policies in the United States really are on the whole, a statement such as the one I have quoted clearly indicates that if certain people obtain control in that country there is a danger of provoking a war with China and thus opening wide the door to communist domination of the world. As I have already said, however, the immediate problem is to end hostilities in Korea, and certainly no minor considerations should be allowed to prevent that. If the suggestion I have made for high level political negotiations were accepted another result would (low; that is, the position of Russia would be clarified. If Russia demanded the right to participate in armistice negotiations by the political leaders of the nations I have suggested should take a hand in it, Russia certainly could not claim the right to participate subsequently as a neutral nation in supervising the armistice, and that would clarify the position.
I have spent more time tonight in dealing with these matters than I intended because one of them was raised this afternoon by the leader of the opposition, and I wanted to place my views before the house as clearly as I could and, I may add, after having given

the matter a good deal of consideration. No one knows better than I that if communism should win a victory in the world, among its first victims would be the people who generally hold the views I hold on economic and social policies. Democratic socialists have been the first casualties when communist governments have been established in European countries, so I am under no illusions as far as that goes.
Now I want to turn to a domestic matter. I can cover only two or three points this evening because my time is limited and I usually like to cover a subject fairly thoroughly. To turn to this domestic matter, which I think is of great importance, we recollect that last June the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) informed this house that the government would give consideration to the establishment of a committee at this session to inquire once again into the question of health insurance. A few days ago he said the government had considered the matter and that such a committee would not be established.
Last summer we saw no real necessity for such a committee. Surely by this time and after all these years the government has all the information necessary and should be prepared to introduce legislation for the establishment, in co-operation with the provinces, of a plan that would be comprehensive and, I would suggest, which would be on the basis of the completion of a general social security plan. Yet apparently in the opinion of the government another inquiry seems to-be a necessary prelude to any definite action. Even last June the promise of another committee reminded us that the Liberal party had promised us health insurance in its platform of 1919. That was 33 years ago.


Mr. Gibson:: Give them time.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. gentleman says we should give them time. Perhaps for the Liberal party a third of a century is not sufficient time to carry out some of its promises. Again, before the election of 1945 a parliamentary committee had actually recommended legislation which people in various parts of Canada were told would be enacted if the government were returned to power. This was particularly true in my own province where the present provincial leader, Mr. Tucker, who had been chairman of the committee, exhibited a draft bill which had been, printed and circulated among members of this house-it was not his bill; it was circulated here-and the statement was made that it was certain of enactment if the government were returned. Nothing has been, heard of that bill since.

In 1948, prior to three important federal by-elections the former prime minister, Mr. King, in announcing the health grants program, which we welcomed, described it as the first step in a national health plan. Because of all this I am going to move an amendment dealing with this matter, in these words:
That the following words be added to the amendment:
"This house further regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to recommend the inauguration of a national health insurance program, with provision for provincial participation."
Over the years a good many investigations have been made and a good many commissions established. Every commission appointed to investigate health in Canada has without exception testified to the need for health insurance. For example, the royal commission on health insurance and maternity benefits in British Columbia in 1932; governmental commissions on health and medical services in Alberta in 1933 and 1944; a report of the Quebec social insurance commission; the special committee on social security set up by the federal parliament in 1943, to which I have already referred; the federal government's own proposals to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction after the war-all these have agreed on the necessity for national health insurance. They all found that the average citizen is unable to provide adequate medical care for himself and his family if he is left to depend upon his own resources.
In addition, various groups throughout the country representing workers, farmers, business and professional men and so on, have made representations to the government asking for health insurance. Nine years ago, in 1943, the parliamentary committee to which I have already referred heard 117 witnesses representing 32 different groups. Each group expressed itself in favour of the principle of health insurance. Despite all these expert testimonials from groups representing every segment of our society; in spite of this research by competent personnel over the years; in spite of the government's own reports and investigations, the government still dallies while the social and economic costs for want of health insurance mount daily.
What are the reasons for this delay? One of the favourite excuses is that the federal government has not yet been able to reach a satisfactory agreement with all the provinces. Difficulties involved in making financial and administrative arrangements have been given as the reason for failure to achieve such an agreement. But these difficulties have been given before as excuses
The Address-Mr. Coldwell for delaying in various fields; yet when public pressure for action has become strong enough the government has generally succeeded in finding a way around these difficulties. If I may, I should like to quote the late Dr. Harry Cassidy, director of the Toronto School of Social Work, who said:
The conclusion emerges that the dominion-provincial relations controversy is far less of a barrier to national social security policy than is commonly supposed ... A dominion government which was firmly committed to prompt action on social security could almost certainly do much to achieve results.
Constitutional difficulties should not be allowed to stand in the way of health legislation for all Canadians. There is no reason why the federal government cannot provide health insurance legislation to become effective in each province as that province adopts enabling legislation. In this way health insurance would become effective across the country as quickly as the various provinces passed the necessary legislation. This is the procedure now being followed with respect to the Old Age Assistance Act. Some provinces have yet to reach agreement with the federal government; but no one would contend for a moment that those provinces which have made agreements with the federal government should have to wait until all provinces reach accord.
The same thing is true with regard to health insurance. The whole country should not be held up, waiting for adequate health legislation, until unanimous agreement is secured with all the provinces. Indeed the government itself in 1945 proposed to the dominion-provincial conference that the health insurance plan be capable of introduction as each province was ready. The federal government should get on with the job of instituting a plan in which all the provinces could co-operate.
Since my time is just about exhausted, I want to skip along and to say this in conclusion. The costs of poor health to society, as well as to the individual, are staggering. When, for example, sickness strikes the breadwinner of a family, it impairs the income of that family, and consequently in many instances the burden must be assumed by society as a whole. But how often could such sickness have been prevented in the first place if adequate preventive medical care had been assured without the worry of financial difficulties. Again, in the case of industry, countless production time is lost every year simply because preventive medicines and medical care could not be afforded by the wage earners.
The question, then, is not whether we can afford to have health insurance but whether

The Address-Mr. Low we can afford not to have it. It is my belief, and that of those associated with me in the C.C.F., that we cannot afford to continue with our haphazard and inadequate method of meeting the health needs of Canadians.
At the last session of parliament we urged that provision be made for a national health plan which would include hospitalization, medical care and health insurance. I regret to say, however, that not only the government but also the other two opposition parties combined to defeat our motion on the ground-and I will state it-that our amendment made no mention of provincial participation. We intended that it should be so oonstrued. That provision was certainly not in that amendment, but it is in this one. The C.C.F. believes that a national health insurance program is the only way by which the nation's health can be adequately protected. Furthermore, we believe that the vast majority of the Canadian people are in favour of such legislation. We have therefore moved this amendment in order to bring this matter before the house and ensure a discussion of the subject. I hope that ere long we shall have in Canada a complete social security system including all that national health services involve.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be of congratulation to the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply. In my judgment both of those gentlemen acquitted themselves well. From their speeches I gathered a great deal of most useful information, more particularly about their own home constituencies. I may say, sir, that that is a matter about which I did not know a great deal. With the subject matter of the speeches one would not expect me to agree entirely, and I shall have something to say about a few of the things that have been mentioned by the mover, at least.
We have already expressed our feeling of great regret and sorrow at the loss of our late beloved sovereign. At this time I can only say that our group in the house are in thorough agreement with the first two paragraphs in His Excellency's address. We have expressed our allegiance and our devotion to our new sovereign. I shall therefore not take the time now to go further into the matter.
The speech of His Excellency contained some exceedingly interesting items, amongst a miscellaneous grab-bag assortment of petits, if we want to call them that. I should like, however, to pass over the smaller things and take up for a few minutes some of those that I look upon as being very important.
(Mr. Coldwell.]
One of the first of those is this. In the past few days much has been said about the unfortunate outbreak in the province of Saskatchewan of that terrible foot-and-mouth disease. For that reason I do not intend to say much at this time except to point out that the farmers of the west are now suffering a second great blow-as, in fact, are the farmers of all Canada, for that matter-as a result of the outbreak of this terrible disease. But the farmers of the west especially are now suffering a double blow in that they still have 150 million bushels of wheat unharvested and perhaps 135 million bushels of oats and barley. Many of these farmers are going to find the coming season exceedingly difficult to finance. Our sympathies certainly go out to those farmers who are going to lose a great deal of money obtained by their hard-earned efforts over the years to accumulate something with which to make themselves secure.
I want to say that we appreciate the steps which the government has taken to compensate the farmers who are going to lose directly through having their herds of cattle destroyed. I want to join the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in an expression of optimism in this regard. I have every hope and every reason to believe that, through prompt and efficient action, the government will get this disease under control and stamp it out. I think nothing short of a complete stamping out of the disease is good enough in a country that has gone on for so many decades free from this terrible scourge.
One thing I should like to stress in concluding my remarks on this particular subject is that I hope the government will explore every possibility of extending in the British isles the market for our beef, pork and surplus meat. If they do that, they are going to have to be prepared to take British goods in payment, and they will have to take quite a different view with respect to embargoes or high dumping duties on automobiles from Britain. A far different attitude will have to be adopted if we expect to find and to hold anything like a market in Great Britain. We should see to it that the people there get these products of ours, and that our farmers and the general public in this country are not called upon to suffer because we have neglected the potential markets that can be found in that country.
We were greatly gratified to see in His Excellency's speech that provision would be made for an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act of 1946 and the Veterans Benefit Act of 1951. I think that hon. members should hang their heads in shame for having

allowed so many of those old veterans to go through the past winter-yes, 1 could say several winters-living on the miserable pittance which they had been allowed under the act when the Canadian dollar was really worth something. The sacrifices that those old veterans made for all of us were great. I have often wondered why, in the light of these sacrifices, they should have been left so long struggling and trying to make ends meet on this miserable pittance, particularly since hon. members on every side of the house have pressed for action to enlarge those allowances. The money certainly was available in our country, and production sufficient to guarantee those old veterans certain standards of comfort beyond what we have been giving them. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my group I welcome the assurance that something is to be done at this session. We also express the hope that it will be something substantial, to bring these veterans at least up to something like the parity of other veterans with respect to allowances.
I now turn to another subject, Mr. Speaker. The mover of the address said that this is the first time that anyone had moved an address to one of Canada's native sons. That is true. The same hon. gentleman did not say, though, whether he agreed with this departure from traditional practice. I gathered that he accepted it without protest. I wish it definitely understood, Mr. Speaker, that in what I shall say here today I have no quarrel whatever with the present appointee who represents the queen in Canada. Undoubtedly the Right Hon. Vincent Massey is perfectly capable of doing an excellent job in this, high office. In my judgment he is an illustrious gentleman, and I have nothing whatever to say against him. Rather, sir, it is with the principle of the whole question that I quarrel. My own feeling is that the government, without consulting parliament, in addition to what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said about arrogating to themselves the right to change the constitution in various forms, designations and titles that have become traditional practice over the decades, has also taken the first step to bring the highest symbolic office in the land down to the realm of contentious politics, and consequently the constitutional system that we have been operating under for so many years might be seriously damaged. I believe it would have been far better to have kept the holders of this high and important office completely free from political influences, at least as long as there are already so many other things which might adversely affect the spirit of unity in Canada.
The Address-Mr. Low
Some distinguished person from any other part of the commonwealth would have been completely free from political influences in Canada and therefore, in my judgment, would have been a unifying force in Canadian life, as well as a factor in strengthening the ties of commonwealth. By its action, however, this government has injected one more possible cause for division amongst our people, one more cause for contention, and perhaps-I hope not-bitter political strife.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has attempted to justify his action in appointing a Canadian to the office of governor general by citing Australia as an example. Well, I do not need to remind the Prime Minister or anybody else that Australia is not Canada. The same conditions do not prevail in the two countries, and that has to be kept in mind.
It seems that the Prime Minister considered a departure from the traditional way of appointing a governor general to be a logical step in the normal development of Canada from the status of a colony to that of a self-governing dominion. Well, I should like to draw his attention, as did the leader of the opposition this afternoon, by way of underlining what was said, to the fact that there is in Canada a very large body of people who look upon this last move as the last straw in a series of moves which this government has taken with almost indecent haste to destroy every evidence of our British connection and our allegiance to the crown. Whether they are correct or not, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that there are many who have that feeling and I have received petition after petition, communication after communication, drawing this to my attention and asking that something be done to put a stop to this series of steps lest we sever completely our allegiance to the crown. That is the way they expressed it to me. The Prime Minister will find, when he goes to the country in a general election, that his Liberal party certainly has not won votes through the series of steps that have been taken.
In the person of Lord Alexander Canada had a brilliant and beloved governor general. He did perhaps more than any other holder of the office up to this time to oring unity amongst the Canadian people. He set, in my judgment, a very high standard of performance which it will be quite difficult for anyone who follows him to measure up to. Our warmest wishes go with Lord Alexander and his family, all of whom have endeared themselves to the Canadian people. At the same time, sir, I should like to assure His

The Address-Mr. Low Excellency, our new governor general, of our good will, and I would like to take this opportunity of wishing him success, happiness, and complete satisfaction throughout the whole of his term of office.


Mr. Boisvert:: A good beginning.


Solon Earl Low: I should now like to turn for just a few minutes to the consideration of another matter which has been occupying the minds of a good many Canadians of late. I think the leader of the opposition acquitted himself very well this afternoon in speaking about this whole matter. I may repeat one or two things that he said. I believe it would be well to underline the importance of this whole matter of piling up surpluses out of taxation at a time like this. I am not going to cover the whole of the ground, but I want to say something that the leader of the opposition did not say. I would like to ask for just one minute, what is the meaning of this over $700 million surplus, about which we have heard so much? Well, if it is reduced to its simplest terms it means that the people of Canada have had to dig down and surrender to this government in the form of direct and indirect taxes over $700 million more in nine months of this fiscal year than the government figured it needed for the whole year. When this huge total is reduced to an individual basis, as the leader of the opposition said this afternoon, it means that the government confiscated-and that is the only word that I can find for it-confiscated from every man, woman and child in Canada $52 more than actually needed to be taken from them for balancing the government's budget this year. That means, as the leader of the opposition also pointed out, that every family of four therefore would be victimized to the extent of $208 extra taxation.
When I criticize the government for this extra taxation, let me make it clear, sir, that I do not think it is good business at a time like this to budget for deficits. I am with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in that. I do not think it would be wise at all, and I do not advocate budgeting for deficits. I go further than that and say I think under present circumstances it is a good thing for the minister to budget for a surplus; but when I say that I mean a modest surplus. I am not unmindful, however, of the great difficulties which are faced by the Minister of Finance. Actually it is certainly difficult in the midst of present conditions to forecast with anything like accuracy either what revenues might be obtained or what the rate of expenditure might be, particularly in the field of defence preparations. I am quite
[Mr. Low.l
mindful of that. The Minister of Finance has some excuse, therefore, in not being able to estimate more closely than he has done.
Moreover, the minister, in my judgment, was on sound ground when he said, as he did in his radio broadcast on February 19,
I believe it was, that it was fortunate that he was able to have some surplus cash to take care of such things as defence and the Canadian National Railways, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the foreign exchange control board so as to obviate the necessity of borrowing more money from the chartered banks. Well, borrowing from the chartered banks would have been inflationary. I think anyone who knows anything about finance knows that. But I suppose it is nice even for the average Canadian individual to have some surplus cash around, just as it is for the government. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance said that he thought it was nice to have surplus cash around so that he could stockpile such things as wool, rubber, tin and other materials for use in the defence program.
I agree with him. But at the same time let me say that it is also nice for the average individual Canadian to have surplus cash around so that he can stockpile some things, too. But the Minister of Finance has seen to it that the individual Canadian has not got it, because the minister has taken it away. And there are literally hundreds of thousands of them who have not got enough to live decently on these days.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You have more money in Alberta than you ever had in your lives before.


Solon Earl Low: And that is one reason we will go out and help you in British Columbia.


John Lambert Gibson: We can get along without you. We will do all right.


Solon Earl Low: Well, I would judge from the way they have been getting on in the past that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) is whistling in the dark to keep up his courage.


John Lambert Gibson: Oh no.


Solon Earl Low: Everybody is glad to see the government making an effort to get out of debt. I think it is especially gratifying to the Canadian citizen to see his government attempting to get out of debt, especially if he thinks they have sense enough to stay out when they do get out. But there are times when the government is not justified in confiscating the people's purchasing power merely to pay off debts. This is one of those times.
The government is indifferent, completely indifferent, to the welfare of the Canadian

people, when it piles up a huge surplus and revenue through the use of taxation, and especially through the use of taxation of the kind used by the Minister of Finance, when indirect or hidden taxes are inevitably pushing up prices and the cost of living.
So when the minister says, "I used $310 million"-that is the amount, I believe- "to pay off debt", as one justification for having the surplus, then I say to the house that he was completely unjustified in taking that taxation from the people this year to pay off that debt.
I join with the leader of the opposition in his protest against it. There are times, appropriate and suitable times, when that sort of thing should be done. But I do not subscribe to the idea of allowing the Minister of Finance to set up a huge surplus and then, when he is embarrassed about it, find a place quickly to get it out of the way, and then come before the Canadian people and say he is using it to pay off the debt.
It seems to me the real criticism of the Minister of Finance is that he piled up his surplus largely through his hidden taxes- that is, excise taxes, sales taxes and others. These very definitely pyramid prices and in many cases they go away beyond, or inflate prices away beyond the amount of revenue that the government receives from the imposition of the taxes.
The Minister of Finance argued that by using some of the surplus to pay off the debt he has saved the Canadian people considerably more money in interest. Well, that is so. I agree. But what earthly use is it to save the people interest if, by the very means taken by the minister to save interest, he causes the people to pay more in the form of higher prices than the amount of interest saved? That is a question I would like the minister to answer-or indeed anyone else to answer.
Of the $310 million of debt paid off from the surplus so far this year accumulated, the people have been saved perhaps $9,300,000 in interest.
But the taxes responsible for the raising of the $310 million surplus revenue have increased prices and the cost of living to the people of Canada to the extent of at least 30 per cent of the $310 million or, in round figures, $90 million. I do not think anyone can deny that that is so.


An hon. Member:: Is the index wrong?


Solon Earl Low: No, the index is not wrong, but the index has nothing to do with it. I say that is pretty poor economy-to save the people $9 million in interest by forcing them to pay ten times as much in prices at a time when they are struggling with the highest
The Address-Mr. Low living cost in history, and when many thousands of our Canadians are going without many of the essentials for healthful living.
If the minister had been half as interested in the welfare of several millions of Canadians in the lower income bracket, especially, as he was in maintaining his decrepit system-and I repeat the word "decrepit"- he would have brought in last autumn, when he saw this surplus coming, a measure to suspend or to abolish $200 million or $300 million of his indirect taxes as a means of providing at least some relief from this terrible cost of living.
Instead of that he piled up a whopping surplus; and of course when it becomes embarrassing he finds a place to get it out of the way in a hurry. I should like to say just a word or two, Mr. Speaker, about this whole business of taxation, just to follow up what was brought up before the house this afternoon by the leader of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: Good Tories together.


Solon Earl Low: Well, believe me, you boys who are interpolating will have considerable reason to look down your noses in the next few months.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Don't look at me; look over there.


An hon. Member:: But you are better looking.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few things about this whole taxation policy that is being followed by the government. The first point I make is this, that the policy is destroying the incentive of the Canadian people to produce-and that is a serious matter.
Now, we need much higher production of many consumer commodities than we now have, as one means of bringing down general consumer price levels, and helping to pay for our imports. It is only recently that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in a speech appealed to the farmers of Canada to go allout in their production effort. He realizes the need for high production of foodstuffs as well as of materials that enter into the defence program. But what he does not seem to grasp is that continued high taxation, especially when the people of the country know that some of it, at any rate, is not essential to meet the needs of the country, does dull the incentive to productive effort; and as a result we just do not get the production.


Mr. Laing:: But the national product is
going up.


Solon Earl Low: In value, but not in volume.
Canada's economy has grown rapidly since

The Address-Mr. Low the beginning of world war II. Each succeeding year has seen a considerable expansion of plant and production facilities. Now, here is the answer to my hon. friend: 1950 was a good year-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Solon Earl Low: There is no question about that. Mr. Cruickshank: Under a good government.


Solon Earl Low: 
Mr. Hellyer:: Shorter hours.


Solon Earl Low: "Shorter hours" my eye! The farmers of this country would tell you differently. They worked harder last fall than they ever worked in their lives before. Don't say "shorter hours" to me. I maintain that one of the most substantial reasons for that lack of production in this country in 1951, despite increased facilities, was that the government's taxing policy dulled incentive, and as a consequence our production fell short of what it should have been.
On February 29 the Canadian Chamber of Commerce submitted to the Minister of Finance a brief regarding the government's taxation and fiscal policy. On page 5 of the submission this is stated:
We strongly and frankly believe that even the present levels are too high and should be reduced to a point where personal and corporate efficiency can again be stimulated.
Recognizing that our tax policy is dulling productive effort.
Personal income taxation has exceeded Its maximum effective level and is blunting initiative. Corporate taxation would not seem to be capable of further expansion without highly undesirable effects; even the present rates are too burdensome for a developing country. Certainly at the present time it falls with particular weight on those industries most adversely affected by the credit restrictions and excise taxes. At their present levels neither personal nor corporate income tax is conducive to an increase in saving for investment in our capital development program, nor to a high degree of risk-taking in constructive enterprise. Excise taxes and other indirect imposts in some cases seem to be at levels which are at, or close to the point of yielding diminishing returns, and in their application have a most undesirable pyramiding effect. Excise taxes, too, have the effect of raising the cost of taxable commodities to the consumer, and thus raising the cost of living.

Mild as those words are, in my judgment they constitute a pretty sharp condemnation of this government's taxation policy and they provide some verification at least of the statement that I made that taxation is being used by the government, perhaps quite deliberately, but at least wholeheartedly as a means of hacking down and destroying the incentive of the Canadian people. The research experts of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have spent a lot of time investigating the effects of taxation in Canada and in my judgment their conclusions have shaken up a little bit even the stubborn Minister of Finance. I should like to invite my genial friend, the Minister of Finance, for whom I repeat I have a very high regard even though once in a while I do say he is stubborn, and his colleague, the genial Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), to come with me, or go by themselves, to visit my constituency of Peace River.


Douglas Charles Abbott: All expenses paid?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, sir. I invite them to go there and have a talk with the farmers up in that part of the country. I guarantee that after they have been around a bit they will gather some firsthand knowledge of what their taxation policies are doing to dull the productive effort of this country. In addition to that I am sure they will add considerably to their vocabularies and have them enriched with some good, old, picturesque, northern, descriptive language, particularly when they refer to the arrogance of some of the representatives of the income tax division of the Department of National Revenue.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is nothing new; we have had all that before.


Solon Earl Low: I have spoken many times before about this matter and the Minister of National Revenue says he has heard of it. I am sure they will be able to teach him something up there.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I doubt it.


Solon Earl Low: The people up in that country say that if you stay there a little while you become bushed. I think the minister needs to be bushed just a little bit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Take the whole cabinet.


Solon Earl Low: I have spoken about this matter on the floor of the house a good many times, as have many other representatives of the people, but still this almost fiendish farmers' income tax policy is continued without a relief. As a result the productive effort of the country is being dulled.
The second point I should like to mention is that Liberal taxation policy has been carried

in some instances far beyond the point of diminishing returns. That has been proved quite conclusively by what has happened of late. Most people knew, as the leader of the opposition implied this afternoon, that the inevitable effect of the drastic cigarette taxes would be smuggling or a change to the use of a form of tobacco bearing less heavy taxes with a reduction perhaps in the use of cigarettes. The government would not see what should have been as plain as the noses on their faces and the result is that they are going to have to backtrack or just go on losing revenue.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is the first time you have been right tonight.


Solon Earl Low: I will leave it to the judgment of the people to say whether that is the case. The third point I should like to make about taxes is in regard to the hidden indirect taxes which the government have imposed and which they cling to so tenaciously. They have caused and are causing very serious loss in the spending power of many of the people of Canada. Take as one example an electric iron, and there are many more examples that could be cited. Let us take one that is made in the United States, as a good many of these electric irons are. Let us assume that the factory cost is $5, which is just about the usual level. What happens to that factory price of $5 by the time the iron reaches the consumer here in Canada?
There is a duty of 224 per cent on the iron, which increases the price by $1.12, making it $6.12. Then there is an excise tax of 25 per cent put on by this government which adds $1.53 to bring the price up to $7.65. Then there is a sales tax of 10 per cent on the duty-paid price, which brings it up 61 cents to $8.26. The distributor's profit is about 20 per cent or one-fifth, and therefore the price to the retailer would be $9.91. The retailer works on a margin of about 50 per cent on such goods.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Oh, Mr. Thatcher.


Solon Earl Low: Therefore the price to the consumer of that iron is $14.86.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Solon Earl Low: The manufacturer's price was $5, but by the time the consumer in this country bought it, taxes, turnover charges, handling charges and so on had inflated it to $14.86. But that is not the important thing. By the time the consumer buys the iron the taxes alone have amounted to $5.86, out of which, and this is the criminal part of it, the government gets only $3.26. In other words, the
The Address-Mr. Low consumer pays over and above the taxes which the government imposes a shadow tax of $2.60 which does not help the people of Canada at all.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is twice you have been right.


Solon Earl Low: I am improving in the eyes of the hon. member. We may be friends if he keeps that up. This is what some of us have been trying to show for a long time. This is a serious hidden factor in the government's taxation arrangements that does result in an unnecessary and I must say uneconomic confiscation of the people's purchasing power. That is one of the reasons for the serious decline in the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar.
I want to repeat what I have often stated in this house. If the government does not soon take effective action to put sense back into the Canadian dollar, many of our people and our businesses are going to have a hard time to survive. A revision of their tax policy to abolish this hidden evil is among the foremost of things which the government must do before the purchasing value of the dollar can be restored to what it ought to be.
I pass on to my concluding subject. His Excellency's address reminds us, and I quote:
The situation throughout the world continues to cause concern and to require my ministers to devote a great deal of attention to our external affairs. The government remains convinced that the nations of the free world must continue to increase their combined strength, in order to ensure lasting peace and security by the effective discouragement of aggression.
Commenting on this topic, the mover of the address (Mr. George) used these words, and I quote from page 24 of Hansard of February 29:
The Right Hon. Winston Churchill reminded us, in his Ottawa speech, that our own Prime Minister had a major share in building the North Atlantic treaty.
I acknowledge that that is true. But of late I have often wondered if when he first put forward his proposal for the formation of a North Atlantic alliance he envisioned some of the things that were bound to happen. I wonder, for example, if he envisioned and hoped that NATO would put the United Nations into an eclipse. Only a very dim-witted person could fail to see how immeasurably more important than the United Nations the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has become. I often wonder if the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), when he proposed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, did not stop to realize that powerful forces would conspire to use the organization as a ramp to catapult us and other free nations into

The Address-Mr. Low federal union and world government which under present circumstances could only succeed in plunging us into an all-out world conflict, and perhaps even worse. The forces that itch and yearn for an early realization of the dream of world government feel quite sure that out of a new global conflict would emerge a world dictatorship modelled after that of the Soviet union.
Well, there are powerful forces which are conspiring and feverishly working to use the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for just that very purpose. Because they see their propaganda bearing fruit and their plans successfully advanced step by step, their exultation frequently causes them to become bold and in that boldness sometimes they overplay their hands. Many of their innocent supporters and willing collaborators are naive enough to let the cat out of the bag so that once in a while we can get a glimpse of just what is going on behind the scenes.
Only recently a fellow by the name of Ted Leather-I sometimes think his name should have been "Hell For Leather"-a member of parliament in Great Britain-


Mrs. Fairclough:: He is from Hamilton.


Solon Earl Low: -exultantly declared over the B.B.C. and in various correspondence columns that Britain is now too feeble to safeguard the commonwealth and that she must therefore prepare to relinquish to a supranational authority control over her own foreign policy and defence. Mr. Leather is a Canadian. He explains his support of the proposal to use NATO as a ramp to catapult the free nations into a federal union by saying that he wishes to "conserve humanity" and "to ensure them peace". Both of these are childish pretensions on Mr. Leather's part. If the plan is to succeed, of course it is necessary to get over to Britons, Canadians and others the conviction that federal union or world government is the only way to save humanity and to bring them peace. It is also necessary to disseminate amongst the people of the present sovereign democracies the same kind of lie Mr. Leather attempts to spread far and wide over the B.B.C. in Britain, namely, that the British people are no longer capable of conducting their own foreign policy and defence.
I imagine Mr. Leather repeats this falsehood in pure innocence. But it seems to me there are two mysteries about it. The first of these mysteries is why he, a Canadian, should have sought and secured election to the parliament of Britain as, in the words of one correspondent, "the hot gospeller of a doctrine, rank with the smell of subversion". The second mystery is how a member of parliament manages to reconcile his oath of allegiance to his sovereign not only with silly

sneers at national sovereignty but also with his espousal of a cause that would subordinate and subjugate both our sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, and her peoples to a cosmopolitan combination of power addicts. That is what it would mean. I often wonder why such people as Mr. Leather do not make an outright transfer of their allegiance to the new Atlantis and become in very fact the citizens of the world which they yearn to become. Perhaps they would soon find, as did young Garry Davis, that they were citizens of nowhere, or perhaps, like the original international communists I remember as a boy who tried to make themselves citizens of the world proletariat, they would have to find themselves a substitute motherland. Everybody who knows anything about history knows that the international communists found their motherland in the Soviet union. Even Tim Buck, sheltered, nourished and given freedom and opportunity by Canada, acknowledges the Soviet union as his motherland. He is apparently one of the contradictions of the old saying, "Even a louse clings to the flesh on which it feeds."
To come back to Mr. Leather, in his frothings over the B.B.C. he cited as his hero and exemplar what he called "Canada's great foreign secretary, Lester Pearson, who is the greatest advocate of such internationalism developing along the lines of NATO". So Clarence Streit is not the only one who claims our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is a prominent leader in this move to establish world government through NATO. Leather and his pals look upon our Secretary of State for External Affairs as the giant, the demi-god from the west who comes to give peace to the historic nations of Europe. The ludicrousness of that situation may not have occurred to some people. Just imagine if you can a more ludicrous way of giving peace to the historic nations of Europe than by the simple device of extinguishing them completely. Stop and think about it.
On February 26, 1951, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), in what I said was a very eloquent speech, moved a resolution in the following terms:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of supporting the calling of a convention of delegates from the democracies which sponsored the North Atlantic treaty and representing the principal political parties of such democracies, for the purpose of exploring how far their peoples, and the peoples of such other democracies as the convention may invite to send delegates, can apply among them, within the framework of the United Nations, the principles of federal union.
He left no doubt about what it was he then advocated, namely, the use of NATO to slide the free democracies into first, Atlantic federal union, and next, full world

government with an end to what he called "the myth of national sovereignty." Immediately following the hon. member for Winnipeg North, the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke, and the more I reread his speech and consider it the more firm I become in my belief that it was a warning to the hon. member for Winnipeg North to lay off the subject for the time being because more careful groundwork would have to be done before the people would be ready and sufficiently anaesthetized to part with their sovereignty. At any rate, that ended the debate, for the hon. member for Winnipeg North withdrew his resolution.
Since February 26, 1951, a number of important things have transpired in this same field of activity. First, the NATO council met in Ottawa last summer, and prominent amongst the council's deliberations was consideration of ways and means of achieving the fullest possible integration of the western nations. The meetings were held in private. In fact every effort was made to keep them secret. However, through the shrouds of secrecy information conveniently-and I use that word advisedly-seeped through to the world press. Moreover, recommendations were broadcast long before the various governments who make up NATO had been made aware of them in any form. Someone disclosed some pretty secret information to Clarence Streit who rushed into print in his Freedom and Union magazine the news that the NATO council was to urge that the Atlantic community should be unified-and I use his words-"not only militarily as heretofore but politically, economically, socially and culturally, and that Mr. Acheson, United States foreign secretary, had given the proposals warm words of approval".
It should be remembered that Mr. Streit was one of the advocates of one world and world government who used the German scare, as they are now using the Russian scare, to try to stampede the Atlantic countries into a political union. Mr. Streit in his article in the October, 1951, issue of the Freedom and Union magazine was able to furnish the very confidential information that the Atlantic council had appointed a committee to carry the matter further. The committee, he said, consisted of Messrs, van Zeeland, de Gasperi, Stikker, Lange and Lester Pearson.
I spoke somewhat about all this in the house on October 22 last. There followed, I am told, some consternation amongst the faithful and devoted. Plans were laid for a visit to Ottawa of some prominent federal unionists from congress and various parts of the United States, a visit, I am told, which was scheduled for this spring. It will be
The Address-Mr. Low interesting to learn what procedure they advocate now to keep the people so intent on watching in fear the dark international picture that they will not notice the evolution of Atlantic federal union out of the present balance of power alliance called NATO.
I should like to conclude on this note. When I spoke on this matter on October 22 last I called upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs to declare in the most unequivocal terms exactly what are the long-range objectives of NATO, but to this date I have not heard that declaration. The Canadian people want to know where this government is leading our country. They are entitled to a full and detailed answer without delay. For us in this party, we favour the greatest possible measure of co-operation amongst the democracies for all worthy and righteous purposes. These purposes would include collective defensive measures as a means of preventing aggressive warfare that might lead to world conflict, or that might endanger the security of any or all of those nations. We support fully every effective effort to build the strongest possible integrated military force in western Europe for the prevention of aggression. But we are unalterably opposed to any nefarious or open attempt to bring about the political and economic integration of the NATO countries under a supranational government. We value too highly the liberties for which our fathers before us fought and bled and died. Above all we value and will do all in our power to preserve inviolate the right and liberty of every man to worship Almighty God in his own church in his own way, and the liberty to take an unimpaired part in his own government. We call upon all Canadians to make themselves thoroughly aware of what is going on around them, and prepare themselves to resist any effort to diminish or take away these and others of their precious freedoms.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, it seems like an anticlimax for an ordinary member to intrude after the big guns have been firing all afternoon and have managed to hit some things. However, I have something to say. Anyone representing a city at the lakehead which is progressive and honest and growing should have something to say to this house.
In the first place I think the speech from the throne has great merits. It deals first with the heart. Those of us who were loyal to our late king remember that when he came to the throne calamity howlers said the British empire was about to go to pieces. But the late Lord Bennett said this truth, that the British empire does not depend only upon the king but upon the spirit behind the

The Address-Mr. Mclvor king and the nation. When the late king came to the throne he showed his Christian character and made it felt throughout the length and breadth of the empire. I think the speech from the throne did well in this respect.
Then it mentions Queen Elizabeth II. As far as I am concerned she is Queen Elizabeth I of Canada. Canada did not exist when Queen Elizabeth I reigned. Queen Elizabeth II is the queen of Canada. We love her and have sworn our loyalty to her. We will give her the greatest possible respect.
Then I notice that the speech from the throne deals with particular things as well, and we like to see legislation dealt with particularly. First, consideration is to be given to the War Veterans Allowance Act. The Canadian Citizenship Act is to be amended, and so is the Criminal Code. The Government Employees Compensation Act is to be dealt with, and the superannuated civil service pensioners, who have had no increase in their pensions, are to be considered. That is a subject on which there has been considerable discussion at the lakehead. #


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are not mentioned in the speech from the throne.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Not long ago I was asked why the Canadian dollar is now on a par with the United States dollar or perhaps a little better, and I tried to set out the reasons. In the first place I would say the government of Canada was the chief reason. The opposition may not say so, but they think it just the same. A government that has been sane, secure and serviceable has done a great job. It has been telling the world that people who live in Canada will be properly taken care of.
Then there is our surplus. The United States has no surplus. Great Britain has no surplus. France has no surplus, except of ex-premiers. We in Canada have a surplus, and I will give the particulars a little later on. There is our expanding trade. I do not need to speak on that further; the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) can tell you all about it. That is one of the main reasons the government of Ontario is supporting the St. Lawrence waterway.
The next reason is the absence of labour troubles in Canada today. There is co-operation perhaps better than ever between management and labour. At Fort William we have outstanding examples of this co-operation in several firms that employ a good many people. Because of our growing industry we have been attracting people from the country
[Mr Mclvor.]
to the south and from other parts of the world who have money they want to invest in Canada.
Another reason our dollar has risen in value is the announcement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) that we are going it alone in building the St. Lawrence waterway. The Minister of Trade and Commerce told a group in Washington a short time ago, "We are not bluffing this time." Other reasons the dollar has risen are Alberta and Saskatchewan oil, British Columbia and Ontario mining such as Steep Rock, and the development going on in Labrador. Any country with all these activities is bound to raise its head high above the other nations of the world.
People in other lands are beginning to recognize the government of Canada. On the front page of a local newspaper this evening you will see that two of the members of our government are mentioned for the Nobel peace prize. This shows that they have been outstanding; and they are not the only men in the cabinet who have attracted world attention.
I know that taxation is high, and I have not met anyone-I am not one-who likes to pay taxes. I would rather give a man a dollar to buy a meal or something else he wanted than pay taxes. But I expect that some taxes will come down. However, we must pay our way, and when the country is prosperous we must pay off our war debts. Through the kindness of the office of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) I obtained some figures, though I am not an expert on figures and usually get them mixed up. But during the year ending March 31, 1947, the government paid $373,600,000. In 1948 it paid $676,100,000; in 1949, $595,500,000.


Gordon Graydon: On what?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: On the debt. In 1950 it paid $131,500,000; in 1951, $211,300,000; to December 31, 1951, $260 million; making a grand total since the end of the war of $2,248 million. When some of the calamity howlers thought we would have a depression, we have been paying off our war debt. Therefore why should we not be proud of our government?
Mr. Speaker, I have a holiday once in four years and I thought that, with my better half, I would go west and that we would both be in good company. When we left Fort William we wondered if we would be in any city where Fort William trolley busses ran. I was surprised and thrilled to have a ride in a Fort William trolley bus in the city of Regina and several long rides on one in Vancouver. They are the best in Canada. Any

city in Canada, including the city of Ottawa, would do well to invest in Fort William trolley busses.
In Vancouver I found a number of great things. The first one, which interested me greatly, was when the trades and labour council came out in the papers announcing that they were not so much concerned about an increase in wages as they were in social security, healthy conditions in work for the workers, and security after they retired from work. No matter where that stand comes from, even if it is from our labour friends, I think it is a most creditable one.
I found another thing in Vancouver. I found a group of young businessmen, as advertisers, banding themselves together to sell British Columbia to Canada and to sell Canada to the world. That is what this house should do. It should sell Canada to the world.


Mr. Brooks:: The government sells us short.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I saw another thing in Vancouver, namely the greatest bottleneck in traffic that I ever saw; it was at the south side of the Marpole bridge that leads to Sea island where there is the busiest airfield in Canada. I will say that subject to correction. That is the report that I received from Vancouver. One afternoon when we were trying to find our way through, there was a bottleneck of cars over a mile long. My friend, who was a major in the Salvation Army, told me that I was modest, that it was far more than a mile. Those cars had to move just a little bit at a time. I hope that the members from Vancouver, Liberal, Conservative or something else, the city council of Vancouver and the provincial members will see to it that those working people on Sea island are treated just as well as are the rich in any other part of Vancouver. So much for the bottleneck.
I have some things to say about Fort William. I do not think there is a better place than the lakehead for a young couple to build a home and have a family, and train them in the Christian way. I do not know of a better place for that purpose than Fort William and Port Arthur. The reason for this is that the churches there are alive and are looking after not only the old people and those who have money; and the ministers are not conspicuous as men who keep their eyes on the collection plate. They are men who keep their eyes on the youth when they are growing up, and they are doing a great job.
I have spoken before about the way in which our youth in Fort William are taken care of. Because the city of Ottawa has a mayor who has an interest in recreation for
The Address-Mr. Mclvor the youth, and because difficulty has been experienced in handling their recreation in Ottawa, I thought that the mayor of Ottawa and the city council could well send a delegation .to the lakehead and see how things are done there. They could then come back and people would have ears for them.
During the summer we have supervised playgrounds. This is the result of the work of those of us who thought there should be playgrounds; but the thing was done voluntarily and sometimes the workers were absent. We have a superintendent of parks, and I do not mind using his name. He is Mr. Art Widnall. He is a Conservative but he is decent just the same. He takes a group of high school pupils and trains them for about a month in how to lead young people, boys and girls, in recreation and at the same time gets some sense into their heads. This is done during the months of July and August. Then during the winter we have supervised hockey rinks. We have 24 supervised hockey rinks. There is a rink for hockey and alongside there is another one for skating. Those are the best places you can look at. If you keep boys busy with their hands and feet, the police will not need to take care of them. In fact, one of our big policeman is one of the outstanding leaders of our boys at these hockey rinks.
We have two large swimming pools. Then we have the Kam river where some of us like to go quite often because of the fine swimming and the clean water which is available. We have twenty pee-wee teams, six bantam, five midget, four juvenile and two junior teams in Fort William and two in Port Arthur, and one senior team. Our senior team this year is the champion one of the district. The Minister of Trade and Commerce
(Mr. Howe) would agree with me, I think_____
although I have not consulted him on it-that the lakehead is perhaps one of the best places in Canada today for the setting up of new industries. We have power, shipping and railroads. In Fort William we have the best water system in Canada. The water is obtained from a big lake, 800 feet up on mount McKay, and all they had to do was to put down a viaduct or hole through the rock and the power of the water coming down was sufficient for their purpose. They did not need any engine here. The water is pure, clean and fresh. In our community we have two men whom I should like to mention. We have the provincial man who takes care of the farmers. We have the dominion man who takes care of the agriculture substations. Those two men do an outstanding job in inspiring our youth in the belief that there is no occupation, except the ministry, that is preferable to the life on the farm; and they

The Address-Mr. Mclvor are doing it in such a way that the young men are taking hold of the farms. I pay my tribute to these two men. They have potato clubs, oat clubs and seed clubs. The meetings of those seed clubs are well attended and they are doing a great job.
We have some needs. The Fort William sanatorium received a grant from the former minister of national health and welfare, now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). The grant has been continued by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). It amounted to $200,000 for the sanatorium. We had then 75 Indians in that sanatorium. We have more than doubled it now, and the sanatorium needs more money. They come to the local member and say that they need more money, and I agree with them, and we are going to try to get it.
Another need in Fort William has to do with mount McKay. Mount McKay is an outstanding asset to our city, and would be more so if it were used as a national park. We have a great ski jump there. There is natural skiing quite a distance back and all around. I am told that by the boys and girls. I do not use skis, and I do not skate very often. They tell me that there are great slides on mount McKay, as great as there are anywhere else in Canada, but the Indians own mount McKay. I am telling the minister that a delegation will be here shortly, and we shall call on him a little later on.
We have another need for industry and that is a breakwater in front of island No. 2, but I am not going to enlarge on that now. We need that for the pulp and paper industry and our saw mills and as protection for our logs.
In closing I want to say a word on the world situation. We believe in democracy and we believe in freedom, the right kind of freedom. The new chancellor of Victoria university, the Hon. L. B. Pearson, in his address to the students, called attention to the battle of ideas now going on in the modern world. He said:
Communism could never be killed by bayonets. It must be met with intellectual and spiritual weapons and1 by removing the conditions of poverty and misery in which it grows.
He went on to say:
Freedom must include the obligation to be socially useful, and to struggle against evil and injustice. Only on that concept of freedom can a free and secure society be based.
We have not very many atheists in Canada; we have some, men who do not believe in God. I received a letter a little while ago.

I read a few sentences of it and I looked down to see who was writing it. He confessed himself in his opening remarks that he was an atheist, but he did not sign the letter and I did not finish reading it. I say to hon. members: If you get an anonymous letter never read it. It will not do you any good and it will not hurt the other fellow very much either. According to the history of the world any country that leaves out its faith in God soon falls. What happened in the first war? What happened to Hitler? According to a prophet from the city of Chicago Russia will have a revolution. He said that two years ago. He said that they will have a revolution in Russia and the common people will be properly dealt with.
I deem it a great honour, Mr. Speaker, to be permitted to speak in this debate. I am sure we shall hear quite a few speeches and not very much repetition. If any hon. members happen to come down Fort William way, do not be afraid to drop in and we will treat you as becomes a progressive city. You will find, in and around Fort William, scenery that is second1 to none, even in the Rockies.


Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, as the newest member of this house, in the week since my introduction to the House of Commons I have been a most interested but a silent observer of proceedings. Now that the time has come to take a more vocal part, may I start by extending congratulations to the hon. members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. May I say also that I greatly enjoyed listening to the addresses today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the leaders of the other opposition parties. I might add, however, that I found myself much more in agreement with the views expressed on this side of the house than with the views expressed on the other side.
May I say in all seriousness that, on behalf of Calgary West, I should like to extend a word of appreciation to all hon. members for the tributes they paid last December to the memory of the late Arthur LeRoy Smith and for the messages of sympathy that came from all parts of this house to Sarah Smith.
As a member of parliament Art Smith served his country and his constituency well. He was undoubtedly one of the most popular and respected members of this parliament. He was one of the foremost citizens of our western country. As a parliamentarian, as a lawyer, as a humanitarian, as a common

man with the virtues and some of the failings of a common man, as a wit and as a proponent of common sense, Art Smith has left a rich legacy to our country.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate dealing with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in southern Saskatchewan. This of course is a serious and a potentially disastrous blow to Canada's economy, a blow that has fallen just as hard on Alberta as on any other section of the country, although, fortunately, there has been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in my home province. I trust that the government under the new legislation will deal fairly and effectively with all those who have been economically affected adversely by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I trust also that this government will deal effectively to prevent the spread of the disease to other parts of our country.
Alberta of course is one of the largest livestock raising provinces of our country. My home city, Calgary, is one of the great cattle centres of the nation. We are feeling in Alberta at the present time major adverse effects by the closing of the borders of the provinces to the east and to the west of Alberta and the closing of the United States border to the movement of cattle from Alberta and other Canadian provinces. In fact we in Alberta at the present time are in the unhappy position that our livestock is unable to move east, west or south. The only way open is north. I trust that if no other means are available the government will take all possible steps at least to convert the Eskimos of the north from blubber to beef.
There is another problem, and that is one which has already directly affected far more people than the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Out in Calgary we have taken to calling this particular malady Abbottitis. I might say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that this name given to the malady, Abbottitis, does not indicate on the part of those in Calgary who have applied the name that the minister is the virus which is carrying this malady across the country, but merely that his name is the name most closely associated with its spread.
The symptoms of Abbottitis, of course, are well known to us all. They include loss of weight, in pocketbook and bank account; they include fraying tempers and fraying cuffs; they include declining living standards; they include bigger government surpluses and more inflation. The causes of Abbottitis might briefly be stated as errors in budgeting and 55704-13
The Address-Mr. Nickle excessive taxation. There will be considerable discussion later in this session as to the cure for this malady, and at that time I trust I may have an opportunity to say more about it.
In my week in the house I have heard a great deal about a number of other constituencies in our country. Fortunately, as the representative from Calgary West I do not need to devote much time to a discussion of what Calgary West contains by way of material resources and population. My predecessor in this office well advertised Calgary West. In fact we have in that constituency about 100,000 good public relations agents, including every man, woman and child in the constituency.
The west portion of the constituency of Calgary West covers Canada's finest mountain park; I refer of course to Banff national park. That park lies immediately to the south of Jasper national park. May I say that the residents of Banff national park have only one thing they would want to trade with Jasper, and that is their respective shares of the national parks annual appropriation.
Calgary itself is, as is well known, the centre of southern Alberta's agricultural industry. It is the greatest cattle centre in Alberta. It is also the centre of many other industries. The greatest of the new industries, now rated as Alberta's No. 2 industry, is that of petroleum and natural gas. I shall devote most of my comments this evening to imparting some information concerning that oil and gas industry. Before doing so however let me say this, that I call Calgary the centre of western Canada's oil and gas industry. Perhaps I should add to that that in recent years the home constituency of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) has developed into what we can now rightly call Canada's subsidiary oil capital-


Mr. Prudham:: We have the oil.


Carl Olof Nickle: -the major capital being, of course, the constituency I represent. The story of the oil and gas industry about which you have heard something from other speakers today-and you no doubt have read a good deal about it in the papers in recent months-had its beginning in my home city. It started many years ago, back in 1912, when a number of pioneering Calgarians, who were willing to take a gamble, stepped out and did some exploratory drilling along the banks of Sheep creek in Turner valley. From those early pioneer efforts, mainly by farmers,

The Address-Mr. Nickle ranchers and small businessmen in the Calgary district, came in time the discovery of Turner valley as Canada's and the British empire's first major oil and gas field.
There also came an awakening of interest on the part of large oil companies both inside and outside Canada in the oil and gas possibilities of Alberta. As a result, through the years, up to and including 1946, a large number of companies, big and small, carried out exploration operations in Alberta and other western provinces that consumed a total of something like $50 million.
From that program came a few small oil patches, several fairly large natural gas fields, two or three major gas fields-all in Alberta -but nothing of a size that justified the high hopes that had been held out by the opening up of Turner valley as the first major field.
Five years ago, in February of 1947, the picture changed, when Imperial Oil discovered the Leduc Devonian field southwest of Edmonton. I am going to give only a few figures that, I think, will convey something of the importance of the economic revolution that has taken place in Alberta and has spread beyond Alberta to other parts of Canada in the five years since the Leduc discovery. At the beginning of 1947 Alberta was producing 19,000 barrels of oil a day. It was producing less than 10 per cent of Canada's petroleum needs. Today western Canada-and of this, 95 per cent is in Alberta -has an oil potential exceeding 250,000 barrels of oil per day. The actual yield of oil during the last year ranged, with varying seasonal market conditions, from a low of 100,000 barrels to a high last fall of 168,000 barrels daily.
Right now, with the great lakes closed to winter shipping, our oil fields in the west are producing about 120,000 barrels of oil a day. Two months from now, with the opening of the great lakes, and the start of spring work on the prairies, there will be recorded for the first time a one-thousand-per-cent increase in oil production over that which prevailed at the time of the Leduc discovery. This spring, beginning in May and continuing through until the lakes are closed again in the fall, western Canada will be producing crude oil at a rate between 190,000 and 200,000 barrels a day. By mid-1954-and this is based upon what we know concerning present fields and reserves, and rate of development, and also includes an allowance for new discoveries, of which undoubtedly there will be many-western Canada will likely have an oil potential of at least 400,000 barrels per day, an amount

equal to the total demand of all Canada for that year. The actual yield in 1954, I might say, will likely be 280,000 barrels per day, year round, daily average. That figure is based upon the steps already taken, or now being taken, to provide transportation facilities and new refining facilities to make greater use of the oil in Canada's west.
Oil reserves five years ago were counted as 100 million barrels. Today western Canada can safely count its proved oil reserve at approximately 1,700 million barrels. In other words, there is an increase of something over 1,700 per cent in five years. I doubt whether any other Canadian industry has recorded as high a percentage increase in that period.
As to the future we can say only this, that there are in western Canada 400,000 square miles of geologically favourable territory for the accumulation of oil and gas. And of that huge total less than five per cent has been explored adequately.
Of those provinces outside of Alberta, let me say that western Canada's potential oil and gas region stretches from the United States border to the Arctic ocean, from the Rocky mountains clear through to the Canadian shield. In other words, it covers practically all of Alberta, the southern half of Saskatchewan, the southwest corner of Manitoba, the northeast section of British Columbia, and stretches up through the Northwest Territories along the Mackenzie river basin to the Arctic.
The other provinces also have petroleum hopes. Geologically favourable for oil and gas are such regions as western Ontario, where Canada's first oil was produced some 90 years ago; there is the James bay area of Ontario; there is the Gaspe peninsula of Quebec; there is the Moncton area of New Brunswick where a small oil and gas field has been producing for many years; and there are the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. There are also geologically favourable areas for oil and gas in Newfoundland and along the Pacific coast of British Columbia. Rich as it is in oil and gas, Alberta is not the only part of our dominion which offers prospects of oil wealth for our nation.
Natural gas is a subject which has become of considerable interest across the country in recent years. In the last five years in Alberta there have been over 125 new natural gas discoveries. Today our natural gas reserves in Alberta are estimated at somewhere between 8,000 billion and 12,000 billion cubic feet. As to the future, no one yet can predict with any degree of certainty just how much the ultimate gas reserves of Alberta or its

neighbouring province to the east will be. But this much is certain, that the rate of gas discovery is increasing and that geologists can still say with certainty that less than 5 per cent of the area geologically favourable for gas accumulation has been explored.
Many authorities are thinking in terms of self-sufficiency in oil for Canada and a large surplus of oil and gas for Canada's neighbours. My guess is that within a decade western Canada will be turning out oil and natural gas with a value greater than the output of western Canada's agricultural industry. That is making a big statement as agriculture today is a billion dollar per year industry. Last year the oil industry in the west produced only $120 million worth of oil and gas.
What is being done to achieve this rather happy state of national self-sufficiency? A few figures will perhaps be of interest to those outside my province. Last year for the sixth year in a row the oil industry set new records. More than two hundred companies poured more than $200 million into land, exploration and development of oil and gas prospects in western Canada.
They completed 1,370 wells, including 430 dry holes. It must be remembered that the oil industry is still a mighty risky one. In addition to the dry holes, there were a number of discoveries which dwarfed anything in previous years. There were in fact 108 discoveries of oil or gas made in the west last year alone. There were 40 oil discoveries [DOT]and 68 natural gas discoveries. The province of Alberta led with 98 discoveries made up of 35 oil and 63 gas. Saskatchewan came out with 5 discoveries last year. Manitoba came out with its first 2 discoveries. British Columbia came out with 2 discoveries in the northeast section of the province.
Today new records are still being set. In the first two months of this year there have been 15 discoveries of oil and gas in western Canada. In fact word came through yesterday of another quite important discovery, the second in Calgary West constituency, of wet gas at a point thirty miles northeast of Calgary. Another discovery ninety miles northeast of Calgary was reported last week end.
I should like to say a word about the spending rate. This government has been spending money at a tremendous rate for years so perhaps these figures may not appear to be much in terms of government spending. Private enterprise in western Canada-the oil and gas industry-is spending $12 million a month on drilling and geological and geophysical exploration. It is spending more millions monthly on land acquisition, lease and reservation rentals. The number of drilling rigs in operation in the west today
55704-13J
The Address-Mr. Nickle is 237, and the number is increasing month by month. Five years ago there were only 19 drilling rigs running. Of all the rigs in the west today, 89 are drilling wildcat wells seeking new oil or gas finds.
I may say that in terms of drilling rigs active, Canada is today No. 2 among all the world's nations.
Geophysical operations-including seismograph, gravitymeter, and magnetometer-are also proceeding at a record rate, looking for the structures which geologists consider worth drilling. There are now 157 of these geophysical parties roaming the west compared with no more than a dozen five years ago. Alberta has 130 of these geophysical parties; Saskatchewan has 19; Manitoba has 3 and British Columbia has 5. Of the drilling rigs, Alberta has 203; Saskatchewan has 23; Manitoba has 5 and British Columbia has 6. I may say that Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia are still in the early stages of exploration and development as compared with my home province of Alberta.
In the five years since the Leduc discovery started the modern oil boom $1,000 million or more in capital investment has been made. Over $500 million of that has gone into land exploration and development. The balance has gone into pipe lines, tankers, refineries and other facilities across the nation to provide the oil and gas industry in the west with the products and materials it needs.
There are certain coming events which will help to shape the destiny of the oil industry. One of these is the oil pipe line to the Pacific coast. Construction on that pipe line will start this spring and will be completed by the spring of 1954. The next coming event I believe will be an oil exchange program of some kind, to be worked out I trust by this government and the United States. It is only by means of an oil exchange program or something similar that Canada can reach self-sufficiency in petroleum. Far eastern markets are too far distant cost-wise from the oil fields of western Canada to be reached direct.
The next event may be approval by the Alberta government, which I trust will be soon, of export of natural gas. When gas export is approved this parliament will take on the responsibility of determining whether the east, the west or the south will get Alberta gas first. Another coming event is the growth of a large petrochemical industry in Alberta. No comments on oil and gas would be complete without a few words as to the benefits, direct and indirect, which stem from oil to the communities where oil has been found, and

The Address-Mr. NicJcle to the country as a whole. In Alberta the government owns 90 per cent of the mineral rights underlying the province. The government of that province has developed a formula which involves a minimum of risk and a maximum of profit for the treasury of the province. That formula has also given a fair share to those willing to explore or put up moneys for exploration. As a result, since the discovery of Leduc five years ago the Alberta treasury has reaped over $130 million in cash returns from oil and gas. I might say that from the oil and gas reserves on government lands in Alberta that are proved at the present time, royalties payable to the government and proceeds still to be received in bonuses from crown reserves sales and from rentals and fees will likely bring the Alberta treasury over the next decade at least another $500 million. This is not an invitation of course to the federal government to find some means of slapping a tax on the province of Alberta.
because of the lower cost petroleum products made available by Alberta oil. The fuel bill of the prairie provinces is now at least $50 million a year less than it would have been if it had not been for the displacement of higher cost foreign oil by the crude oils of Alberta.
At least as important as all the other benefits in these times of world struggle between communism and democracy is the building up of rich oil and gas reserves, transport and refining facilities and associated industries in the heart of the North American continent. These resources of western Canada are now a mighty weapon and will become an even more mighty one in the hands of Canada and her friends in waging and winning war against the evil forces lurking behind the iron curtain.


Mr. Wylie:: Do not tell them too much.


Carl Olof Nickle: With respect to the other parts of the west, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia have begun to collect exploration fees, rentals and royalties. They, like Alberta, are sharing in the benefits of oil spending and increased employment. In fact in the last five years the oil industry has increased the number employed in western Canada by over 10,000 workers, and the number is growing rapidly year by year. The hopes of Alberta are bright that the province will become one of Canada's great industrial provinces because of oil and gas and the by-products of petroleum and gas.
As most of you know, a $50 million plant is now under construction at Edmonton to turn out a broad range of petrochemicals from the rich gases obtained from the refining of Alberta crude oil. At Fort Saskatchewan a new plant under construction will use Alberta gas to refine nickel ores brought from Manitoba. Sulphur plants are being built at Turner valley and Jumping Pound near Calgary. Alberta has become a major oil refining area. One thing that is not yet sufficiently realized in my home province is that gas export will make available from the raw gas a host of liquid and solid by-products that can be used in Alberta to turn out plastics, synthetic rubber, fabrics, detergents and many other products of the petrochemical industry. In other words, in my opinion gas export will help to speed the industrial growth of my home province.
The consumers of the prairie provinces- and this is something of particular interest to our neighbours in Saskatchewan and Manitoba-are enjoying a reduced fuel bill
Messrs:
Adamson
Argue
Aylesworth
Beyerstein
Black (Cumberland)
Blackmore
Blair
Browne (St. John's West)
Bryce
Cardiff
Casselman
Charlton
Churchill
Coldwell
Courtemanche
Dinsdale
Drew
Fair
Fairclough, Mrs.
Ferguson
Fleming
Gillis
Graydon
Green
Harkness
Hees
Herridge
Higgins
Hodgson
Johnston
Jones
Knight
Knowles
Lennard
Macdonnell (Greenwood) MacLean (Queens) McGregor McLure Meeker Murphy Nickle Quelch
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thomas
Wright-45.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Abbott
Anderson
Applewhaite
Arsenault
Balcom
Bater
Bennett
Bertrand
Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Blue Boisvert Boivin Bonnier Boucher Bradette
Brown (Essex West)
Bruneau
Byrne
Campney
Carter
Corry
Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Cote (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville)
Crestohl
Cruickshank
Decore
Demers
Denis
Dion
Dube
Eyre
Ferrie
Follwell
Fontaine
Fournier (Hull)
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fulford
Garland
Garson
Gauthier (Portneuf)
George
Gibson
Gingues

Gour (Russell)	Mclvor
Gregg	McLean (Huron-Perth)
Harris (Grey-Bruce)	Maltais
Harrison	Monette
Hetland	Mott
Hosking	Murray (Cariboo)
Hunter	Murray (Oxford)
James	Power
Kirk (Antigonish-	Prudham
Guysborough)	Ratelle
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)	Richard (Ottawa East) ,
Lafontaine	Riley
Laing	Roberge
Langlois (Berthier-	Rousseau
Maskinonge)	St. Laurent
Langlois (Gaspe)	Sinnott
Lapointe	Stick
Larson	Tremblay
Leduc	Valois
Lesage	Ward
Macdonald (Edmonton	Weir
East)	Welbourn
McCann	Winters
McCusker	Wood
McDonald (Parry Sound	- Wylie-90.
Muskoka)	
The house divided	on the amendment (Mr. Drew) which was negatived on the following	
division:	
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Adamson	Graydon
Argue	Green
Aylesworth	Harkness
Beyerstein	Hees
Black (Cumberland)	Herridge
Blackmore	Higgins
Blair	Hodgson
Browne (St. John's West) Johnston	
Bryce	Jones
Cardiff	Knight
Casselman	Knowles
Charlton	Lennard
Churchill	Macdonnell (Greenwood)
Coldwell	MacLean (Queens)
Courtemanche	McLure
Dinsdale	Meeker
Drew	Murphy
Fair	Nickle
Fairclough, Mrs.	Quelch
Ferguson	Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Fleming	Thomas
Gillis	Wright-44.
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Abbott	Bonnier
Anderson	Boucher
Applewhaite	Bradette
Arsenault	Brown (Essex West)
Balcom	Bruneau
Bater	Byrne
Bertrand	Campney
Black (Chateauguay-	Carter
Huntingdon-Laprairie)	Corry
Blue	Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Boisvert	Cote (St. Jean-Iberville-
Boivin	Napierville)
The Address-Division
Crestohl	Langlois (Gaspe)
Cruickshank	Lapointe
Decore	Larson
Demers	Leduc
Denis	I.esage
Dion	Macdonald (Edmonton
Dube	East)
Eyre	McCann
Ferrie	McCusker
Follwell	McDonald (Parry Sour
Fontaine	Muskoka)
Fournier (Hull)	Mclvor
Fournier (Maisonneuve-	McLean (Huron-Perth)
Rosemont)	Maltais
Fulford	Monette
Garland	Mott
Garson	Murray (Cariboo)
Gauthier (Portneuf)	Murray (Oxford)
George	Power
Gibson	Prudham
Gingues	Ratelle
Gour (Russell)	Richard (Ottawa East)
Gregg	Riley
Harris (Grey-Bruce)	Roberge
Harrison	Rousseau
Hetland	St. Laurent
Hosking	Sinnott
Hunter	Stick
James	Tremblay
Kirk (Antigonish-	Valois
Guysborough)	Ward
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)	Weir
Lafontaine	Welbourn
Laing	Winters
Langlois (Berthier-	Wood-88.
Maskinonge)


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


Mr. Ross (Souris):: I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
On motion of Mr. Abbott the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Friday, March 7, 1952