1952-12-15

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise on a question of privilege. In this morning's Montreal Gazette there is an editorial dealing with the speech made in this house two days ago by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. The editorial includes this sentence:
When he-
The reference is to the hon. member for Moose Jaw.
-recommended one tax cut, a fellow C.C.F. member exclaimed: "Over my dead body!"
I am sure all members of the house-


An hon. Member:: You said that years ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members are confirming the point I wish to make as a question of privilege. My offer of my dead body was in opposition to the means test being applied either to the family allowance or to the old age pension. I may say, too, on my own behalf and on behalf of the members of this party, that we favour a reduction in the personal income tax, particularly for those in the lower income brackets-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but we are opposed to any reduction in corporation taxes.



FARM PRODUCTS


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I should like to make a brief statement with respect to the lifting of the United States embargo against our livestock, meat and hay. Most hon. members will have read in the press or heard on the radio yesterday's news report from Washington indicating the early lifting of the embargo in so far as hay from eastern provinces is concerned. It will be remembered that on November 28 a news report came from Washington which was interpreted to mean that the embargo against livestock, meat and other products affected, would be lifted on March 1, 1953.
The announcement said: "If present favourable conditions continue Canada will be declared free of foot-and-mouth disease on March 1, 1953".
Since the statement did not actually say that the embargo would be lifted on March 1, and because we had maintained frequent contact with the United States authorities and had reason to expect that the embargo against some products at least might be lifted at an earlier date than March 1, we refrained from making any public comment pending further discussion with the United States authorities.
Shortly afterward I arranged to meet Secretary Brannan in Washington and actually did meet him on December 5. I can tell the house that the meeting was most favourable, that I was assured that the United States authorities regarded our measures for the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease as being wholly effective, and further that they are anxious to see normal trade in livestock, meat and other products affected, resumed as soon as possible.
After my visit to Washington, the acting secretary of agriculture published a notice in the federal register expressing the intention of the department to lift the embargo against Canadian livestock and meat and stating that representations on the proposal would be received from the public until January 16.
As I mentioned a moment ago, yesterday's news from Washington has been taken by some to mean that the embargo had actually been lifted in so far as hay originating in eastern Canadian provinces was concerned. According to information we have from Washington, that is not exactly the case. Yesterday the department of agriculture in Washington posted a public notice to the effect that hay for use as feed would be allowed to enter the United States from eastern Canada after the publication of the official notice in the federal register. We understand that the official notice may be published within a matter of a few days.
While no assurance whatever can be given as to what, if any, further action the United States authorities may take to advance the date of the lifting of the embargo, I think the house will agree that the steps already taken by the United States government are most welcome and support the view that further steps may be taken before March 1.



S94 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: There is a motion under the name of the Prime Minister respecting the hours of sitting which can be proceeded with now or when government notices of motions are called.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister) moved:: That on Monday, December 15, 1952, and every sitting day thereafter until the debate on the motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session has been disposed of, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock a.m., and shall continue to sit until eleven o'clock p.m.; and that in addition to the usual intermission from six to eight o'clock p.m. there shall also be an intermission from one to two-thirty o'clock p.m., and that the provisions of standing orders 2, 6 and 7 be suspended in relation thereto.
He said; I might just say a few words at this time. We have now had 106 speeches during this debate, which means that about 150 members, or perhaps more, will be entitled to speak. I do not think any of us wishes to curtail the debate in any way. To me it has been an excellent debate and
I	think any hon. member who wishes to speak should have an opportunity to do so. On the other hand, a great many members, particularly those who live some distance away, are anxious to make arrangements for returning to their homes before the holiday. I think I can say that if the debate should come to an end on Wednesday we will adjourn on Wednesday, and if it continues beyond that day we will adjourn on the day on which the debate ends.
The hours suggested from 11 o'clock to
II	o'clock are the old hours pertaining to morning sittings. I think it could be understood that if we had had a good day up until ten o'clock and if a speaker finishes on or after that time, a motion to adjourn would then be supported by the house. But I, think it should be left to the house to decide how soon after ten o'clock the house will adjourn. In any event, the proposal of the motion is that the house shall adjourn at eleven o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Acting Prime Minister for meeting in part the point about which I was getting to my feet a moment ago. I am happy to support the motion in so far as it provides for morning sittings during the remainder of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I offer that support because I was a member of Your Honour's committee on procedure which

wrestled with this question of hours and which made the recommendation that if the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne lasted more than a week we should establish morning sittings.
However, I am disturbed-although my concern has been lessened somewhat by what the Acting Prime Minister has said just now-by the fact that this motion calls for the house to sit until eleven o'clock in the evening. I think it should be put on the record that the recommendation made by the committee in this regard, to be found on page 602 of Votes and Proceedings for June 27, 1952, reads as follows:
Your committee also recommends that, without amending the standing orders, consideration should be given by the house at the beginning of next session to holding morning sittings during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, starting approximately a week after the opening of parliament, subject to the suspension of said morning sittings if the debate on the address is interrupted for other business.
I point out that when we made that recommendation there was no suggestion that the sitting hours should be extended beyond ten o'clock at night. I think it is fair to say that not only the committee but the house as a whole wrestled with this question of the proper hours of sitting for two full sessions and we are all quite satisfied with the hours that have been arrived at, namely, 2.30 to 10 o'clock with the usual intermission.
I think all of us, particularly those of us who have had years of experience with the eleven o'clock closing, find that the ten o'clock closing hour is much better all round. Accordingly it seems to me we should not try to carry this house past ten o'clock at night. I welcome the suggestion which the Acting Prime Minister has made that it might be that we will adjourn at ten o'clock every evening despite the terms of this motion. I hope that in future even the possibility of going on to eleven o'clock will not be included in the motion because it seems to me that it would meet with the spirit of the committee's recommendation and with the will of the house generally if it were established that ten o'clock at night is late enough, bearing in mind that for most of us our day starts at nine o'clock in the morning.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 37 (from the Senate), to amend the Indian Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SAINT JOHN BRIDGE AND RAILWAY EXTENSION COMPANY


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 38 (from the Senate), respecting the Saint John Bridge and Railway Extension Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION


Lionel Chevrier: the first reading of Bill No. 39 (from the Senate), to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS FOR NATIONAL RAILWAYS

Lionel Chevrier: the first reading of Bill No. 40 (from the Senate), respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILL


Mr. J. N. Corry (for Mr. Bennett) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 41 (from the Senate), respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REPARATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to direct a question to the minister who is Acting Secretary of State. Will he inform the house as to what progress is being made in regard to the payment of Japanese and German reparations in pursuance of the report made to the government by Chief Justice Ilsley of the province of Nova Scotia.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry to say that neither the
Inquiries of the Ministry acting minister nor the minister is present today. If the question could be taken as notice an answer will be given on Monday.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries? In view of the impending trade mission to South America to be headed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), can he state if any requests have been made by NAFEL, which is the single export agency in Newfoundland for salt codfish, to the Department of Fisheries for representation on this trade mission?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. No direct representations have been made recently to the department, but both the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Trade and Commerce have been working continuously over the last few years with NAFEL and with the codfish exporters of the maritime provinces in an effort to open the Brazilian market to Canadian codfish. The impending trade mission has been fully briefed on the problem and I am sure will make every endeavour to find a way out of the current difficulty.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport a question which arises out of a telegram I received from the president of the miners union in Nova Scotia, a copy of which I sent to the minister. Can he inform the house if it is the intention of the Canadian National Railways to place a number of diesel engines on the run between Truro, Nova Scotia, and Sydney? This information is rather important to the union as they are in the process of wage negotiations.


Lionel Chevrier: I received the notice which the hon. gentleman was good enough to send me just a short time before I came into the house. I attempted to get a reply, but I have not been successful. If he will allow the question to stand until Monday, I think by that time I can get a reply.

Inquiries of the Ministry TELEVISION



PROGRAMS SPONSORED BY BREWING COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Will the
Minister of National Revenue inform the house whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has accepted or anticipates accepting the sponsorship of programs telecasting wrestling or boxing matches sponsored by a brewing company in Montreal?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his question. The answer is yes. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is prepared, in the province of Quebec, to telecast programs sponsored by brewing companies under conditions similar to those laid down in sound broadcasting regulations, which provide for such sponsorship in a province where beer and wine advertising is allowed. The regulations allow for identification of the sponsoring company only, and do not permit advertising of its product on the air.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask a supplementary question? In view of the answer just given by the minister, may we take this as a statement of policy by the government, that provincial authorities have some control over television broadcasting?


James Joseph McCann: I do not know that that bears any relationship to this specific question. I shall take it as notice of a question.



ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Is the
parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence in a position to state whether any decision has been arrived at with respect to the payment of travelling expenses for servicemen travelling to their homes on leave?


Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: The
hon. gentleman was good enough to send me notice of his question. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has also inquired in respect to the same matter.
The present position regarding transportation costs for men in the armed forces going on leave is, briefly, as follows: Personnel proceeding to, or returning from, service in the Far East or Europe are provided at public expense with free transportation, berth and

meals to their stated home address; in other words, when they are on special embarkation, or disembarkation leave.
Personnel serving in Canada are entitled to one annual leave and are granted an allowance calculated at the rate of 1J cents per mile for each mile of the complete journey in excess of 500 miles. The question of an increase in the mileage rate, and a reduction in the distance beyond which the mileage allowance is payable, are both at present under consideration. On leaves other than those referred to above, a member of the services bears his own expenses.
I might mention that in many cases where military transportation is following the route of a man who is going on leave, and room is available, he is given free transportation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: In the absence of the Minister of National Defence as well as the Acting Minister of National Defence, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. Can he assure us that the report by Mr. George
S.	Currie will be presented to this house before we rise for the Christmas recess?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: I have no information on that matter, Mr. Speaker. I shall take it as notice of a question.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the assurances given last spring, may I ask that steps be taken towards ascertaining when this report will be ready?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: As I recall, Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of National Defence left this question was asked, and he replied that the report would be given in the course of the next few days.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am directing-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


George Alexander Drew: I am directing my remarks to you in the form of a question. East spring, on April 21, assurance was given to this house that a report was to be presented at the earliest possible date. This house acted upon that statement. In answer to several requests, we have been given no information, and I suggest that the department is in contempt of this house in the course it is following.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure there is nothing that I can do with respect to the matter.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. L. Deslieres for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Blackmore.
(Translation):
Mr J. H. Rousseau (Rimouski): Mr. Speaker, I would like to sum up in a few sentences the remarks I made before the adjournment of the house last night. I gave, first of all, the reasons why I am speaking in French again this year. I then offered you my congratulations for the way in which you have improved your pronunciation, especially when you read the opening prayers in French. I then added my tribute to the congratulations already offered the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I then congratulated the members of the press gallery, whom I called the photographers of our ideas, of our feelings and of our speeches, which they have the art of condensing in such a way as to please their readers. I then mentioned extraordinary happenings and even heavenly interventions which contributed to the allied victory during the wars of 1914-1918 and 1939-45, wars for which the allies were not prepared. I also stated that those two wars were very costly in money and human lives, and had it not been for the courage and the indomitable energy of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, after the disaster at Dunkirk, the whole world would be today under the intolerable yoke of nazism. I have expressed my sincere thanks to the hon. ministers, to their parliamentary assistants and their subordinates for their liberality in meeting all just and reasonable requests from my electors. I stated that the Liberal government was managing the business of Canada in the interest of Canadians, in much the same way as directors of large corporations do, in the interest and for the benefit of their shareholders.
I now pursue my remarks. In my humble opinion, three factors may help us to prevent another war, which would be more terrible, more devastating than the wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45, because of the new weapons now in use. These three factors are:
First, the rosary crusades spreading the recitation of the rosary all over Canada.
The Address-Mr. Rousseau This is the answer of the faithful to the request they received from our Lady of Fatima.
Moral rearmament, that admirable movement which has produced such good results in the countries where it is known, which puts order into every class of society, from the point of view of spirituality and morality as well as from that of human endeavour, has made of all those men and women who have taken part in it citizens respectful of moral, religious and civil laws. I might add that it is this movement which communism fears above everything else.
And finally, this expensive but necessary preparation. Dollars, once lost, can be recovered, but not human lives.
I therefore believe that we must not criticize the government on account of the expenditure involved in this defence effort, especially since all the moneys spent have been honestly spent.
In spite of this enormous expenditure, the government have found a way to legislate for the Canadian people in a wise, farseeing fashion, to carry out those works necessary to a healthy national economy, from one ocean to the other, such as the Halifax-Dartmouth bridge or the Canso bridge in the east, the St. Lawrence seaway project in central Canada, the irrigation of 500,000 acres of land in Saskatchewan.
Among those wise legislative measures I shall mention but two: those concerning old age pensions and family allowances.
During my 50 years' experience as a country notary, I have been the confidant of many families who found themselves in sorrowful situations. Very often an old man or an old woman, after having given away all their earthly goods to their son, would come crying for an explanation of certain clauses of their act of donation, wondering whether they could be deprived of their annuity. This meant that the son wished to get rid of his aged parents to cease paying them an annuity. Today, thanks to that wise and provident piece of legislation, the children would like to see their aged parents, who are the protectors of our families, live as long as possible, because they will continue to receive monthly cheques of $40 as long as they live and share them with their children and grandchildren.
We are all Christians and we all know the great commandment, "honour thy father and mother". This act, therefore, helps children to put this commandment into practice; these young people thus ensure for themselves happy old age, because, as you well know,
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Rousseau Mr. Speaker, we reap as we sow. Therefore, honour is due to the Liberal government for having initiated this wonderful policy of old age pensions at 70. An old man has no longer the strength and courage to beg for himself; he now finds joy and happiness in his generosity to others.
Honour is also due to the Liberal government for their family allowances, which in the case of each child, from the day of his birth to the age of 16, amount to a total of $1,188. Since that act has been in operation, one can see convents and colleges full of pupils who would not be, without the allowances, in a position to attend these courses. Mr. Speaker, I have received hundreds of letters from mothers in my constituency, asking that the allowances be doubled, instead of spending money for war purposes.
To this I will give a frank and clear answer. Defence expenditures, as T have attempted to demonstrate, are absolutely necessary to the security of Canada and of its people. In fact, if the communists should ever take control of this country, liberty in all its forms would disappear; religious, civil and individual freedom. Everything would become the property of the state. That would, of course, be the knell of family allowances such as we know them now.
I am therefore convinced that everyone will readily admit that it is preferable to continue our defence effort so as to prevent this and keep family allowances at their present level.
I hasten to add though that, as soon as the danger of war has passed, as soon as defence expenditures cease, I will ask the government to increase, to double even, the family allowances which are such a boon to our large families.
I will also ask the government to assist those incapacitated persons who, while they are not old enough to receive the old age pension, and are not entitled either to the pension for the blind, are yet unable to earn their living and weigh heavily upon their families.
Mr. Speaker, should we set aside our present government which is a good government made up of honest, competent, conscientious and devoted ministers, for the sole reason that a change is in order? Do the shareholders of a company ever cast aside directors whose management has been wise and who show yearly surpluses? Of course the answer is no.
That is why we Liberals believe that the population of Canada will keep its trust in the Liberal party which gave the nation such good laws, which administers public affairs so honestly that bank deposits are larger than
[Stage Direction]

ever, and which allows all social classes more comfort and more pleasures than they have ever enjoyed since Canada came into existence.
The ship "Canada" is manned by a first-class crew. Her captain is prudent, enlightened, conscientious and thoroughly honest. Indeed our very distinguished Prime Minister has succeeded in surrounding himself with officers who are both qualified and hardworking in their own sphere. Then why should we change, since the consequences of such a move cannot be foreseen. In that respect, I beg leave to retell one of the witty stories which that great Canadian, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, told in 1908 at Murray Bay, in Charlevoix county, during a speech he made before a large gathering of people.
"My good friends," he said, "our opponents ask you to elect a new government. Would you be any better off if you did? I claim that you wouldn't. Let me tell you a story as old as the world but very true: The Lord had finished His wonderful creative work, the universe He had made so beautiful because He wanted the happiness of Adam and Eve to be as perfect as possible. These two human beings were perfectly happy in the garden of Eden, as they had been for a long time, when Satan, jealous at the sight of their happiness, came to Eve and asked her if she was happy. Eve answered that they were.
"And Satan said to her: 'You cannot be
perfectly happy since you cannot eat those beautiful apples on that tree. I know that you have been forbidden to eat of that fruit but that is because the Lord does not want you to become His equals. Eat of that fruit and you shall be as gods.' And Eve went to Adam and was so successful in her pleading that both of them ate of the fruit. You know what happened afterwards to the human race, what we have had to pay for that grave error committed by our first parents."
To bring my speech to an end, I say: We have a good government, let us keep it.
(Text):
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: 
Mr. Gibson:: You have four Senators.


Mr. McLure:: You are not one, anyway.


John Lambert Gibson: I come from Vancouver island; we have not any and we have four times the population you have.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: You had better stay there; you know where you are well off.
When the hon. member interrupted me I had just about finished dealing with the parliamentary assistant to the former minister of fisheries. According to an item which
The Address-Mr. McLure appeared in one of the Ottawa papers, there is still an opportunity for our province. The item says that there is still an opportunity to make way for the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacNaught) by making him the Solicitor General. We shall wait and see who's who and what's what when that appointment is made.
I was glad to note, when the different appointments were made, that a co-cabinet minister, you might say, was given to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). In my humble opinion the Minister of National Defence has had a job of work to do which it was impossible for any one man to do, particularly because of the difficult times through which we are going. Now he has an assistant and I hope that we shall be able to get more information. I am sure that all members will agree with me that the Minister of National Defence, who now has an assistant, has been doing more work than all the rest of the ministers of the cabinet put together. I hope he will be able to take his work a little easier from now on.
The Liberal party has never kept faith with our province. We always hope that they will mend their ways and give us some opportunity not only to be represented in the cabinet but to get what we really deserve in other ways.
Before proceeding with my general remarks I should like to mention something that has been mentioned before by other speakers. I refer to the adverse publicity that our province has received from a periodical known as Maclean's magazine. Considerable comment has been made on this adverse advertising. The junior member of the dual constituency of Queens (Mr. MacLean), when speaking on the tourist trade of our province, made some reference to this. Speaking of the periodical which contained these items he made this remark, as reported at page 362 of Hansard:
I myself have eaten in most of the public eating places in Queens county.
Then he went on:
Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me when I say that both the senior member for Queens and myself look reasonably well fed.
As one of the two living examples referred to in these remarks, I want to place credit where credit is due. For the last fifty years or over I have had the same culinary employee or, you might say, the same culinary expert in charge of my cuisine, and that expert is my wife. The junior member for Queens has just started out on that kind of campaign, as a first trial.
Let me say that I have received a great many letters with respect to the advertising
600	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McLure I have mentioned. Some of those letters I could not put on the record because I think their language would be considered unparliamentary. I might however refer to one item I have here, which is contained in a column headed "As The Journal Sees It", purporting to be written by one who describes himself as "J. J.". The Journal writer is giving his version-and this, may I add, is the Summer-side Journal and The Pioneer published at Summerside, Prince Edward Island. This writer who signs himself "J.J." is quite distinguished in his field.
That portion of the column to which I make special reference is headed "By Gorsh!!", and begins with this little poem:
Some photos-by Karsh!
Can really be harsh;
So say cattle owners Near Fullerton's marsh?
Then the writer goes on to say:
This big-feeling foreigner, now Canadian, who visited Charlottetown this summer on his tour for Maclean's magazine, is quoted in the last issue of that publication as saying that the cuisine in Prince Edward Island was lamentable and the worst meal he's ever eaten in Canada was at the hotel where he stayed in Charlottetown. His worst experience at the island capital was when a dish alleged to be potato Florentine was set before him. "Karsh simply buried his face in his hands at the fearful sight," Maclean's tell us.
This is terrible, indeed. A tremendous let-down from the savory dishes of Arabia, or what have you, to which he had been accustomed before coming to this unsophisticated land of Canada.
That is some tribute to the gentleman who came down there! He deserves it all; and I would add only this-not as "J.J." but as myself-that if and when this individual may, perchance, visit my province again, with Maclean's magazine in his teeth, he will be as welcome as a skunk in a nudist colony.
We have had in our province visits from some of the finest ladies and gentlemen, who have spent holidays there. Any province would have been proud to have them. We have visitors of different kinds coming in from time to time, and during the last season there was the usual number. In addition to the regular tourists we always had some political callers.
Perhaps I might mention one or two of these who visited us in the past season. One of them was the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). He called on me, and we had a friendly visit at my home. I was glad to have a call from this gentleman, because many of the politicians who come down from Ottawa give me the go-by.
Then, that stately gentleman, the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), visited the province, and was good enough to phone me and express his regrets-and I


believe sincerely-that he was unable to visit me. I was glad, though, even to have the telephone conversation with him. We were delighted to have these two gentlemen visit our province while they were on business. However, I think I deserve a call from even the best, as well as the worst of them.
I had a most enjoyable visitor at my home in the person of the jovial member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard). The hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie), too, paid me a visit at my own home. We leave our door open for any of these visitors who might wish to pay us a call during the holiday season.
If Maclean's magazine wanted to get some information about Prince Edward Island, why did they not get in touch with some of the people who have been coming for years to Prince Edward Island, rather than go to a foreigner-who is now a doubtful Canadian -looking for a report they might publish later as, in this instance, they have done.
I am sorry I have had to mention this occurrence today. However, I do so in order that hon. members on all sides of the house may know what has been said and done in discrimination against the best tourist ground to be found anywhere in Canada.
It was not my intention to say anything about transportation but, after what happened a few days ago, perhaps I should make reference to it. As hon. members know, I have always discussed the subject of transportation because it is the very lifeblood of Prince Edward Island. It would mean a great deal both to the buyers and to the marketing board if we could have what we should have, and that is far better transportation facilities than we have today.
Let us refer, for a moment, to what took place recently. On Tuesday, December 9, before the orders of the day were called, I asked a plain and wholesome question of the Minister of Transport.
This was my question:
Has the Canadian maritime commission reported to the minister with reference to federal aid for improvements to the ferry service between Wood Island and Caribou, the connecting line between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia? If not, why not?
The answer I received to that was one big, plain, No. It would seem the answer to the first question was that there has been no report. I suggest however that an answer could have been given to the last part of my question in which I asked why no report had been made. As the representative of the people of the constituency of Queens and of Prince Edward Island in general I deserve a decent reply to that part of the question.

If he had desired to do so he could have said that he would go back to this buffer commission and ask them to make a report immediately. It is the same old deal so far as we are concerned. The Northumberland Ferries Limited has made representations to the government on several occasions but they have always approached the wrong body. They go to the Canadian maritime commission, and according to the terms of confederation of 1873 between the province of Prince Edward Island and the Dominion of Canada that commission has no authority whatsoever to deal with the question of transportation. The maritime commission is simply a buffer commission. I notice that my secretary put it as "bluffer" commission. It is only a buffer commission for the Minister of Transport and the government.
As I said a year ago, when the representatives of the Northumberland ferry company come here they should never have anything to do with this buffer commission. They should make their demands on the Minister of Transport and the government. They should place their arguments and claims before them and file their brief with them. Then they would not have to wait for days for the buffer commission to make up excuses for the government so that they can turn around and say, "According to the maritime commission we cannot do this" or "we cannot do that".
I said a moment ago that I was not going to say anything about this matter but now that I have entered upon it I will say a bit more. The brief that was presented to the Canadian maritime commission on behalf of the Northumberland Ferries Limited was an excellent one. It gave all the details, facts and figures and pictured the growth of this private enterprise ferry system from the time it started up until now. In the last two or three years the situation has become such that the ferry company cannot handle more than two-thirds of the freight, passengers, automobiles and trucks requiring transportation from Caribou on one side of the strait and Wood Island on the other. If you wish to cross the strait in the busy season you have to make application forty-eight hours before the boat sails for space for your car or truck unless you have a priority.
What we want there and what the Northumberland Ferries Limited is seeking is assistance. The company is not coming to the government asking for something for nothing. It is asking for assistance to obtain another ship or two, at least one large one, in order to take care of the traffic that has originated at these points ever since the service came into operation. It is the only link we have
The Address-Mr. McLure binding Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. Members of the house may not know our troubles and the perplexities of our transportation system, but judging by what I have seen of other hon. members there is not one of them, in fact there is not a province in Canada, that would stand for the deal we are getting from the government with respect to transportation.
All hon. members know that it took about four years of harping at the government before we got the Abegweit for the run between Borden and Tormentine. We now have an excellent service there but it is not capable of handling all the freight that is offered. In the busy season we want extra transportation facilities. When we entered into confederation that was one promise that was made to us. That is in the agreement, and no Liberal government has ever tried to fulfil the terms of the agreement. We have a good ferry service between Borden and Tormentine but the thanks for that must go to the Borden administration. When Sir Robert Borden was campaigning in 1910 he said that this service would be provided and it was, but forty years after we entered confederation.
I repeat that there is not another province in Canada that would stand for even five years for not having the terms of its confederation agreement fulfilled. I often think there should be some way whereby when a province is unjustly treated by the dominion it could have the opportunity to take its case before the judges of the country and argue its claims. Not half of our terms of confederation have been fulfilled. A commission was appointed to look into the matter in 1926 under the chairmanship of Sir Andrew Rae Duncan. It was a wonderful commission. He went into a great many details and made recommendations but the Liberal government has not fulfilled one of them although they appointed the commission.
I must say, however, that in the short time the Conservative government was in power some of the recommendations of the commission were fulfilled, and I can assure the house that when a Conservative government takes office we will look to it for the proper fulfilment of the terms of confederation of 1873. The buffer maritime commission, which is now just dilly-dallying and which has the government and Department of Transport behind it, says, "Well, let it go; we will let you know later." The same thing happened last year, and what was the result? When the busy tourist season came along we could not handle half the tourists who came to Caribou wanting to cross over to Wood Island. Let me repeat that we are not begging from the government. All we are
602	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McLure asking is that consideration and assistance be given so that we can get a larger boat or two and also a subsidy because the Borden-Tormentine ferry receives a subsidy.
There is a difference in the subsidies paid to the two ferries. The Northumberland Ferries Limited comes to the government each year and asks for a certain subsidy. If it is granted they know what it is. On the other hand, a subsidy is provided for the Borden-Tormentine ferry system but it is one that is dictated by the Canadian National Railways according to their bookkeeping system. They do not know at the start of the season what it is going to be and when they ask for it at the end of the season they are told what the subsidy will be according to their bookkeeping. That has to be paid to them by the government. The Northumberland Ferries Limited are not asking for that; they are asking only for assistance which will be known from the start for what it is.
I might say further that the people get disgusted with the way the government is using them in the way of transportation and they ask me what is going on. They say to me, "Is the government trying to sell us out to the Canadian National and do away with private interest?" That is what is going on. We hear it every day. They are afraid an attempt is being made to get rid of the competition by Northumberland Ferries Limited.	,
As everyone knows, the government owns the Borden-Tormentine ferry. Its operation is turned over to a subcontractor, the Canadian National Railways. I have nothing against the Canadian National Railways, but I do have something against the government. The running of this ferry was handed over to the Canadian National Railways who had not invested a dollar in it. Up until three years ago they had the power to charge whatever freight rates they liked.
When I came back here in 1945,1 remember, trucks were just commencing to handle produce from Prince Edward Island. A loaded five-ton truck leaving Prince Edward Island for the mainland was forced to pay $60.65 for the return trip. They just could not make that much profit on their load. By continued fighting in the house it was finally got down to a reasonable rate, but the rate has not reached the point where it fulfils the terms of confederation. There should be a free ferry system to provide the fulfilment of the terms of confederation of 1873. There is a good deal more I could say about transportation but as the minister is conveniently absent I shall rest my case right there.

I seemed to be unlucky on December 9 when I disturbed some ministers of the crown by asking a question which apparently,made at least two of them somewhat disgruntled. The question I asked was about a dominion building and will be found on page 459 of Hansard of that day. I got what I thought was a snooty answer, something I did not expect to get. However, there always comes another time. I could not reply at the time I asked the genial minister what I thought was a civil question. My question was as follows:
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Are the plans and specifications for the oft-promised dominion building at Charlottetown being completed? If not, why?
A little while ago I referred to the answer I got as being snooty. I do not know whether that term is good enough or strong enough, but I did not expect the answer I got which was:
t believe it deserves s spscisl snswer,
I got a special answer all right.
It asks first: Are the plans and specifications for the oft-promised dominion building at Charlottetown completed? First of all, it is known that the hon. member has promised that building for a long time-
That is very true.


Alphonse Fournier: That is a good answer.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister's answer
continues:
-and he Is having trouble to implement that political promise.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I do not know that I am having trouble, but there are likely to be others, besides myself, having trouble. The minister continued:
Secondly, the plans are not completed. Then he asks: If not, why? Well, we are trying to make perfect plans for a perfect building at Charlottetown.


Alphonse Fournier: Don't you agree?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Then McLure got up and said:
It is strange, is it not, that the plans are not completed, when-
Rightly so, the minister would not allow me to debate the subject there and then. However, I just want to put the minister right on this. He says that I have promised. Knowing him as I thought I knew him, naturally I believed what he told me. I went back to my people and told them. Furthermore, we know that all these things are on tap during an election and the people wanted to know about this dominion building. Just prior to the last election-this may have been good advertising for the Liberals-an artist's drawing of this huge building, which might

The Address-Mr. McLure
be considered specifications of a kind, was published in all the papers in Prince Edward Island. I do not know whether such things are done without the Minister of Public Works knowing about them.


Alphonse Fournier: They may be.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister should know more about his department before he makes the statement that I promised it. These things come out and naturally when he tells me that he has bought the property down there I believe him. The records show that a year ago he told me that all the properties had been paid for. I do not know, that may be true or it may not.
He told me also that they are running a rental system down there, that they have engaged a man who rents their properties, collects the rents, and keeps the properties in repair. But the minister does not know when this building is going to be built. I venture to say that there will be a promise just as soon as the next election-


An hon. Member:: Again?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I will not believe it anyway. According to what the minister said when answering my question and when he put the blame on me-


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, no.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I took the first part of-


Alphonse Fournier: On a question of privilege, I did not blame the hon. gentleman. Many people in his province have promised that building. He is not the only one. A good many people are in the same boat.


An hon. Member:: The boat is leaky.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister promised it too.


Alphonse Fournier: I may be in the same boat too.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Your boat is leaking. If you do not bail it out soon you will go down with it. I just wanted to refer to this reply that I got the other day. I was not satisfied with it. I might say also that I did not deserve it, because I have always tried to treat the ministers of the crown as they should be treated. At the same time, I want to say to him now that, as long as I am here representing the people of Queens county in particular and Prince Edward Island in general, I shall have my say and I will not be choked off by any minister under any consideration. If the minister did not know that before, I am telling him now firsthand and I mean it.
We come now to something a little more peaceful. I did want to make a few remarks about the highway, but I would not have time to thoroughly develop the subject before
my time would expire. I might ask you, Mr. Speaker, how much more time I have.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since the hon. member has been kind enough to ask me, I am pleased to inform him that his time has already expired.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I was going to say a few words-I think I have forgotten what the subject was. There is one subject that is always dear to my heart, and that is the fisheries of North Rustico, the place from which I come. I want to say something about that, but it will be more or less pleasant. Last year in North Rustico, one of the best fishing ports in the maritime provinces, they had a tremendous storm that carried away the breakwater. The fishermen were anxious to have this repaired, so representations were made to the department. I must say the department started the work immediately during the summer of 1952. The breakwater has been repaired, but there is a lot more work to be done.
On behalf of the contractor, I want to say that he did the very best job possible. I take the word of the fishermen for that, because they know whether or not it was a good job. However, when the contractor was making up his plans he did not understand how much underwater work there was to be done, and I am sure, therefore, that this contractor will lose money. I hope the government will give him something for the extras.
I was going to speak about this storm that occurred last year. First of all I might mention that lobster, mackerel and cod are caught off this port. Lobster fishing takes place early in the season. During the winter the fishermen prepare their own traps, and if even a small wage is charged for making these traps, the cost of rope, lumber and nails makes the trap worth about $3.25 before it goes into the water. Some 12,000 traps from this village of Rustico went into the water on the first of May. The lobster fishing season is short, but ten days after the traps were out this storm occurred and they lost over 50 per cent of the gear they had put out. Fishing had been good, but 50 per cent of the production was lost, and because the season is short a fisherman cannot rebuild or repair his gear.
In so far as the next season is concerned, the fisherman is still handicapped because he makes barely enough for a living. The next season he applies to the government to get some form of assistance, and I believe a scheme of insurance is now being worked out amongst the fishermen. They will contribute to it, as well as the government, and when such a loss occurs, as it does about every
604	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. MacKenzie third or fourth year, then the fishermen will have a chance of recouping their losses.
I might say a great deal more about this subject, but I did want to mention the fact that during the last year the fisheries department have advertised that they are going to spend millions of dollars to send assistance to Ceylon. The department believes this is wonderful advertising. It is stated that the department is going to give them a million dollars or more, in addition to boats and sending good men to teach these people how to fish. In my opinion it would be far better for the government to buy the surplus fish in the warehouses in this country, and provide these people with plenty of fish to eat. It would take this surplus production off our market at the present time.
I know you are getting uneasy, Mr. Speaker, but in conclusion I want to say that there are other things that are quite dear to my heart about which I should like to have the time to speak. One of them is the rural mail couriers, who have never been properly treated. Then there are the people who are incapacitated. However, we shall deal with those subjects when the opportunity occurs later.	,


Mr. H. A. MacKenzie (Lamblon-Kenl):: In
rising to take part in this debate this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I am aware and fully appreciate that this order of business has been before the house for at least three weeks, and that any remarks or suggestions that I might make will be largely repetitious. It seems to me that I have been in this house for quite a number of sessions, probably too long, but I would say that in my opinion I have never made a partisan speech.
I feel that there are enough politicians in the house without me. I was elected and chosen as a member whose duty it is to represent all the people and all the factions in the riding, to give consideration to suggestions that are made and, to the best of my ability, to keep the record straight while at the same time being true to myself.
I would crave the indulgence of this house this afternoon to divert from that record for a few moments. I wish to refer to some statements, and what I believe are unfair references, that have been made by members in neighbouring constituencies. I refer to the member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) who, in his remarks on November 25, 1952, as found at page 89 of Hansard, said:
One thing I should like to mention particularly is the reference to mail courier contracts. The Conservative party has long pointed out that changes were due in our rural mail service. Last fall many of the Liberal members from western Ontario took part in the debate on the postal estimates,


and all mentioned the rural mail service. It was quite obvious that they had been tipped off that changes were going to be made and therefore they had better get in on the ground floor.
To me that was an interesting statement for him to make. I should like to remind the hon. member for Middlesex East that rural mail delivery was established in this country over 45 years ago, and that the same method of awarding mail courier contracts -by calling for public tenders-as then initiated still prevails. According to the Post Office Act the contracts must be awarded to the lowest tenderer, if the party is reliable and provides good bondsmen.
I am sure that if he will look up Hansard of former years he will find that many hon. members spoke in this house on the evils of this system at least ten years before he came to this house, and not just on the eve of an election, as he states. I am sure that the party to which the hon. member adheres sat on the government benches for some time during that long period, and they did not change those regulations or even improve them. I am sure that some of the members in this house recall the period of 1930 to 1935. I believe the postmaster general at that time was Hon. Mr. Sauve. What did he do in 1933? For at least the greater part of that year all rural mail couriers whose contracts expired during that period were not given the privilege of renewing their contracts even at the previous tender price, but were ruthlessly told that they could only get a contract by slicing the cost. Some were offered a four-year contract with a ten per cent reduction, some even more1 than that. They could take it or leave it or it would go for public tender. Those were the so-called hungry thirties, and the couriers had no choice; they had to take what was offered and sign up for a four-year contract.
When I came to this house in 1935 I went to the post office officials and endeavoured to have those mail contracts restored to their former level but I was told by the officials that they could do nothing about it, that they had signed up for a four-year contract and there was no provision to raise their pay without the calling of public tenders. These mail couriers never obtained any relief until this government brought in an act called the Mail Contracts Supplemental Payments Act in 1947. It was then extended to 1948 when all mail couriers received an adjustment in salaries at least to some standard of equal pay for their services. I am sure that the rural mail couriers throughout Canada-and I am speaking particularly of those in Ontario-will not be fooled by that story of the hon. member
60S

for Middlesex East, for they know what treatment they received during that regime.
There is an old adage to this effect; if you want to know what a man's future is, look into his past. I would say that adage applies to political parties as well; and to the hon. member for Middlesex East I would suggest that, before he makes any statement like the one to which I have referred, he had better review some of the past records of the Post Office Department *and their operations during the last forty years.
At this time I should like to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) the fact that the house has now been in session since November 20, that we are looking for that committee of the house to be set up to study and to make recommendations with regard to this problem and would like to have it set up as soon as possible after the Christmas recess.
I wish now to discuss a question that has had a great deal of publicity on the radio and in the press as well as in this house during the past two weeks. I refer to the sugar beet industry of Canada, particularly as it applies to Ontario and to my own riding of Lambton-Kent.
My colleague the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Huffman) a few days ago gave an interesting resume of the sugar beet industry in Ontario, especially as it applies to Chatham; and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) also gave us some interesting data on the sugar beet industry in Alberta. I wish to point out to this house that Wallaceburg this year is celebrating its 51st anniversary, with the distinctive record of having the oldest and the second largest sugar beet factory in Canada.
The operation of this plant alone is of vital importance to the livelihood of some 2,000 farmers, 500 factory workers and a countless number of field workers, merchants, truckers and many others of the community who are viewing with a great deal of concern the importation of Cuban refined sugar into our market here in western Ontario. Already the movement of Cuban refined sugar into Canada approaches in volume the annual production of our local plant in Wallaceburg. Some 12,000 acres of sugar beets have been grown in this vicinity to supply the Wallaceburg plant. The beets have recently been harvested. Last year the farmers, for a similar acreage, received approximately $2,200,000. Losing this important industry would undoubtedly depress the farm and urban economy of this whole community. So I will endeavour to put on the record some information with regard to the actual situation that
The Address-Mr. MacKenzie has brought about this condition; and again I want to be fair in this analysis. If my figures are not correct, I am sorry. I may say that I obtained them from what I felt were quite authoritative sources.
As has been stated by previous speakers, we have in Canada seven sugar beet refineries situated in four provinces, and they have just concluded a season during which they have operated to almost full capacity. This year the beet sugar in Canada will meet about one-quarter of all our requirements here in Canada. We must remember that the actual refining operations last only about three months in the year or a little bit better, but it is a most important industry in our whole farming operations.
The hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy), when speaking in this house on this question a few days ago, said that early in October a delegation had come to Ottawa to interview some government officials and that no newspaper reporter was present but that a statement was made to the press afterwards, perhaps as an alibi. I can readily understand why the hon. member for Lamb-ton West would think this to be strange, because I feel sure that if he had been on that delegation everybody would have known about it.
This conference and the delegation were organized by the refineries and the growers from all four provinces and they were well represented. I was with them for two days and assisted them in every way I possibly could. Believe it or not, I have been closely associated with the beet growing industry and with the beet growers for the past 25 years, and I know something about their problems and about what the industry means to this country. Many a time I have come to Ottawa with various delegations. I see no useful purpose to be gained in calling in the press, for occasionally one can accomplish more without too much publicity. But on this occasion I am confident that no effort was made by anyone to exclude the press. I have never read an account of it anywhere in the press, and in any case I can see no importance or no significance attached to that statement.
The facts are that we cannot increase to any marked degree our sugar beet production in Canada unless we have more refineries. That being true, we must import from other countries 75 per cent or more of the sugar that we consume in Canada. It is difficult to obtain the actual per capita consumption of sugar but it is high, and will probably average between 95 and 100 pounds per capita per year, so that our actual requirements would be something over thirteen million
606	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. MacKenzie hundredweight. In the past this has nearly all been imported as raw sugar. I am talking now about the importation of cane sugar. In the past twenty years very little refined sugar has been imported into Canada, but the bureau of statistics has not kept the records of imported and refined sugar separate until this year. I have received the following information from the bureau of statistics of the amount of raw sugar imported into Canada and the cost of same for the years 1950, 1951 and the first nine months of 1952, since that is the last record the bureau has. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will not read these all out, because I have them here on record and I have the data from the bureau of statistics. It would only take up the time of the house. If you want me to read them I can do so, but they are lengthy. They are as follows:
In 1950-12,655,393 hundredweight at invoice cost price of $76,409,211.
In 1951-10,664,393 hundredweight at invoice cost price of $73,395,230.
For first nine months, or up to Sept, 30, 1952:
7,660,361 hundredweight at an invoice cost price of $40,165,880.
That is based upon the f.o.b. shipping point in Cuba or West Indies, or wherever it was. Added to that of course is the duty, the freight and the cost and so on, so that the cost per hundredweight of this sugar in 1950 was approximately $6.04. In 1951 it was $7.07 per hundredweight. For the first nine months of 1952 it was $5.24 a hundredweight. Therefore I would gather that on a market that was rather weak the last three months would probably reduce the cost of sugar somewhat, so that the cost of raw sugar to the refineries in 1952 would be $1.83 less than the cost in 1951.
The price quoted by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) in January- and I quote from the speech that he made a few days ago-showed that the drop in the price in Montreal from January until the present time for refined sugar was from $10.20 to $8.60, which is a drop of around $1.60 a hundredweight. Therefore the drop in the price of raw sugar was actually greater than the drop in the price of refined sugar in this country.
I hold in my hand an editorial from the Ottawa Citizen of December 2. I am not going to read it, but I will give the gist of it. The editorial in the Citizen claims that the current sugar difficulties spring from a three-year trade agreement made with Cuba, whereby Canada accepts 75,000 tons of raw sugar a year for three years, 1951, 1952 and 1953, and concessions were obtained by Canada for wheat, fish and potatoes in return, and also some flour.

COMMONS	-
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the present difficulties we are in have no bearing on this trade treaty at all; that we had to import raw sugar from some place, and it made little difference where it came from. It might even have helped the situation to bring in this raw sugar from Cuba; otherwise if we had obtained all our raw sugar from empire or other sources, Cuba might easily have unloaded greater quantities of surplus refined sugar here.
This refined sugar from Cuba comes in under the general tariff or the most-favourednation treaty, which, in this case, is just the same. The duty on Cuban refined sugar is $1.89 a hundredweight, plus a maximum of 75 cents a hundredweight, if the antidumping regulations can be applied. Thus, if Cuba sells refined sugar in Canada at less than the fair market value at home, the sugar will be subject to $1.89 duty plus 75 cents dumping duty or $2.64 in all.
The Cuban raw sugar coming into Canada is subject to more duty than empire sugar, and the government has agreed to refund to the importers any difference so that the refineries cost will be no greater than for empire sugar. Whether this concession is of a great deal of value I am not in a position to say. I will say this, however, I am not an economist but it has increased the trade with Cuba, and as a matter of fact it costs nothing from the consolidated revenue fund, as it is a bookkeeping account. Again I quote from the speech made by the hon. member for Lambton West when he says, as reported at page 185 of Hansard:
Our Imports from Cuba for the first six months of 1951, January to June, were $2,776,000. For the period from January to June, 1952, our imports were $10,200,000 odd. Our exports to Cuba in the period from January to June, 1951, were $9 million odd and in the same period in 1952 were $13 million odd. In other words, our imports from Cuba in 1952 were four times as much as they were in 1951 and our exports to Cuba were about 50 per cent more.
That is, of course, the hon. member is comparing the first six months of 1951 and the first six months of 1952. These figures probably suit his purpose best, but it is not a fair picture. Let me give you figures showing the total Canadian trade with Cuba, as supplied by the bureau of statistics from 1947 to and including the first nine months of 1952:
Canadian trade with Cuba
Exports Imports Millions of Dollars
1947 	
7-5	23-71948 	
11-0	22-61949 	
14-4	6-61950 	
18-0	411951 	
20-4	8-31951 (nine months) 	
15-3	3-81952 (nine months) 	15-2



12. 1S52

[Stage Direction]
During the first nine months of the present year imports from Cuba showed a very large increase, from less than $4 million in 1951 to $15 million in 1952. The explanation is that in the present year Cuba has been shipping her 1952 quota of sugar as well as part of the 1951 quota which could not be delivered during the previous year. At the Torquay conference in 1950 the Cuban negotiators had this picture before them, and while Canada was selling larger and larger quantities of goods to Cuba, the Canadians were buying virtually nothing in return in 1949, 1950 and 1951, as this table will show, when it is reproduced in Hansard. The Cubans threatened to withdraw tariff concessions previously granted unless Canada undertook to buy more Cuban sugar and goods; and the last nine months of 1952 would indicate that our trade balance was getting much closer to an equal basis.
Of course seed potatoes were sold to Cuba, but very few edible potatoes were exported because the Canadian market was the best in the world during the last couple of years. Again, wheat flour was replaced largely by wheat, as Cuba had installed milling equipment and purchased during the last year over $3 million worth of wheat. Again, the hon. member for Lamb ton West refers to action taken- by the Bennett government in 1930. Well, I remember that situation. I do not suppose the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) remembers it because he was only a boy then.
James Sinclair: A big boy.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I well remember that
situation, and it was a serious crisis for the beet industry in this country; for at that time fully refined sugar was available in the West Indies and in Cuba for as low as $1.68 per hundredweight. So on January 27, 1932, the government passed an order, P.C. 181, and gave the then minister of national revenue the authority to fix the price of sugar for duty purposes. Three days later the price was fixed at $2.30. If it sold for less than that the dumping duty could be applied.
Contrary to general belief, that order, P.C. 181, still stands, although the fixed value has disappeared because the fixed price of $2.30 would be no use now in any case.
The importation of unlimited quantities of refined sugar from Cuba or anywhere else creates a very serious problem for the sugar beet industry. It has been stated repeatedly that approximately 30 million pounds of refined sugar from Cuba have been sold in Montreal, Toronto and Hamilton, during the past few months. During the last month-
The Address-Mr. MacKenzie and these are figures from the bureau of statistics-I find that another 5 million pounds have arrived or 35 million in all, which is slightly over 2 per cent of our sugar consumption. Ontario and Quebec have approximately eight and a half million people and that would be about 4 pounds each. Most of that sugar would be consumed in Ontario and Quebec.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in itself is not disastrous, but steps must be taken to see that this does not continue. Next spring when navigation again opens, Cuba could, if she wished, unload, out of her huge surplus into our domestic market, quantities of sugar that could put our beet growers out of business; and another danger is she could lower her domestic price to the point where we would not be justified in applying the anti-dumping provision; for after all, her domestic market does not mean 5 per cent of her total production.
I might state that this arrangement with Cuba for raw sugar has another year to run before expiration; but this does not change the general sugar tariff regulations between Canada and Cuba. That structure remains the same. The duty on Cuban raw sugar coming into Canada in the ordinary way is $1.29 a hundredweight and on refined sugar $1.89 a hundredweight, with a 75 cents per hundredweight safeguard against sugar dumping. This same tariff and same regulation have been in effect for many years.
The truth is that Cuba had a surplus of sugar and she was probing around for new markets. She tried a few boat loads of refined sugar in Canada, paid the general tariff rate and appeared to keep her skirts clear of the dumping clause, as our customs officers assure us.
Another factor, of cours.0, was that the Canadian dollar was at a premium, and that helped to pay some of the duty.
So far as I can determine, those importations of Cuban raw sugar have not the slightest effect on the price of sugar in Canada or elsewhere. The importation of refined sugar does not seem in general to have displaced the production of Canadian refineries, for I notice in the first ten months of this year, Canadian refineries sold 16,000 tons more sugar than they did in the corresponding months of last year. However, in southwestern Ontario, where the sugar has been chiefly distributed, they have a very large stock at the present time.
If the information that I have placed on record is correct, the statement made in the

The Address-Mr. MacKenzie December 1 issue of "Sugar Facts", published by the Canada and Dominion Sugar Company, and headed "Beet Industry Sold Down the River", is just not right. There is no truth in that statement. Duty on refined sugar entering Canada has not changed in years, and, as I have said previously, the Cuban treaty for raw sugar has not affected the price here in any way.
We must bear in mind that the arrangement with Cuba for 75,000 tons of raw sugar for 1951, 1952 and 1953, was not a GATT agreement-one flowing from the general agreement on tariffs and trade. It was a separate arrangement, although I believe it was discussed at some length at Torquay.
It is suggested that refined sugar from Cuba comes into Canada cheaper because of a lower wage scale in Cuba, Of course that is true; but the labour picture in all these countries during the past few years has changed drastically. I have figures from a quite authoritative source showing some of the cheap labour groups in the sugar industry in Cuba. In 1941 the collectors of sugar samples were paid $1.20 a day; in 1944, $1.98 a day; and in 1950, $4.50 per day. Mechanics in general are paid $9.90 per day, and highly skilled men at a higher rate. Of course it is true that our standard of living and our rate of pay is still much higher than theirs. The Canada and Dominion Sugar Company have two of the most modern refining plants in the world, one at Chatham and one at Wallaceburg. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) will notice that I have used the expression "two of the most modern", because I realize that there are some good ones in Alberta.
They have made great changes in their plants during the past two years and have a huge investment-they have a most efficient staff of office workers, factory workers and field men. They have set up a superannuation plan for their permanent workers; they have also a health and hospital plan, which is a very good one. In the past few years they have constructed loading stations in many of the farming centres, erected at great cost, to facilitate the handling of beets to the railway cars. The growers themselves have made very large investments in sugar beet machinery that cannot be utilized for any other kind of farming operations.
This is no time to play politics. This problem is vitally important to the industry in southwestern Ontario, and other parts, of Canada, affecting the very livelihood of many engaged in this industry.
Our sugar beet industry in Canada must be saved. It played a most important part in our economy during the last war. It has


faced serious handicaps in the past and survived, and it will continue to survive. I am confident this or any other government would want to retain this industry; because if the industry were destroyed or liquidated we might well pay for it in increased prices later on, if our own industry was not available.
I am sure the government officials are well aware of the present situation and I would suggest two or three courses that might be adopted in order to protect-and I do not like the word "protect"-to safeguard our sugar beet industry from any unfair competition:
1.	The government might review the Canadian tariff to see if it provides reasonable, but not too great, protection to Canadian refineries.
2.	It may be that the Cuban refineries are able to buy raw sugar more cheaply than it is being sold on world markets, and thus are in a position to compete unfairly with our refineries. I hope the government is looking into this possibility, and is taking adequate steps to protect Canadian producers and manufacturers against any such practice.
3.	Again implement P.C. 181 and set the price of refined sugar for duty purposes high enough to safeguard the beet sugar industry from any distress selling.
Finally, I must say I am confident that a satisfactory solution will be found to safeguard this most important sugar beet industry for Canada. Before I sit down I want to emphasize once more that it has been repeated and repeated all over the country that the agreement with Cuba, under which we take 75,000 tons of sugar per year, has caused all our trouble; but I think I have given evidence here-at least I hope I have-to show that the Cuban agreement did not affect our sugar prices in any way.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, before I come to the subjects with which I want to deal in the main part of my remarks today-trade and high taxation-there are one or two issues I should like to mention briefly as they are of particular concern to my constituency. They are, I must admit, of concern elsewhere as well, but they are amongst those national issues which at the moment we share in a particular way with the rest of the country.
The first of these is a question of which mention was made in the speech from the throne, namely the possibility of an amendment to the National Housing Act. Anyone who remembers the promises made by the Liberals in the 1945 election, a house for every Canadian family, and then realizes how

far short of their promises the housing program of the Liberal government has fallen, will perhaps feel that I have some justification when I say that there are grave doubts whether even the amendment to the National Housing Act which is now forecast will do what is necessary to meet the need.
I have no knowledge of the situation in any part of the country other than my own riding, but I do know that in the city of Kamloops and in other towns and cities throughout my constituency there is no single problem of what I might call a social nature facing the people which is half as acute as the problem of securing adequate housing accommodation. It would not be so bad if this were a problem which was only of short duration, one in which an emergency or shortage had arisen suddenly, so the people might hope it would be dealt with and that the problem would disappear as the result of aggressive action by the government. This is a problem that has continued and increased since 1945. The distress and the number of those requiring housing accommodation have both increased every year, and in my view there is nothing in the field of social legislation or social security generally which is half as important and urgent at the moment as the need of providing some means whereby the people of this country with smaller incomes can obtain adequate, decent, reasonable living accommodation at decent and reasonable rents or purchase payments.
I am certainly hopeful that the amendment to be introduced to the National Housing Act will make some start in dealing with this problem, and I can assure the minister that he will be open to even more severe criticism than he has been in the past if the forecast amendment turns out to be nothing more than another piece of election eyewash. I believe the minister to be sincere in his desire to see a solution of the housing problem realized. I can assure him we on this side of the house will gladly co-operate, and help him by way of suggestions and by way of support for any proper legislation; but I can assure him that we on this side of the house will let it be known in no uncertain terms what we think of the amendment if it should turn out to be one which is merely designed to fool the people into thinking that something will be done about housing whereas in fact, if it should be the case, the amendment falls short of what is necessary.
I should now like to turn to another subject that is of interest to the whole of the dominion. It affects different parts of the country in different ways, it is true, but for the ultimate future prosperity of the whole country I think it is probably one of the
The Address-Mr. Fulton most important subjects which we can discuss. I refer to the matter of trade, and particularly to the question of trade within' the commonwealth. This is a subject on which we should clarify our thinking at the outset. So often we have heard, in discussions in the house, needless denials of the accuracy of what members are saying and needless confusion created because when we on this side refer to the loss of commonwealth markets the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) makes contradictory statements, sometimes even statements which could be classified as rude, as to how wrong we are in saying Canada has lost those markets.
However, we have become accustomed to that sort of attitude from the minister. But the difficulty is that he refers to what he says is the expanding trade in industrial commodities or raw materials between Canada and the other commonwealth countries, while what we are referring to primarily in this connection is the trade which used to exist between Canada and Great Britain in agricultural commodities. When I speak of the loss of our commonwealth markets it is those primary commodities which I have in mind, such things as beef and other meat products, apples, lumber, fish and other primary products for which Canada's greatest and most stable market has always been in the United Kingdom.
In that connection I might say that, so far as concerns the two products here which are of the most interest in my constituency, apples and beef, during the current year not one cent's worth of either of these products has been sold directly to the United Kingdom. The trend over the last few years has been steadily downward, a shrinking market for these which used to be our staple exports to the United Kingdom until this year, when not one cent's worth of either of these products has been purchased directly from us by Great Britain.
It is in the light of these facts, Mr. Speaker, that the country as a whole is, I am sure, so delighted to see the optimistic communiques that have been issued over the course of the past ten days from the commonwealth economic conference now taking place in London. It is of course too early to say whether the final results of the recommendations made by that conference will justify the optimism, but it is certainly an encouraging thing, especially from the point of view of our primary producers, that these communiques should be issued. It is also an encouraging thing that at long last, after repeated urgings by the official opposition and other opposition parties, this conference should have been arranged. It was not
610	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fulton arranged at the invitation of the Canadian government as we think should have been the case, but the conference was arranged and has been attended by very important representatives from Canada. Certainly it is encouraging to our producers of apples and meat in British Columbia.
I should say in passing that the so-called floor price policy announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to meet the emergency situation created by the loss of the United States market has been an unqualified flop. The floor price program has meant nothing to the producers of British Columbia. I know whereof I speak because I can illustrate the extent to which it was a farce by telling you, Mr. Speaker, that when the cattle producers of British Columbia on one occasion-this is just one example -were arranging for one of their public auctions they asked me to see if I could arrange to have the department send a representative to attend the sale because it was anticipated that a large volume of cattle would be offered and that prices might go well below the floor. They were drifting steadily lower and were just about at floor levels then. I wired asking that a representative of the department attend this sale for the purpose of supporting prices as outlined in the minister's statement of June 27. We received a telegram in reply to the effect that a representative would attend the sale as requested in my telegram.
It is true that a representative was there, but prices were not held at support levels. During the sale we spoke to this gentleman, who said it was true that he had been sent by the department. We asked him whether he . was going to see that prices were held at support levels and if he was going to buy; and he said, "Oh, no, I have no authority to buy; I am here simply to observe."
That is typical of the way in which the support price program has been implemented -or not implemented-throughout British Columbia, and of the way in which the measures announced from time to time by the government have failed our primary producers.
The United States market, with all its uncertainties, affords no adequate compensation in this field for the loss of the British market. As I see it, there is only one main thing which will restore stability to agriculture and to our other primary producers in Canada; that is the restoration and the continuation of the former volume of trade between this country and the United Kingdom.
Having said that, I say again that we are delighted with the optimistic reports which have been published in connection with the progress of this conference in London. I want


to make it clear that we are also very glad indeed that the two delegates representing Canada should be no lower in rank than our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and our Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). I think that indicates the proper degree of importance to be attached to this conference.
Although I regret the previous attitude adopted by this government toward the question of a commonwealth economic conference, I would not for a moment suggest that the presence of the Canadian delegation, and the fact that that conference is being attended by our Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, has not contributed in a large measure to the success of the conference. I must say that the measure of our gratification at finding that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were going was due in no small part to our previous uncertainty as to whether Canada would send anybody at all, because of the past attitude of this government toward the question of such an economic trade conference every time the matter has been raised in the house.
Perhaps I should pause here to observe that it was a week ago today that we had what I might call a little lecture from the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) on the subject of consistency. He undertook to administer a rebuke to the official opposition, the Conservative party, and suggested that we were not consistent in connection with the subject of trade within the commonwealth. I tbink we all know the old proverb: Consistency, thou art a jewel. If consistency is a jewel, the government's record in this regard I think can be said without exaggeration to be a fake stone.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member says, "Oh, oh". The hon. member is on the government side and he will remember that every year for the last three or four years we have pressed with every resource we could bring to bear in this house that Canada should take the lead in calling for a commonwealth economic conference. Every year the government rejected that proposal. By way of contrast with the government's previous attitude, a contrast which I think the country will be interested in having laid before it, I should like to read on the one hand some of the communiques which have been issued from the conference forecasting good results, and on the other some of the statements made in this house on previous occasions by ministers of the government who are most concerned with the question of an economic conference.
I have made a few extracts from headlines which have appeared in newspapers during the past week or so, over stories dealing with

the progress of this conference. Starting with the Toronto Globe and Mail of December 3 I have a headline reading-
Commonwealth leaders to sit in with cabinet-
The cabinet referred to there is of course the British cabinet. The article then went on to describe the preliminary discussions which were taking place, and to report the optimistic hopes that were expressed for good results. Then the Montreal Gazette of Thursday, December 4, had this headline:
Good progress made in commonwealth talk
Then the Ottawa Journal of December 5 headed its article for the day with this headline:
Empire leaders make headway on expanding trade problems.
The detail of the article contains the following passage:
It is understood that the commonwealth goal remains the same-the creation of conditions favourable to convertibility.
The article goes on to say:
This is not expected to happen overnight.
And again:
The conference, now entering its seventh day, has definitely shown a desire to move away from restrictionism into a situation where the emphasis will be on expansion. A Canadian source said: "Very real headway" has been made.
Then going back to the Toronto Globe and Mail again of Saturday last it reports a decision for which we have also been pressing on this side of the house. The headline reads:
Commonwealth decision-ask U.S. raise gold price
Then in smaller print:
Boost would aid sterling, parley view.
Then the Montreal Gazette for yesterday, December 11, has an article bearing this headline:
Pound plan agreed to in London
Then the article goes on to report in detail the fact that the conference hoped to find a way to institute steps which will ultimately lead to a return of convertibility between the dollar and the pound. Then there is a final report in the Montreal Gazette of today headlined:
PMs outline new course in economics
As I say, it is much too early for anyone to say whether or not the results will justify the optimistic headlines, but as we look at the headlines and read the details of the reports we can see that the conference has made a real effort to grasp and to deal with the problems that stand in the way of commonwealth trade and prevent the restoration of convertibility. I think we can say without 68108-39J
The Address-Mr. Fulton doubt that they have worked out proposals in that regard which if put into effect, and with the co-operation of the other great nation of the world vitally concerned, namely the United States, will represent a real beginning in the elimination of >the roadblocks that stand on the highways of commonwealth trade.
When you consider these headlines, and take encouragement from these possibilities, I am sure you will be interested, as I was, in looking over some of the disparaging remarks about the possible outcome of this conference that were made here by ministers most responsible in this connection, namely, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).
The record goes back for some time, but today I am only going to cite one or two of the more outstanding examples of the attitude of these gentlemen to the effect that such a conference could serve no useful purpose, and particularly that Canada should not take the initiative in calling such a conference. May I remind you, sir, that Canada has more to gain from the restoration of convertibility than any other country in the world. We moved a resolution in 1950 suggesting that Canada take the initiative "in convening at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth and the countries of the empire to devise policies to restore our lost markets and thereby provide jobs for our Canadian people". This motion was moved on February 28, 1950, by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).
After saying that he was always willing to go to conferences-if they were called by somebody else-the Minister of Finance said this, as reported at page 313 of Hansard for February 28, 1950:
While I have no doubt it will be found desirable to hold further conferences to discuss trade matters, I do not know that the holding of a full-fledged commonwealth or empire conference at this time would add very much to the knowledge of this or any other member of the commonwealth in reference to specific solutions which can be found for these trade difficulties.
I wonder if the minister will have the same statement to make about the results of this conference when he comes home. I have looked carefully, Mr. Speaker, but I notice that at no time did the Canadian delegation or any spokesman for Canada in any way dissociate himself from the communiques to which I have referred, which have been isued from the conference just concluded, so one wonders how the minister will reconcile the two statements.
It may be said, and I dare say the Minister of Finance will say, that the quotation just read was made in 1950, two years ago, and

The Address-Mr. Fulton conditions were different. But what about June 2, 1952, just six months ago? We moved the same motion on that date. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) on that occasion suggested that "the government should take steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth to seek means by which there may be convertibility of commonwealth currencies, and to explore all the possibilities for enlarging those traditional markets upon which our prosperity so largely depends". The Minister of Finance, speaking in this house just last June-here is consistency for you-used these words as found at page 2860 of Hansard for June 3, 1952:
We are all anxious to explore-I am using the language of the amendment-all the possibilities for restoring and enlarging those traditional markets upon which our prosperity so largely depends. Like my colleague,-
The reference there is to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
-if I thought that another conference would really advance either of those objectives I would heartily support the holding of such a conference.
But he went on to say:
It is for that reason and on that aspect of the amendment that I feel it would be quite improper for us to make such a suggestion.
That is, that a conference be held.
Now what about the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whose department is the one most concerned with Canadian trade? He also spoke on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and after having said a lot of other things he was finally brought around, but only as the result of an interjection, to the question of the resolution that a conference be called, and then all he had to say last June, as recorded at page 2856 of Hansard, was this:
I do not think the resolution is important. I do not think I will deal with it.
I have not heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggest that the conference just concluded is not important. I have not heard him suggest that the communiques, indicating that the conference was making good progress in solving the problems in relation to convertibility and the restoration of trade, are not important. Where is the consistency here? How are we to reconcile the fact that this government, thank the Lord, is finally attending such a conference, and the attitude of last June 3 as revealed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he said at page 2857 of Hansard for that date:
I want to say that if I believed the amendment to this motion would bring about convertibility of currencies or would bring about a strengthening of our trade with the United Kingdom, I would be

glad to vote for it. But as I believe that the amendment would bring about no worth-while result whatever, I cannot go quite that far.
The amendment, Mr. Speaker, asked the government to take steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth to seek means by which there might be convertibility of commonwealth currencies and restoration of trade. Last June the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that he did not believe such a move would do anything to bring about convertibility of currencies or strengthen our trade. He did not believe it would bring about any worthwhile result whatever.
Consistency? Where is the consistency in this government? The tragedy is that this conference is taking place about three years too late. If the government had been willing to discharge its responsibilities, and if it had been willing to attach, as it should have done then, a proper importance and significance to Canada's place within the commonwealth and Canada's potential influence within the commonwealth, I suggest to you, sir, they would not have hesitated to take the lead in calling such a conference as we asked them to do, a conference which has just been proven to have such possibilities of benefit.
Then we had a further lecture on inconsistency from the gentleman to whom I referred earlier, with respect to suggestions as to how trade within the commonwealth might be restored. We were asked what our policies were. I think it is a well established principle that it is not for the opposition to suggest policy. Sometimes we are willing to accept that responsibility when, as so often happens, the government does not have a policy. But they are certainly not discharging their responsibility when the government ask us how we would solve these problems. It was suggested that one or two divergent views had been expressed on this side of the house concerning how this problem might be dealt with. There were criticisms of the statements which had been made by Conservative members in the house.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that occasionally members, speaking as members representing their constituencies, make statements which are different from those of others. But it is not the case in this party, as it is in the Liberal party so often, that those members are speaking for their party with respect to its policy when they make those statements. Our view is that a member's duty is to his constituency, and I would suggest that might be a view which it would be profitable for some hon. members opposite

to have applied on one or two occasions instead of voting for government motions or against opposition motions when their vote was directly against the interests of their constituencies. I can understand the pressure that is brought to bear on them. It is ridiculous, and it is a measure of the weakness of the government's case, when criticisms are directed against this side or defences are given of the government's policy on the basis of the fact that occasionally a private member, speaking as the representative of his constituency and most obviously speaking in that capacity, makes a statement which in some particular way has an application which is a little different from the party's policy expressed on other occasions.
I would ask hon. members, and particularly the hon. gentleman who made the suggestion of inconsistency, although he is not in the house	now, how this	compares	with	theinconsistency which is evident when a member of the cabinet makes statements of policy	completely at	variance	with	thepolicy actually being pursued by the government, and makes those statements in a place where he represents the government? When	the gentleman	making	them,	inaddition to being a member of the cabinet is the leader of the government in that place	where he makes them?	That	has
just recently happened, yet that contradiction, that variation in policy, goes virtually unnoticed and certainly not dealt with by the government.
It would be interesting to hear-and I hope we shall do so-from a member of the government, how they explain this division. I hope we shall hear from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) whether the statement of policy made in the other chamber recently does in fact accurately state the position and the policy of the government. It would be interesting to know.
We remember the chastisement sought to be delivered to my friends of the C.C.F. last spring by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when they suggested that there was not sufficient civilian control of NATO. It would be interesting to know who now is the spokesman for the government, whether it is the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the leader of the government in the Senate who happens to be minister without portfolio, because that hon. gentleman says there is not sufficient civilian control of NATO. That hon. gentleman also says that in the whole of his recent pronouncement he is not going beyond the expressions of policy stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Address-Mr. Fulton
It would be interesting to know whether the government's policy really is economic union within NATO. It would be interesting to know whether the government believes in complete trading unity within the NATO countries within the next ten years. Is that government policy? Is that where we are heading? We should like to know; and, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this house and this country are entitled to know, because that has certainly never been suggested as government policy before. But it has been stated now beyond any question of doubt that that is government policy; and in making those suggestions, and that it should be the objective to be achieved in ten years, the hon. gentleman who made them said he was not going beyond the views and the policy of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I certainly express the hope that we shall hear from the government. In fact I should go further and say that there is an obligation on the part of the government and of the Prime Minister to state what is the position of the government in this respect, what is their policy, so the house and the country may know; and also so that, if it is not their policy, there might be the clearest statement of the fact and that the necessary steps might be taken to deal with it so the country will know just where we stand.
In this regard I should just like to place on Hansard one or two quotations from a constitutional authority. The first one is from Jennings on "Cabinet Government", at page 461:
The proposals made by a minister, whether or not they have been approved by the cabinet, are the proposals of the government.
In that connection, in a rather less didactic way, Jennings has the following observations to make which, although expressed in less learned language, I think are just as pertinent. At page 258 he says:
That puts the matter precisely; they must all tell the same story.
Then, after saying that the government must make up its mind and have one policy, that it cannot have four or five different ones, however much it would like to have them-although this government on occasion quite improperly tried to have some half dozen policies and even, on occasion, to pursue them all at the same time-at page 259 Mr. Jennings says:
A government that cannot make up its mind on a fundamental issue ought not to be the government and will be so regarded in the constituencies. Its fall may be regarded as imminent.
However, to get away from this question of consistency itself, Mr. Speaker, and using
614	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fulton it as a channel along which one may come back to this question of trade, let me say this. You will remember that it was suggested that what had been said on one or two occasions was not consistent with the policy of "trade, not aid" which-as we have said ourselves, and as we repeat-should govern our attitude on this question of trade within the commonwealth. We have always said that we must buy from the United Kingdom if we are to sell to them. That has been our position over the years. In fact we have suggested and we still suggest that it is up to Canada to buy, particularly in the defence field, those things which we do not ourselves produce and which the British are qualified and best equipped to produce. What has been the result of government policy in this regard? Hon. gentlemen opposite piously suggest that the government is consistent here. What has been the result of their policy? I point out that a report which was issued by the bureau of statistics shows this with respect to the last year:
On imports,-
I may say that I am reading from a Canadian Press dispatch summarizing the report.
-the U.S. supplied 74-8 per cent of Canada's needs, up from 70 per cent in the previous year, while the proportion from Britain dropped to 8-3 per cent from 10-7.
That is the government's record in that regard. Yet they piously say that the only solution is trade, not aid, and that we must buy from the United Kingdom. Then we see that in one year imports, already fairly slim, dropped from 10-7 per cent to 8-3 per cent, a drop of over 2 per cent.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: What is the reference?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a Canadian Press summary of a report which is issued by the dominion bureau of statistics.


George James McIlraith: What date?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is taken from the Gazette of December 12; it is datelined "Ottawa, December 11" and reads as follows:
Expanding exports may make Canada this year the world's third largest trading power, government trade experts said today.
I apologize and I must make a correction. It is apparently not the bureau of statistics. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, it is; further down it says:
The possibility that Canada may overtake France was raised in the bureau of statistics 67-page review of foreign trade for the first half of 1952. The report showed these developments.
Then it went on to list the development in paragraphs numbered from 1 to 5; and it was paragraph 5 which I quoted and which
'Mr. Fulton.]

described the drop of imports from the United Kingdom from 10-7 per cent to 8-3 per cent.
Not only have we emphasized the necessity of importing from the United Kingdom those things which we have to import, and said that we should concentrate on getting them from there, if possible; but in this regard we have made specific suggestions which have been, unfortunately, disregarded by the government to the detriment of this country and of our trade.
I will give just one example, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago we made a positive recommendation that Canada should buy or attempt to buy the British Centurion tank, rather than United States tanks; but the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce both stated positively at that time that Canada would buy United States tanks. The Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), as reported at page 912 of Hansard for 1951, said:
We will procure our tanks from the United States.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said on May 9, 1951, as reported at page 2872 of Hansard:
We have now the opportunity of buying from the United States the latest tanks, and they will be coming with the equipment for the two divisions we transferred to Europe.
We said that they should place orders for Centurion tanks. The ministers said they were going to buy in the United States. It has recently been announced that the decision has been made to buy Centurion tanks. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, just how much money has been wasted in the meantime on United States tanks. I do not want to be offensive, but it is safe to say the United States tanks are not the best tanks, and not as good as Centurions. How much money was wasted, and how much time was lost before they decided to make the change-a change which should have been made earlier both from a tactical point of view and from a trade and economic point of view-so that the dollars which would go to Britain for her tanks might have been used by her in return to buy from Canada?
I conclude by saying it is absolute nonsense for the government to suggest that we have not made concrete proposals. There are others which could be made, but I am not going to extend my remarks now to make them. I shall do so at a later date along with other suggestions along the same line. But I say that two of the reasons our agricultural producers find themselves without their traditional market in the United Kingdom for their products at the present time are, first, that the government has been so dilatory and shown such a lack of interest in the

question of commonwealth economic conferences and trade; and, second, that they have overlooked opportunities of making purchases from Britain either directly or by taking out licences to manufacture British equipment in Canada, for both of which dollars would go overseas, thus directly increasing the flow of dollars which the United Kingdom would have had with which to buy from us, while at the same time serving our own defence purposes.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for giving me a couple of minutes so I can answer points which have been raised by the hon. member for Kamloops with regard to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who of course is still in London.
This quite extraordinary statement of the hon. member for Kamloops apparently is an attempt to anticipate, by reading newspaper headlines, what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself will report to this house when he returns here tomorrow. However, I want to make it quite clear now to all hon. members-I am sure it is already clear to all except the hon. member for Kamloops-that there is no roadblock to commonwealth trade as far as Canada is concerned. What are the roadblocks to commonwealth trade today? Import and export restrictions on goods; bans on goods; currency controls; bans on export of currency from the sterling bloc. Canada today has no export or import controls on any of her goods, other than the export of strategic materials to behind the iron curtain. Our currency is one of the two or three currencies in the world which is completely convertible to any other currency on open money markets. We have done the right thing. It was difficult in the post-war period to get to this free trading position, but we did it because of the courageous financial and economic measures of this government, and in particular those sponsored by the Minister of Finance.
We have heard this cry for convertibility of sterling from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) on the hustings. Never has he got down to brass tacks on how it is to be done. The hon. member for Kamloops suggested that was not the job of the opposition. I place Colonel Drew's solution of convertibility of sterling on the same plane as General MacArthur's solution to end the war in Korea, which he apparently has kept for some time from the government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?
The Address-Mr. Sinclair


James Sinclair: I sat through your speech, so you can at least take these two minutes in reply.
But actually the press clippings to which he referred do indicate that the conference has realized that the only way to increase commonwealth trade and world trade is to take the course which Canada took: Not more restrictions; not more currency restrictions; not more import and export restrictions, but the other direction of getting away from both these quantitative and qualitative trade restrictions, and getting away from currency restrictions. The same press clippings, which I read, have also indicated that the majority of the commonwealth members agree that the way to expand trade is not by confining our trade to any one bloc of nations but to seek to expand trade to every country in the world as we and 34 other nations have done in the general agreements on tariffs and trade, which we signed at Geneva, Annecy and Torquay.
The hon. member mentioned, too, the difference in the Tory and Liberal attitudes toward trade. Every year since 1945 in this house we have heard the same calamity chorus from the Tories, about how our trade was falling off and we were facing ruin. Well, let me give you not the calamity chorus, but just the rough group of hard facts. In 1930, when R. B. Bennett came to power with the Tory policy that he was going to blast his way into the markets of the world, he had a commonwealth conference.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the hon. member permit a question now?


James Sinclair: The hon. gentleman of course does not afford me the courtesy that I have shown him, of listening to him. I am now speaking of facts from the record. He did call a commonwealth conference, yes. His solution at that conference to world stagnation of trade was to advocate raising the barriers higher against all countries outside the commonwealth, and a British minister at that time rightly called that Tory policy "humbug". It was humbug then and it is humbug today.
A Liberal government took over in 1935. Canada's total export and import trade that year was $1-3 billion. This year it is over $8 billion. That is the difference between Liberal policy and Tory policy as far as trade is concerned. And here in this house, despite-


Edmund Davie Fulton: If there ever was humbug, that is humbug.


James Sinclair: Here in this house this year, despite what we hear from the hon. member for Kamloops, we have heard Tory members

The Address-Mr. Sinclair plead for increases in the tariff on sugar, increases in the tariff on textiles, increases in the tariff on tobacco, all of which come from the sterling bloc; a return to this humbug policy of Bennett's.
Let me read you now not headlines from the Globe and Mail picked out of press conferences in London, or lack of press conferences in London. Let me read the whole editorial in the leading financial paper of Canada, the Financial Post, of this week. If my hon. friend reads beyond the headlines, he may have read this;
Gloomsters wrong again
Canada's gross national product-the total value of goods and services produced-is going through the roof again in 1952.
And well through it too. Estimates put it at over $23 billions-some 8 per cent above 1951's record of $21-2 billions.
Listen to this, and remember the remarks iust made by the hon. member for Kamloops.
The Canadian family photograph should show most business and consumers smiling this year.
And well they are. I continue:
First-half woes in many lines of producing, manufacturing and selling, have given way to better days in the past six months.


Mr. Cardiff:: What are you reading from?


James Sinclair: The Financial Post. I would advise you to read it, too. The editorial continues:
Christmas trade, for instance, should break all records.
Important in 1952's figures is the fact that prices are only a few points above last year's averages. Hence, in real terms of goods and services, Canadians are producing and selling a lot more than they ever did before. And even after tax bites, they are left with more to spend or to save.
Looking ahead into 1953, the elements of growth will still be with us, heavy investment, strong consumer desires for more and better things. Of course, there are some soft spots-
And we admit it; trade in the world today is always difficult.
-shifts within the totals, some worries over export markets, plus man-made restrictions on Immigration.
But if we can successfully counter those factors, there's the prospect for a broad basis of prosperity for 1953.
Once again, it would seem, the gloomsters-
This is a word the Financial Post has coined, but it is a word which certainly describes the Tory members in this house:
-will have to postpone the day for "tough times" to begin.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister two questions. First, do I take it that the hon. gentleman does feel that this conference will produce beneficial results in the restoration of convertibility and trade between the commonwealth nations?


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I for one am quite anxious to hear the Prime Minister since he attended the conference. I would say that if the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) had been reading beyond the headlines he would see that the conference has turned to what I would call the Canadian approach of increasing trade by removing tariff barriers, by getting away from currency restrictions. I again suggest to him that he wait until Monday, when the Prime Minister will be back. He will be able to give the hon. member facts, not headlines, and a direct answer to the question he is now asking.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The second question is this: Since the hon. member agrees the conference was beneficial, does he not think it would have been a good thing to have had this favourable result three years ago, by taking the lead in calling a conference then, as we then urged in this House of Commons, to do the things this conference has been doing?


James Sinclair: I again suggest, as I said at the beginning, that if the hon. member was really interested in knowing the results of the conference, then he should have contained himself until Monday, at which time the Prime Minister will be back. But, so far as that is concerned, I suggest that the commonwealth and other countries would have been far better off if they had practised more closely the policies we have pursued, by which we have raised our trade from $1'3 billion in Tory days to $8 billion, today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister does not care to answer that question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has not answered the question. He just spoke more humbug-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot speak twice. He may ask a question; but in the last instance the hon. member was not asking a question.


Alphonse Fournier: He was making a second speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He was saying that the hon. member had not replied to his question, and that is tantamount to speaking twice. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) may proceed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my re-entry into this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne arises from my concern over a ghost-a ghost of something that most of us had hoped was dead but which, for a great many people in my province at any rate, is very much alive. The agony being caused to

these people is such that, with Christmas just around the corner, I feel the government should take action to end its existence for all time.


An hon. Member:: A good idea.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I gather that my hon. friend wants that observation to apply to the government. I do not mind that, but I was referring to the ghost of the means test under the former Old Age Pensions Act.
Hon. members in the house generally, even those who voted against the removal of the means test not many months ago, rejoice in the fact that it no longer applies to the old age pension so far as Canadians of 70 years of age and over are concerned. As one who for many years urged that the means test should be abolished I, too, was most happy to be here and to take part in enacting the legislation in which provision was made for a universal old age pension to all 70 years of age and over. But the fact is that in my province-it may be happening in others, but I shall confine my remarks to my own province, because I have evidence of what is happening there-Canadians 70 years of age and over, who are now drawing the new federal pension free of any means test, are in many cases being hounded for repayments arising from alleged overpayments during the years they were under the former old age pension legislation, to which was attached a means test.
Someone may say to me immediately that if this is happening primarily in Manitoba, then it must be something for the government of that province to deal with. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the letters, a number of which I have here and to which I shall later refer, which are being sent to old age pensioners in Manitoba making demand for repayment, are from officials of the old age pensions board in that province. I must point out, however, that in a number of these letters-and I shall offer quotations in support of what I say-it is being said to the people in Manitoba that the province is obligated to seek these recoveries by virtue of the terms of the federal legislation. Not only are Manitoba old age pensioners being told in these letters that the villain of the piece is the federal government, but it is also a matter of record that this question has been tossed back and forth for several months between Ottawa and the provinces. I have been in the midst of that tossing about, myself, as will be evident from some of the matters of record which 1 shall recall at this time.
On March 12 of last session, as reported at pages 356 and 357 of Hansard. I asked the
The Address-Mr. Knowles Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) if it was not time to advise the provinces that they did not need to continue any longer the practice of making recoveries from the estates of deceased pensioners, or the practice of making recoveries in cases of alleged overpayment. The minister told me on that occasion there was nothing he could do about it because it was a matter governed by the existing law.
Well, one could not do much through questions asked on the orders of the day, so at the first opportunity after that date I took part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, which was then in progress, and drew the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the fact that on February 12, 1952, a statement concerning this matter had been made in the Manitoba legislature by the minister of health and public welfare in that province.
Despite the fact that in the Manitoba legislature they have no record equivalent to our Hansard, this statement was regarded as of sufficient importance to merit its being reported in the votes and proceedings of the legislative assembly for February 12, 1952.
I quote from page 2 the words of Hon. Mr. Schultz:
In regard to the collection of claims against the estates of deceased pensioners in this group the legislation of the federal government and the obligations under the agreement submitted for signature by the federal government compels this province in accordance with similar agreements with every other province, to collect from the estates of deceased pensioners where the estate is over $2,000 net. Neither Manitoba nor any other province has any option in this matter at the present time.
When I drew this to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare during the course of my speech in that debate of the last session he chose to interrupt me at that point, as is recorded at page 545 of Hansard for March 18, 1952, by making this interesting interjection:


Mr. Martin:: Of course Mr. Schultz knows that is not a correct statement, as does my hon. friend.
Well, I made a reply to that at greater length than I would wish to quote in full at this time, the main point of which was that I hoped what the Minister of National Health and Welfare was then saying would set the matter right, and that the provinces would realize that they did not have to continue the policy of making recoveries, as was the case when we were under the former Old Age Pensions Act.
As a matter of fact the exchanges continued during the course of that speech until, I thought, the minister changed his ground
618	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles a bit; but he still stuck to the position that this matter of making recoveries was entirely up to the provinces.
But at the end he said:
This is a matter determined by existing law and on the basis of agreements between the federal and provincial governments; and until we know the attitude of all governments in respect to this matter we cannot take any action with regard to the existing law. Surely that is the situation, and I should think my hon. friend would be the first to agree that I have correctly stated it.
It seems to me that what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) made clear by his interjections in my speech was that in the first place Mr. Schultz had no right to put the blame entirely on the federal government, which would seem to suggest that from the standpoint of the Minister of National Health and Welfare the blame goes back to Manitoba. But then he also suggested there is something the federal government can do about it, because he says it is covered by the existing law. The existing law is the Old Age Pensions Act of 1926 passed by the parliament of Canada which is still on the statute books, and under which the policy of recoveries is still being pursued.
I have asked repeatedly that this former act be rescinded or repealed, whichever is the correct term, so that the recovery policies required under it could be discontinued. There is a provision in the Old Age Security Act, chapter 18 of the statutes of 1951, second session, section 13, subsection 2, which reads as follows:
The Old Age Pensions Act is repealed on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.
It was on the basis of the authority vested in the governor in council to do away with the former Old Age Pensions Act that I asked again just a few days ago for the end of that act to be effected. Before I refer to the question I asked a few days ago, may I say that after getting from the Minister of National Health and Welfare last spring the view that Mr. Schultz was wrong, that Manitoba was not being compelled by federal legislation to continue this policy of making these recoveries I drew that information to the attention of the officials of the provincial old age pensions board in Manitoba. I found them quite interested. They referred to Hansard themselves and noted with interest, as I say, what the minister had said.
I expressed the hope to these officials that as the result of what the Minister of National Health and Welfare had said they would feel free to discontinue seeking to make recoveries out of estates of deceased pensioners, and to discontinue seeking to make recoveries from elderly people still alive for little overpayments that they are supposed to have had
(Mr. Knowles.]

in 1951, 1950 or in earlier years. My discussion with these officials was for the most part verbal, but on one occasion we had an exchange of letters about a particular case. At that time I asked how things were going with regard to the policy of recovery and I had this reply from Mr. Locksley D. McNeill, chairman of what is now the old age assistance and blind persons allowances board of Manitoba. It is dated September 23, 1952. This is what he said in the last paragraph of his letter:
The recovery policy appears to stand pretty much as it was earlier in the spring, that is, the dominion government has not specifically agreed that the provinces may feel free to discontinue their efforts to make recoveries against those estates which are in excess of $2,000.
So it goes, Mr. Speaker, back and forth. Manitoba says: We do this because we are compelled to do so by Ottawa, by the federal legislation, by the fact that the federal government has not released us from the necessity of doing it. The Minister of National Health and Welfare says that under federal legislation the provinces are not compelled to do it. The province comes back and says there has been no change, that they are still being forced to do it under the terms of federal legislation.
I pick up for a moment one of the many letters I have that have been written to old age pensioners in Manitoba seeking recoveries of overpayments. This one is dated August 1, 1952, and is likewise over the signature of Mr. McNeill, chairman of the board of that province. It was addressed to Mr. and Mrs. B, former residents of Winnipeg who are now residing in a town outside the city of Winnipeg. After having pressed the case for repayment-and I will come back to this case later-he says:
You can see from this that the matter is one which is in a sense out of our hands. We carry out the procedure laid down by the dominion legislation.
The latest chapter in this story, so far as this parliament is concerned, took place this session on November 24 when I put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
I put it to him in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and it will be found at page 18 of Hansard for that date. My question reads as follows:
Can the Prime Minister say when the former Old Age Pensions Act will be repealed so that provinces like Manitoba, which are pressing needy pensioners to make repayment and which are still making recoveries out of the estates of deceased pensioners, can discontinue this practice?

The Prime Minister referred the question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and this was his reply:
I want to thank the member for Winnipeg North Centre for giving notice of this question. A similar question was answered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on June 24, page 3610 of Hansard, and on June 27 last, page 3833 of Hansard. It is the intention of the government to proclaim the repeal of the Old Age Pensions Act as soon as there is agreement from the provinces which cosponsored this act that this should be done. Not all of the provinces have yet agreed on the desirability of repeal at this time, but it is hoped that agreement will be reached shortly so that the necessary proclamation can be made.
I recall very well, of course, the statements the Minister of National Health and Welfare made on this matter during the last session, and I confess I am disturbed at the suggestion that this federal law cannot be repealed, despite the fact that parliament has given the governor in council power to do so, until there is consent of all the provinces with respect to the matter. In the answer of the parliamentary assistant which I have just quoted he used the phrase, "the provinces which co-sponsored this act." May I remind him and the government of a bit of ancient history with respect to this matter which nevertheless is important because it bears upon this act. On April 15, 1926, when the Old Age Pensions Act was under discussion and was being put through the house for the first time-I should not say the first time because it was the second time; the first time it was put through it was killed in the other place-there was a request from the Conservative opposition of that day to have the old age pensions bill delayed. But Mr. King, who was then Prime Minister, replied in these terms, as recorded at pages 2501 and 2502 of Hansard for April 15, 1926:
The bill has been prepared with a view to avoiding delays and in order to enable any provincial government that may care to enact at once, with respect to old age pensions, legislation in conformity with the requirements of this measure to take advantage of the proposed scheme. If some provinces do not desire to pass such legislation, that determination will in no way affect the situation except in so far as they are concerned. But as a federal government we want to show our readiness at the earliest possible moment to assist any province as soon as it is prepared to enact legislation along the lines here laid down.
I read that quotation to remind hon. members of what they all know, namely that when the Old Age Pensions Act was first put upon the statute books it was made law in precisely those terms. It was enabling legislation which came into effect in the various provinces over a long period of time. I believe it was eight or nine years before all of the then nine provinces took advantage of the law, but the provinces that were ready to 68108-40A
The Address-Mr. Knowles enter into such meagre generosity as that measure involved were not held back because some of the other provinces were not ready. In other words the original law was not a co-sponsored piece of legislation at all. It was an act of the federal parliament which was put upon the statute books in such a manner that the provinces could participate in it as they wished.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask that the same practice, the same spirit be followed now so far as ending the means test Old Age Pensions Act is concerned. If there are some provinces that insist on being permitted to continue to make these recoveries, perchance the federal government might feel that it has to yield to their desire, but if there are provinces which infer, as Mr. Schultz I take it has inferred-he is no longer the minister, but he was at that time-that but for the federal government standing in their way they would like to discontinue these recoveries, then I suggest that the federal government should indicate to these provinces that so far as it is concerned it will be all right for them to discontinue these recoveries.
I know of cases where attempts are being made to collect from the estates of deceased pensioners. It seems to me that is a most abhorrent practice which is completely in violation of the whole idea that this parliament finally arrived at, that the means test should be done away with. If the means test is dead, let it stay dead. What I suggest is even more abhorrent and more repugnant to our thinking today is the way in which old people who are still alive are being pressed for the repayment of amounts that they got in 1951 or 1950. It is coming close to Christmas. Cannot the government take action on this matter right away? It could be done under the section I read in the Old Age Security Act repealing the Old Age Pensions Act whenever the government so decides, and that would be the end of it.
If it cannot do it that way then it could write to a province like Manitoba, who say they are doing this because the federal government wants them to, and say that so far as Ottawa is concerned Manitoba does not need to press these old people any more. When the amounts are collected they are pitifully small, not to mention the administrative and collection costs. Those costs must represent a large percentage of the amount recovered. After an amount is recovered by a province like Manitoba it is permitted to retain only 25 per cent because that was the portion put in by the province to the former pension. The 75 per cent remitted to Ottawa is so small in terms of federal revenues and

The Address-Mr. Knowles budgets that I am sure it is not for the purpose of getting in dollars that this policy of pressing for these repayments is still being pursued.
I said I would indicate to the house the nature of some of these cases and refer to some of the letters I have on my desk. So that hon. members may know that I am not just talking about something I have just heard about or one single case, may I say that this matter has been the subject of more correspondence than any other one subject since I came to this session in the middle of November.
The letters I have received from some of these old people who have only $40 per month and who think that money is theirs without any attachment are heart-rending indeed. They wonder how they are going to find the $5, the $10, the $100 or whatever it may be to meet the demand of the Manitoba government, which Manitoba says it is making because Ottawa requires it to do so.
Here is the case of Mr. and Mrs. D who live on Agnes street in my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre. I have here a letter over the signature of an official of the old age pensions board in Winnipeg telling them that the return from a little bit of property they had before they ever went on pension would have to be computed as so much income per year so long as that pension lasted. It so happened that these people, like a good many others in my city, made a little money during the flood year of 1950 when people were called upon to take all sorts of jobs. At any rate it added up that these people obtained $34.09 in 1950-mind you it was the two of them-more than the means test in that year allowed them to have. In 1951 the means test was still in effect but the authorities in Manitoba did not get around to deducting that alleged overpayment of $34.09 from these people. Instead they have now found by their own methods of computation that in 1951 the two of them had obtained $48.09 more than they were permitted to obtain in that year. Well along in 1952 these two old people who receive the present pension of $40 a month, which everyone from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) down receives, who think it is theirs because there is no means test, get these demanding letters requiring them to pay back the sum of those two amounts or $82.18.
That may not seem a large sum to certain people, but it is an awful lot of money to two old people who have only $40 a month each, or a total of $80 a month between them. In connection with this particular case I happen to know that while this correspondence has been going on the husband has passed away. What will happen by way of further pressure


on the widow to pay both her husband's share and her own share of the back debt, coupled with the fact that her income is now reduced to $40 per month, is something for hon. members to contemplate.
I suggest that it is a reprehensible practice the Manitoba authorities are pursuing. If I could put the blame wholly on Manitoba I would not be making this speech today in the House of Commons. But they say they are doing it because of the federal legislation. They go further and say that even if the legislation has not been wiped out they are quite willing to discontinue this practice if Ottawa would release them from the necessity of collecting these overpayments, but that release has not yet been given.
Here is the case of Mr. and Mrs. S who live on Langside street in my constituency. Due to illness, one of them is living with one son and daughter-in-law and the other with another. In November of 1952 the board reviewed the files of these people and considered Mrs. S as receiving free board from the son and daughter-in-law with whom she is living on a farm just outside Winnipeg. They add it all up and they bill this old couple for overpayment in the amount of $5, and they ask each of them to please remit $2.50.


An hon. Member:: A Liberal government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That amount may not seem great to many of us, but it is a tough amount for people to get together when their income is only $40 a month. What a disgrace for governments to put into operation all this administrative machinery and undergo this administrative cost in order to get $2.50 each out of these old people. I say to the federal government: Come on, it is Christmas. If you cannot do it for any other reason, because it is Christmas time repeal this old- law and put an end to this policy of recovery.
Here is another case of Mr. S, who lives on Preston avenue in the constituency of my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). The details of that case are rather involved. It dates back a number of years, and I would not be surprised to get word that this -man has died since the last time I heard from him. Yet he is being pressed for a rather large sum dating back over -a number of years, a sum which there is simply no possible way on earth for him to repay.
Here is the case of Mr. G, who lives on Cathedral avenue in Winnipeg. His case, like that of Mr. D, who lives on Craig street, arises from the fact that he went out and did a little work during the time of the flood we had in Manitoba in 1950. The

The Address-Mr. Knowles
result was that they had a little bit more money. It is not a great amount, something in the neighbourhood of $40 or $50 in each case, more than they should have had that year in view of the ceiling that then applied. Now they are being pressed for the repayment of those amounts. Bear in mind that again the board failed to make the adjustment in 1951 when the means test was still in effect. They are a year and a half late in doing it, but still this pressure is being applied. These Manitoba officials are saying: we have to do this; we are compelled to do it by the terms of the federal legislation.
I am not really sure that is the case, because I am told that in some of the province's it is not being done. If some of the other provinces are not required by the federal legislation to do it, I am not sure that Manitoba can make that case stick. They are, however, taking that stand. So long as they do, I suggest it is the responsibility of this government at Ottawa to put an end to it by repealing that act.
Here is the case of Mrs. B, who lives on Ingersoll street. Again there are overpayments for two years, one of $60.04 in 1950 and another of $72.01 in 1951. No attempt was made to make an adjustment in 1951 for the alleged overpayment in 1950. Again, well along in 1952 after these people think the means test is dead, its ugly ghost rises up in the form of these letters saying the old age pensions authorities want them somehow, out of their $40 a month, to make repayment.
I refer also -to the case of Mr. and Mrs. B, who were former residents of Winnipeg and who are now living in a town not far from the city. I find some very interesting language in the letters that have been written to this couple. By the way, this claim arises from receipt of unemployment insurance by one of the parties back in 1949. There was never any secret about it. It was reported to the old age pensions board. I believe these people had every right to feel that, with the abolition of the means test and the beginning of the new federal pension at the rate of $40 per month, they had nothing more to worry about. Lo and behold, when they have nothing else but their $40 a month they are called upon to make this repayment.
This particular couple wrote some letters of protest, and did their best to argue that they should not be required to -make the required repayment. The chairman of the board in Manitoba, Mr. L. D. McNeill, wrote them on August 1, 1952, and said this, amongst other things:
The situation appears to be that we have no alternative other than to ask for repayment of any
overpayment of pension. If these payments are not refunded or arrangements are not made for the repayment of same, we are required to send this information to the director of old age assistance (formerly the director of old age pensions) in Ottawa. He passes it on to the treasury branch of the dominion government. It is then up to the officials of the treasury department to decide whether or not to hold back old age security payments.
Now, Mr. Speaker, imagine that threat being handed to senior citizens today, the threat that unless you somehow find it possible out of this $40 a month to pay back these moneys you are alleged to have received two or three years ago, this glorious, free federal pension of $40 per month will be interfered with. As a matter of fact, if you examine that language closely, it is quite significant. Even the chairman of the board in Manitoba does not assert that Ottawa will hold back the old age security payments. He merely says that it will be up to the federal treasury to decide whether or not they will do that.
I have had some correspondence with the deputy minister of welfare concerning that very point. From the correspondence I have had it is quite clear to me that, up to the present time at any rate, no decision has been made by the federal government to hold back any old age security cheque, even though it may be argued they have the right to do so-not under the terms of the Old Age Security Act but under the terms of the Financial Administration Act. I am quite satisfied that this government at Ottawa is not going to hold back any of those old age security cheques. I can think of one good reason why they will not do it, if there are not others. But the fear that it might be done is being held over some of these people in Manitoba by the board there, and it is being done by that board on the basis that they are required to do it by Ottawa. This letter from which I have just quoted goes on to say:
You can see from this that the matter is one which is in a sense out of our hands. We carryout the procedure laid down by the dominion legislation.
I could cite other cases of these attempts that are being made to recover these alleged overpayments from the older people of Manitoba. I draw your attention to the fact that all of them are people who, by virtue of the fact they were on the old age pension when the means test was in existence, are people who needed it. They are people who now, whatever they may have had in the past, have nothing else but their $40 a month. For them to be hounded in this way by the provincial government with the apparent authority of the federal government is, I suggest, completely out of keeping with what

The Address-Mr. Knowles this country has accepted, namely the idea and principle that so far as our older citizens 70 years of age and over are concerned the means test should be considered as completely dead.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will give more active consideration to this matter, and will And it possible within the next few days to take advantage of the provision of the Old Age Security Act which I read, and call a halt to this procedure by proclaiming as dead the former Old Age Pensions Act, with its means test and its recovery provisions. Let us call a halt to these practices right away. I have just a bit more to say, Mr. Speaker, but since I believe I have another five minutes perhaps I should reserve it for eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.



AFTEH RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are about five minutes left of the time allotted to me. Hon. members will recall that during the 35 minutes in which I had the floor just prior to six o'clock, I devoted my time to the making of an appeal to the government to proclaim, within the next few days, the repeal of the former means-test Old Age Pensions Act so that the recoveries still being made under that act might cease. I will not take further time to speak on that phase of the matter now.
However, I do not want to conclude a speech on the subject of old age pensions without repeating my view, which I hold strongly, that there should now be an increase in the amount we are paying to our old age pensioners. Many figures are being suggested in editorials in many responsible newspapers and magazines in this country, and the surveys that are made by various bodies all make it clear that there simply is no sound reason at all for leaving the pension at the figure of $40 a month. I have said before that it should be a much higher figure, certainly not less than $60 a month. I hope we shall get action on this urgent matter without having to wait too long. I repeat likewise that, in my view, the means test should be removed at the age of 65.
Along with these improvements in our social welfare legislation I feel, as all of us in this group have stated, that the time has come for further improvements in the War Veterans Allowance Act, particularly as suggested by the Canadian Legion in their brief recently presented to the government.


There are other groups about which I have had something to say from time to time- indeed I have mentioned them at this session-such as the superannuated civil servants, our blind pensioners, and others, to whom we should be giving a much better break than is the case at the present time.
One of the reasons that I return to the attack, so far as the need for a wider measure of social security is concerned, including our program of health insurance, is because of some of the things the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) has said in the last two or three days. I believe it was in a speech on Wednesday of this week that he sought to pare down the federal government's budget to a mere $675 million. You see, Mr. Speaker, this is the way the government talks. Whenever we are asking for increased social security provisions, we are told by 'this government: "That costs money. It is a good idea but you cannot have it because it costs too much money." But when the government is under attack as to the size of its budget, spokesmen like the Minister of Fisheries stand up and say: "Look here, our budget really is not $4J billion a year at all. Half of it is for defence. That is abnormal. Then $1 billion is for social welfare payments. Those are just transfer payments; they are not expenditures." Then the Minister of Fisheries goes on and takes out the interest paid on the national debt. So he boils it all down to a federal budget, so far as normal expenditui'es, as he defined them, are concerned, of merely $675 million.
I am not now quarrelling with that method of arguing first one way and then the other, but I emphasize the truth of what the Minister of Fisheries said the other day and what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) says when he speaks on this matter, namely that social security provisions, whether they be for old age security or for health or other items, are really just transfer payments, are really just a case of transferring or re-channelling a portion of the wealth produced by this country into the effort to provide health and security for our people. Far from anyone standing up in this house or anywhere else and saying that we cannot afford to have these things, I submit that Canada, with the huge wealth we are producing and with our claim to being a civilized nation, cannot afford not to have reasonable and adequate measures of social security.
This afternoon the Minister of Fisheries got into the debate again. He read with pride an editorial in the current issue of the Financial Post which pointed out that the

gross national product for 1952 was likely to exceed $23 billion as compared with $21-2 billion for the year 1951. That represents an increase, of which he boasted, of more than $1,800 million in this one year. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when we are able to achieve an increase of that magnitude in the wealth we are producing, or an increase to that extent in our gross national product, there is no place for the fallacious argument that we cannot afford reasonable measures of health and social security for our people.
I thrill, as do all hon. members, to the reports we receive these days about the tremendous growth and expansion that is taking place in this country. It is good to learn of the great advances in production we may anticipate in the years that lie ahead. I join with other hon. members in hoping that the realization will be even greater than the anticipation. However, I plead for the common-sense, civilized approach that will take the stand that, with all this wealth we are creating, we are not going to leave some of our deserving Canadians out in the cold but rather that we are going to accept the principle of transfer payments and rechannel or redistribute some of that wealth in such a way as to make provision for adequate welfare and adequate social security for all our Canadian people.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


Arthur Laing: From his research has he available an estimate of the number of additional persons who would become eligible for the old age pension under a reduction of the age limit to 65?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have the figures as has the hon. member, because we were both members of the old age security committee of 1950.


Arthur Laing: Not up to date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not have them on my desk, but the point I have been making-


Mr. Hosking:: Answer the question. Do not mislead the public.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the hon. member's approach that misleads the public when he tries to argue that adequate social security cannot be afforded. The fact is that we can pay for the entire social security program that we in this party are arguing for out of one source, namely the increase in this one year in our gross national product.


Mr. A. C. Murray (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, a Scotsman was once asked to make a speech and the first thing he said was: "I would
The Address-Mr. A. C. Murray like to say a few things before I begin". So tonight I should like to say a few words before I begin. First of all I am sure I express the warmest greetings to a distinguished guest to the capital city today, one who I understand is being entertained this evening by the Speaker of the house. This is a distinguished man from the land of Scotland, James Miller, Lord Provost of Edinburgh, and Mrs. Ella J. Miller, Lady Provost of Edinburgh. I am sure that as one in whom Scottish blood runs strong I express the sentiments of all hon. members in extending the warmest greetings to this distinguished couple on this occasion. I am sure we are all mindful of the Scot today and of the part he is playing in the affairs of the world. With a shrewd, prudent -and peaceful conscience in the discharge of duty to a degree above all others, being imbued with tremendous powers of concentration, the Scottish race has made an impression upon the world to which no other race can yet lay claim. So I repeat how proud we are to welcome to this parliament of Canada our distinguished guests on this great occasion.
Likewise I say to you tonight that I am sure that by whatever waters of Babylon our tents may be pitched, we are all proud to serve in this parliament of Canada and in particular to have a part in the building of this great nation. I say likewise how proud we are as Canadians and as members of the government today to have as the Prime Minister of this country and as the leader of our party one so distinguished in the past, one so notable in the present, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. I repeat what I have said elsewhere, that it is not wealth or riches that bring greatness to a country or to a party; it is the men who travel in its service treading like the stars to their selected place.
As we think of the part the Prime Minister is playing in the world of international affairs and in affairs that directly affect our country I am sure all government members will join me in saying that we yield to few in our admiration for one so devoted to his people and to the welfare of all mankind. As 1 think of the part the Prime Minister and members of this government are playing I am reminded of the lines:
Give me men, to match my mountains,
Give me men, to match my plains,
Men of courage, men of action,
Men with Canada in their brains.
So I say tonight, give me the men of this government of today, men imbued with the spirit of unity, with a common allegiance to democratic ideals and the welfare of all our people, and I will give you men who are

The Address-Mr. A. C. Murray making for Canada today its rightful place in the sun among the nations of the world.
It is a great land in which you and I are privileged to live, and it is playing its part among the nations of the world. To couch it in the language of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), there is one contribution which I feel in the long run may well be the most important contribution that our country can make to the world today. Our country is a unique example of international good will and co-operation which could be extended to all nations. Our country is a dominion which extends from sea to sea, an association of provinces which are bound together, not by any military strength, not by any charter, not by any covenant or by any legal instrument. That which binds Canada together today are the great and mighty intangibles of life. The basis of our relationship is friendship and a spirit of co-operation, an attitude of progress with a common allegiance to democratic ideals and fundamental moral principles. Those qualities which have shown themselves so capable of transcending and bridging great disparities of race and religion within our own country can, I feel, achieve a like purpose in the world.
As our own Prime Minister once said at a London conference of prime ministers, while it may be necessary for some considerable time for peace-loving countries to maintain military strength in order to resist or deter aggression, there can never be real peace or real security in the world until we can achieve something of that mutual co-operation and understanding among all nations which today we are striving to maintain within our own commonwealth. That I feel is the ultimate objective of the whole world, the ultimate goal at which peace and brotherhood will be the ideals of men and nations everywhere.
I say that this is a great country. I ask any member of this house: Do you know of any other country in the world, perhaps barring the United States of America, that enjoys a higher standard of living than we do here in Canada? Do you know of any other country whose currency is at a premium in the market places of the world? Do you know of any other country in the world where opportunity still knocks and where by simple fundamentals you can find it to the extent that you can in this land of Canada?
I am sure there must be thousands and thousands of people throughout the world tonight who would give everything they have if they could only come to this land of Canada to enjoy our privileges, to enjoy the prosperity that has been made possible


through the policies promulgated by the Liberal government of today, policies that transcend the bickerings and lamentations that go out from this house, policies that have built and strengthened the pillars of unity, of security and of freedom for all our people.
Yet with all our policy, with all our prosperity, with all our technological progress, with all our material acquisitions, with all our natural resources, are we removing today some of the barnacles that still cling to the life of this country? I am reminded that hon. members who come from the sea may know something of the barnacle, that tiny animal that lives within the sea and clings to the passing hulls of vessels. It propagates with great rapidity and spreads a concrete-like substance across the hull of a ship which if neglected cuts down steerageway and the efficiency and effectiveness of the ship.
I appreciate that we have eliminated two of the barnacles that previously clung to this chamber, and which had been here long before I came to the house in 1949. One of the barnacles that has been removed is the lack of acoustics. Now with a man sitting at the console a member's voice is amplified through this new sound reinforcing system so his speech is brought to all parts of the Commons most distinctly, and likewise to the galleries. I say that a bouquet should go to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) for his perseverance, his industry and his initiative in seeing that this barnacle of inefficient acoustics has been removed.
Then I should also like to present a bouquet to the Speaker of the House for seeing to it that the evening hours of sitting are regulated so we can now adjourn at ten o'clock. I am sure all members will agree that the former closing hour was a barnacle upon the life of this chamber. In these days of national crisis, these days of worry, stress and strain, we need to keep fit, we need desperately to keep our manhood and our womanhood of this and other democracies physically fit and mentally alert. I think some of us make a ghastly mistake when we do not see to it that we keep fit; for a man who may do one hour's less work per day, but save himself for the task that needs to be done for the national welfare, is far better alive with one hour less activity than dead, with his genius, his brains, his talents and his powers lost to his fellow man.
Oh, Mr. Speaker, there are barnacles elsewhere, everywhere. I was amazed the other day to read of the betting odds on successful marriages. I am amazed each year at the number of divorce cases that come before parliament, about which every member knows. It is unbelievable. Why? Barnacles,

that is all; tiny, nonsensical things that somehow get a grip on married life, that cling with all the tenacity of a barnacle to the hull of a ship, and cause that glorious ship of matrimony to lose its course and go on the rocks; things that could be so easily forgotten, things that become pitched battles when, with a little understanding and a little smile, they could be avoided.
That is what happens. Oh, I appreciate that the barnacles of government are not centred here at Ottawa alone. They are centred in the minds of men and women who will not vote when an election comes. When a war is on they will fight, they will buy bonds, they will do this, that, and everything else to bring about peace; but when peace comes they will not bother to go to the polls to choose the best man or the best woman to represent them at the councils or in the parliament of our nation. They slip back into that luxurious and splendid slumber of the democratic citizen, who thinks only of his nation's safety when it is in danger.
There are barnacles everywhere. I suppose members of the opposition will say that taxation is a barnacle in the life of Canada today. But let me remind them that their demands for lower taxation are incompatible with demands for increased government services necessitating heavy expenditures. Here we have hon. members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition proposing savings that amount to $116 million a year, whereas new services requested by the Progressive Conservative party would add $600 million a year to the federal budget.
I say to hon. members of the opposition, as I have said elsewhere, that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If we want to build our defences strong and maintain the attributes of decency throughout the world, and if we want social security for all our people, then let us do first things first. Let us build so those who follow after us may enjoy the shade. Let us realize that if we want all these things, then we must be prepared to pay for them.
I presume there are a few barnacles in every trade and in every profession. It seems to me that no man who does not understand the principles of a particular trade or profession has any right to criticize it. My purpose in rising at this time is not to criticize; rather, it is to suggest to myself, as well as to the members of the government and to all hon. members in the house, that sometimes it is best to take the hull of the ship of state onto a set of ways, clean off the barnacles and set it sailing again, shipshape and clean, and on a voyage toward a happy harbour.
The Address-Mr. A. C. Murray
I think, sir, of the Department of National Health and Welfare and its wonderful record of achievement. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is a barnacle on the record of that department.
I wonder, sir, if we realize that as a result of the research that has been conducted by that department and by men of science, and as a result of the growth of medicine and pharmacy, all of us are living longer than was expected at our births. I recognize, of course, that today a woman lives possibly four and a half to five years longer than a man. We have heard the reason suggested: that we take such good care of them. Nevertheless we have added almost a score of years to our life expectancy in the last half century. This poses a terrific problem for those engaged in life insurance, and those concerned with annuity and pension schemes.
I suggest the growth of science has been an important factor. Believe me when I tell you that in New York state in 1928 nearly 2,000 people out of every 100,000 died as a result of appendicitis; by 1948 the number was brought down to 440 for every 100,000 of the population. In 1928 the figures show that 16,000 people out of every 100,000 of the population died of the pneumonias, while in 1948 only 5,132 died. In 1928 1,950 out of every 100,000 died of influenza, while in 1948 there were only 114. There is the answer. Here in Canada also, as a result of the new drugs, the new antibiotics, every one of us is living longer than was expected for us at our births.
I think of insulin, which was discovered by that great Canadian, Sir Frederick Banting. Formerly, when sugar was discovered in a child's urine it was a foregone conclusion that it would never reach the age of 21 years. As a result of that great discovery, thousands upon thousands of people can now live to a ripe and useful age. I think of penicillin, discovered by Sir Alexander Fleming, and what a great benefactor to mankind he has been. I think in the same way about streptomycin, aureomycin, terramycin. Mr. Speaker, I can vouch for the fact that there are hundreds of promising new drugs on the horizon, and the horizon is equally challenging and tremendous.
Every one of us has more years of life expectancy than was anticipated at our births. What are we going to do with them? All of us are working fewer hours than we used to, but what are we going to do with our added leisure? It lays a terrific obligation and responsibility upon the family and the school to teach people the joy of living well the leisure time, and giving them guidance in how to spend the coin of leisure wisely.
626	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. C. Murray
The Department of National Health and Welfare has played, and is playing, a significant role in the health and welfare of our citizens. It has carefully re-examined the way to human welfare and, as a result of its endeavours, we have gone forward steadily and in freedom toward a decent level of life. There is a strong tide flowing in the affairs of men; social injustices are being swept aside and human progress is at the flood. Yet, with this great record, there is a barnacle on the life of this department. The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) referred to it in his speech in seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Other hon. members have referred to it again and again, and I refer to it today. I mean, of course, that the government should do something to remove the means test on pensions for the blind. Tonight I am mindful of the biblical injunction:
And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known:	I will make darkness light before
them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.
Surely we in this chamber cannot do less. It seems to me that the idea of the blindness allowance being a payment for their handicap has been lost sight of by the legislators. The means test and its regulations are so restrictive that they discourage blind persons from trying to better themselves. I am informed that since blind persons over 70 years of age have been transferred to the Old Age Security Act, under which they now benefit by the elimination of the means test, there are only about 4,000 of the 19,000 blind adults who do not receive the allowance. These are the ones whose income is above the allowable income in order to qualify for the allowance. These persons are blind, and need and would be encouraged by the allowance in coping with their handicap. Surely it would not place too great a burden on the various governments to agree to the elimination of this restrictive legislation.
Eighty per cent of all blindness occurs in adult life, and I need not say that the loss of sight in adult life has the effect of wrecking hopes and plans as well as the sense of security. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is not a member of this house who would not like to see this barnacle, this restrictive means test on the blind, removed. I know, sir, that today our troops are fighting in Korea, and none of us is unmindful of the terrific sacrifice that is being made. There is the sacrifice being made by those who cannot see. There is more to a fight than is seen in the game. There is the fight that enters not the limelight of publicity. There is the fight that some day we hope will bring about peace. But today it is the fight of every one of us in


this chamber to give what we can to life, to serve not for ourselves but so that those in darkness can share and know the joy of living too.
So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the blind in my home county of Oxford, who have appealed to me to speak for them and likewise for all Canadian blind persons, I want to say that although I may have been halting in my words I have been struck by the sincerity with which hon. gentlemen preceding me have spoken on this subject, and I earnestly hope and pray that the government will do its part to remove this barnacle that is upon it at the present time.
Then I should like to briefly commend the government and the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) in particular for the legislation envisaged in the speech from the throne whereby in all likelihood some compensation is to be given to the rural mail carriers for the extra cost entailed today in fulfilling their duties. These men and women travel in all kinds of weather to see that the mail goes through. I am sure all hon. members appreciate their reasonable request for further compensation and hope the government, having taken cognizance of this pressing problem, will see to it that equitable compensation is made feasible. May I say frankly that as the member for Oxford I look forward to that day when mail service will be made available directly to all rural mail patrons where roads are passable and kept open. To me, Mr. Speaker, it is a barnacle on this fine department that on account of regulations a great number of people living in our rural parts are penalized by reason of distance and other qualifying factors. I feel that some revision could be made in these outmoded laws whereby our rural people, who pay their taxes just the same as the rest of us, might enjoy the privilege of direct mail service to their gates which their neighbour may now be receiving.
I presume that taxation is in the minds of many of our citizens. It is one of the greatest barnacles in the road of progress today. I recall that when I spoke in last year's budget debate I credited our Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) with being the architect of a fiscal policy that has made Canada the envy of the world. I said that as a result Canada's credit abroad was being strengthened, inflation was being controlled, capital for investment was being attracted and the Canadian dollar was at a premium in the market places of the world. At that time I made the suggestion that the weight on corporations was too heavy. Likewise today I reiterate that, national defence permitting, every effort should be made to reduce corporation and personal income taxes. I do not know that

I can interpret with greater propriety what I should like to say than to quote the words of Mr. B. C. Gardner, president of the Bank of Montreal, when at a recent shareholders' annual meeting he said:
On the domestic side, development of Canada's resources and the expansion of industrial capacity should not be stifled by heavy taxes on business. With capital requirements running ahead of the amount new savings can provide, development is dependent on what industry itself can plow back in the way of undistributed profits and depreciation reserves. While a corporate tax rate which takes more than half of every dollar of profit may be a convenient fiscal devise, such a burden of taxation directly upon enterprise has very dubious connotations from the standpoint of enhanced national well-being.
Expanding on the president's remarks, Gordon R. Ball, general manager of the Bank of Montreal, said:
It is essential in a country like ours, requiring as it does large sums of risk and investment money, that the tax climate provide an inducement to this type of capital.
So I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that, national defence costs permitting, the Minister of Finance should give his profound attention to this matter of easing the tax structure on all our citizens. Oh, I suppose, sir, there are barnacles in everyone's constituency. I know that for a long time there has been a barnacle existing in the town of Ingersoll in my constituency, a barnacle represented by the hazardous traffic tie-up that prevails where the C.N.R. tracks in that town cross highway No. 2. Since becoming a member of the house I have earnestly endeavoured to have it eliminated, and I am grateful to Mr. A. J. Lomas, vice-president of the C.N.R., for his co-operation in this direction. In his last letter to me under date of November 27, 1952, the vice-president informs me that he has included this item in their 1953 capital budget and is hopeful that the necessary approval will be obtained to carry out this work. While I realize that this is a matter of internal management, I can but emphasize again on behalf of the citizens of that fine community of Ingersoll the urgency and importance of seeing that the capital amount needed for this work be approved and that remedial action be facilitated as quickly as possible.
Then, Mr. Speaker, while I am thinking of the C.N.R. I think also of the fine C.N.R. station that the Speaker of this house has in his own city of Brantford. I mention it by way of contrast with the dingy and ancient C.N.R. station at Woodstock, Ontario, with its poor lighting, its dismal, unkempt, internal appearance which is not a credit to the C.N.R. or to the lovely city of Woodstock from which I come-Woodstock, Ontario, sir, which is
The Address-Mr. A. C. Murray noted for its beauty, for its key of freedom to visiting tourists, for its surrounding fertile fields and for its friendly people. I say, sir, that station is a barnacle in the life of my community, and likewise a barnacle on the main line of the Canadian National Railways. This, too, may be a matter for internal management, but in passing I make mention of it in order to emphasize that something should be done about it.
Well, sir, I am honest enough to say that I do not know all the problems of government, but I do know that my business as a pharmacist depends upon the good will of the public who patronize me; and any of us who carry on a business or a profession where we are dependent upon the good will of our customers or clients must make sure there are no barnacles on the mind, or on the institution of which we are a part. They get there, just as easily as barnacles get on the hull of a ship, for it is easy to say "That's a good idea, but let someone else try it." It is easy to persuade oneself that things that literally cry out for the doing do not need to be done. These become barnacles; and just as ships on historic voyages have met disaster upon the rocks, when the absence of barnacles might have meant the difference between life and death, success and failure, so too with a business; so too with government.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I do not know all the problems of government, but here are fundamentals about mankind that I have learned and that we all can learn if we read the pages of history. One of those fundamentals is that no matter how much there may be of animosity and difference of opinion, that which is best for the greatest number eventually must come to be. That which is fairest and most straightforward and truly honest, that which benefits most largely, must inevitably one day come to be.
To me, as a member of parliament, it seems life can be magnificent provided we are prepared to enjoy it to the full; and the way to enjoy it to the full is to periodically take the ship of state up on the sets of ways and there study it and clean off any barnacles that may cling upon it.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I hope I have not rambled too much; I may have detoured some but I am coming back to the main track. In coming back to the main track I emphasize to you that being a member of parliament is not so important. What is important is to do the job while we are here. If we do that, if we remove the barnacles that are obvious about us, then life as a member will be a lot more pleasant and Canada itself will be a finer country in which to live.
628	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hansell


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to take part in this debate on the amendment at this time because of remarks that have been made by one or two previous speakers, on which I think we need to throw some light. I believe that the things to which I wish to refer can be made to relate a little more to the facts. I hope and trust that the things to which I refer will not be regarded as trivial things; but since my name had been mentioned in connection with one or two of them, and since other statements by implication certainly involve the Social Credit movement, I would like to make a few corrections.
I believe those who made the -remarks will be happy to have all the facts before them. In the first place I wish to refer to a remark that was made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). At page 435 of Hansard he referred to me as going into British Columbia during the election campaign. He said:
Against the wishes of their own convention, that hon. gentleman from Macleod was brought into British Columbia. There is no doubt that he, of all people, laid down the law as far as Social Credit and the provincial party are concerned. I am not surprised that my hon. friends on the other side in the Social Credit party have said they do not agree with some of the views expressed in that election.
In the first place might I say that no individual who attempts to run a campaign can lay down the exact things every speaker in that campaign may say. No man who leads an election campaign necessarily determines the policy of the provincial section of his party. That policy had already been laid down before I was asked into British Columbia, and I never interfered with that policy. My business was not to determine policy. My business was to try to lead the province to a Social Credit victory. With respect to the hon. member's remarks-"against the wishes of their own convention, that hon. gentleman from Macleod was brought into British Columbia"-I will say that I know the hon. gentleman from Burnaby-Richmond is a very fine gentleman and well respected, but I feel that perhaps he has been misinformed. I was not "brought into British Columbia."


Mr. Goode:: As the hon. member has referred to me may I say that I was not misinformed, but that if I was misinformed it was by members of his own party.


Ernest George Hansell: I will tell the hon. member and the house exactly how I came to go into British Columbia. The convention decided on the person they would have to lead the election campaign. At the convention four were nominated as men who might be able to lead

the campaign. Two were from British Columbia and two were from outside the province. I was one of the latter two.
I am quite free to say, and I have nothing to hold back, that there was some discussion in the convention about whether it was advisable to have anyone from outside. That was natural. There is nothing wrong with that. When the four were nominated for the position I was not looking forward to being selected. Let me say that I am not looking for a lot of hard work and trouble, and I am certainly not desirous of going anywhere I am not wanted, believe me. Well, I do not mind going places where I am not wanted by my Liberal friends. Of course, they will not want any of us. I am certainly not desirous of going anywhere where our Social Credit people do not want me.
As I say, four gentlemen- were nominated and three of them declined, so I was the one left. I said that I would accept and do what I could. I want to tell my hon. friend-and I do not say it with any air of braggadocio or anything of that kind-that the huge convention of nearly 1,000 people stood and gave me a rousing ovation.


Arthur Laing: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes.


Arthur Laing: Is he aware that in that campaign there were subordinates working under him who came in from the United States and returned to the United States the day after the election?


Ernest George Hansell: No, I am not aware of that.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: If there was anyone, I have no hint as to what the member refers to.


Arthur Laing: I think it is contrary to the act, too.


Ernest George Hansell: I have no hint as to what the hon. member now means.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I thought you ran the campaign.


Mr. Johnston:: You found out, didn't you?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, and the oil companies paid for it.


Ernest George Hansell: If they did come in, then they came in without my knowledge.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, nonsense.


Ernest George Hansell: I did not invite them. My hon, friend the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) can bellow out if he wishes.
I am simply stating the facts. If somebody slipped in and gave some speeches that I did not know about, I am not responsible for that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Didn't you run the campaign?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, I did run the campaign. My hon. friend knows very well that I ran it, and he knows how well I ran it. That is the reason he is so upset about it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On imports from the United States.


Ernest George Hansell: He knows, too, that I had a meeting in his constituency.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You lived in there.


Ernest George Hansell: I had a meeting in the city of Chilliwack, and he knows that.


Mr. Low:: Oh, you frightened boys.


Ernest George Hansell: He knows that about 1,700 people turned out, too, and that is what is bothering him.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They will always go to a circus.


Ernest George Hansell: I shall do my hon. friend this credit and this justice, and say that I never spoke one word against him.


Mr.   Moil@: You could not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: In fairness, Mr. Speaker, may I say that is quite correct.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps I could not say anything, but if I could I would not. . I shall say, further, that never in that campaign did I speak against any individual. I may have had a little fun at someone's expense. I may have referred, I think I did refer once or twice, to Mr. Anscomb and some statements that he made. If I was quoting a statement, I may have referred to the person who made it; but I may say that I never spoke one derogatory word against any individual in that campaign because that is not my style of operation.


Mr. Blackmore:: Social Crediters do not need to say anything against anybody.


Ernest George Hansell: I can assure my hon. friends that I never will. I claim that the people do not necessarily vote for men. In reality they vote for what they stand for, and it is what they stood for that I expounded or exposed.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What do you stand for?


Charles Edward Johnston: You should begin to find out. It will pay you dividends.


Ernest George Hansell: I thought perhaps the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) would like me to state that. I cannot help what some individual may have told him, but that is the fact and it will be shown in the minutes of that convention.
The Address-Mr. Hansell


Tom Goode: It is certainly not shown in the newspapers.


Solon Earl Low: What he said is true. I was there.


Ernest George Hansell: As I say, it is a trivial thing. It is water under the bridge anyway, but I do not want any implication or statement to the effect that I pushed myself in where I was not wanted. I do not do that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Who wanted you there?


Solon Earl Low: You will want him in less the next time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We never came into your province.


John Horne Blackmore: You would not get a hearing if you did.


Charles Edward Johnston: Where did Gerry McGeer come from?


George Alexander Cruickshank: From British Columbia; and he won his own riding, too.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Fraser Valley said they do not come into our province. Perhaps they do not, but that is their own business. I will tell you what I will do. I will invite my hon. friend to come into my own constituency. Since I have been in his, I will invite him to come into mine.


Mr. Mott:: If he comes in, you will never be elected if he tells the truth.


Ernest George Hansell: That should not worry the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mott). If that is so, why does he not send him in?


William Malcolm Mott: I will send him in. I will ask him to go in.


Ernest George Hansell: You come along with him.


William Malcolm Mott: I will certainly come along with him.


Ernest George Hansell: If you both come in, I will be able to sit down and be assured of my election.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer also to a statement that was made the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) in which he says that I used a phrase in answering a question which indicated that the Social Crediters believed in absolute licence for everyone to do whatever they wanted. I know what I said, and I know the phraseology I used. I was answering a question after I finished my speech concerning the welfare state. What did I say in answer to a question by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) which appears at page 236 of Hansard for
630	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hansell December 1? The hon. member asked me if I would do away with welfare legislation, and I answered:
I would like to answer the hon. gentleman's question if I may. It has always been found that you cannot readily retract or undo something the country has already done;
My hon. friend jumped up last night and inferred, therefore, that Social Crediters would do away with all social legislation. All I am saying is that if social legislation and socialism are brought in, and any other government supersedes it, it is sometimes hard to undo what has been done. That is all, and that has been proven in the United Kingdom in the last few months. It is always so. One government comes into power on the heels of another, and they have to work on the basis of legislation that has already been enacted or throw it out. Sometimes it is too late to throw it out, so one government builds upon another. I am sure the hon. member drew an inference there that was never intended. To read further from my answer:
-but I would say that the greatest welfare that can come to the people is to leave with them their absolute freedom to act according to their own conscience and will, . . .
The hon. gentleman stopped there when he was quoting me, but that is not the end of my statement. There is only a comma there. This is where the commas come in again. It is true that I said that; but just because I said that people should be absolutely free to act according to their own conscience, surely he is not going to conclude that Social Crediters such as I or anyone else believe that men should be able to commit all sorts of crimes under the heading "absolute freedom". Surely he is not going to think we would advocate that a man should drive a car down the left hand side of the road at 100 miles an hour if he wished. Surely he is not going to say we believe that a man should have the freedom to run away with another man's wife. Surely he is not going to say that we are turning liberty into licence. Common sense tells him that is not so. Of course we believe in law and order. Of course we believe in regulation. Perhaps I should have used the term that is used in our manifesto. The term used in the preamble is that every individual should be given the "utmost" of personal freedom.
If the hon. member likes to play around with the exactitude of words, I am not going to be too much concerned about it. But suppose we should do the same thing with regal'd to some of his speeches. I have here


a speech of his as reported in Hansard of March 11, 1947, in which he says at page 1264:
I should like to point out now that the policy we believe in, that of social ownership of the means of life, is becoming increasingly accepted throughout the world, . . .
And so forth. Suppose I should take that phrase "social ownership of the means of life" and should say: "There you are. These folks believe in socializing the farms and they believe in socializing food." Perhaps I could do that. Perhaps that is what he meant. But I do not think that is what he meant. I think what he meant was that he believed in the socializing of factories and the wheels of industry. But if I wanted to play around with a phrase I could read all sorts of things into that one. In any event, this nation is not going to rise or fall on a phrase. Perhaps that is a trivial thing which I should not even have taken the time to mention. Social Crediters are not against orderly regulation. You have to have regulation. Of course we know that. It is one thing, however, to have regulation but it is another thing to lose your freedom under an ultimate socialist state. That is the thing we are against.
There is another point. Again I say these things are trivial; nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, they are harped on year in and year out. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Nickle) took a little sideswipe at Social Crediters. His punch did not land at all heavily; it just tickled the jaw a little bit. As reported at page 283 of Hansard, he was explaining Social Credit policies and said something to the effect that that which stood behind our Social Credit dollars would be 'gosh knows what'. That is, of course, a humorous little phrase. We have had that sort of thing poked at us for a good many years. I do not know whether or not my hon. friend's difficulty is in understanding Social Credit dollars, but let me tell him this. I know the matter will not rest here. I know someone will pop up in a few weeks and say the same thing. Let me say that there is no difference between Social Credit dollars and any other dollars.


An hon. Member:: And he knows it.


Ernest George Hansell: We use the same dollar, the same money. Our objection is to the present financial policy. It is not a matter of dollars or the backing of dollars at all. That is not the issue. There is no difference between our dollars and Mr. Abbott's dollars. The difference is in the policy and the method of issue. That is the difference. Since my friend does not know what is behind Social Credit dollars

-he says they are backed by gosh knows what-I am just going to ask him this question and I should like him to explain it. I should like him to tell us what is behind Mr. Abbott's dollars.


An hon. Member:: A great deal of hard work.


Ernest George Hansell: When the hon. member
explains what is behind Mr. Abbott's dollars, we shall be able to tell him what is behind Social Credit dollars. Dollars are dollars. That is all there is to it. They are only figures. They are financial figures backed by law. That is all they are. It does not matter whether you call them Social Credit dollars or any other dollars.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Social Credit dollars will not be any good if you pay your dividends.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member is now talking nonsense.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Abbott's dollars, in paying family allowances, evidently are all right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; but they are worth only half what they were worth when the payments were started.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend says that they are worth only half what they were worth a few years ago. That is, of course, true. There used to be talk about Social Credit dollars being rubber dollars. I should like to know how far the housewife has to stretch the Abbott dollar today in order to make it buy what it used to buy. Talk about rubber. There is plenty of rubber in that dollar.
There is one other matter with which I should like to deal, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down. This was interjected by a number of speakers, including the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) the other night, when he stated that Social Crediters did not have a monopoly on Christianity. I want to deal with that matter a little bit more.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We should like to hear it.


Ernest George Hansell: That same type of phraseology and that same type of argument has been brought into this chamber this session more than in any other session I have ever attended. I wonder why.


An hon. Member:: Hypocrisy.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes. Somebody pops up there and says "Hypocrisy". What does it all mean? I should like to know what it all means. All I am saying is this. Social Crediters never said they had a monopoly on Christianity.
The Address-Mr. Hansell Somebody referred to the fact that our meetings were opened-yes; again it was the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis)- by the singing of "O God, our Help in ages past". Well, what about it? Suppose we do open our meetings in that way. Why mention the matter now? We have done that for the last twenty years.


John Horne Blackmore: What better thing could we open with?


An hon. Member:: "O Canada".


Ernest George Hansell: We do.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You do not.


An hon. Member:: We do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: If you can find anybody who is more loyal to Canada than are Social Crediters, tell us who they are. It is a wonder you do not say "Liberals".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, this is a lot of nonsense we are having.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Ernest George Hansell: Everyone knows the origin of our movement. We know that Mr. Aberhart absorbed the Social Credit idea. He saw in it a solution for the problems of the day. He was a great Bible teacher who had a large radio audience and he began to talk about it over the air. Clubs were formed, meetings were held. In the Alberta election of 1935 we had as our theme song "O God, our Help in ages past".


An hon. Member:: That is blasphemy.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: That is blasphemy against the United Church of Canada from Toronto to Montreal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. I think all members enjoy spirited debate, but I must remind them that the hon. member who is speaking has the floor and should not be interrupted without his consent.


John Horne Blackmore: Spirited is good.


Solon Earl Low: Spirituous would be better.


Ernest George Hansell: We always started with that hymn. What about it? Is there anything wrong with that? Surely a body of people who are interested in the country's welfare can sing a hymn of that kind. I hope we shall continue to do so. As far as I am concerned we will continue to do so. Let no one think he can scare us or humiliate us into any other position. I tell my hon. friend that I have come up against this thing all my life.

The Address-Mr. Hansell What do I care about that? During my early days I have stood on street corners and preached. Well, what about it. I will do it again. They have ridiculed me but what about it? Do I care?


An hon. Member:: No.


Ernest George Hansell: No, sir, I do not care. That is one of the freedoms I was talking about. Don't ever think they are going to scare us into backtracking on these things.
We believe that the Social Credit philosophy is basically Christian. Just because we go out and present that angle of our Social Credit thesis is no reason to pop up and say that we are trying to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude. We are very conscious of our failings many times. We do not go around talking about other people in that same way.


An hon. Member:: You sure do.


Ernest George Hansell: I should like to read the preamble to our manifesto. If anybody thinks he is going to have us cut out any part of this then he has another think coming. This is the preamble:
What is Social Credit?
Social Credit consists of three things:	(a) A
philosophy or set of beliefs: Social Crediters believe in the sanctity of human personality; that every person should enjoy freedom to develop his personality in accordance with his own desires, provided that he does not interfere with the similar rights of others; that the organizations of society should be subordinated to the end of insuring to every individual the utmost of personal freedom. Social Crediters believe that a genuine democracy must recognize the sovereignty of God from which springs the brotherhood of man. A Christian democracy so organized that the state and its institutions and functions are designed to serve the requirements of its individual citizens is the only social system that will ensure individual freedom. Social Crediters further believe that the people should be given every opportunity to obtain the results they want from the management of their affairs.


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


Ernest George Hansell: I do not think I want to hear your question. If my hon. friend had not interrupted so much, if he had got up and spoken decently and asked questions, I would not have minded answering them. This time my answer to him is "no". I do not want to hear any of his questions.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You are afraid.


An hon. Member:: Fraidy cat.


Ernest George Hansell: This group has never been afraid for over 17 years to answer any question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why not answer this question, then?


Ernest George Hansell: I do not believe it will be an intelligent one, and I have not the time to waste.


An hon. Member:: How true.


Ernest George Hansell: We are going out with that preamble and that manifesto; and if it emphasizes the sovereignty of God and our desire to have a Christian democracy, that is all right. We will go out and let the ridicule come. We are not afraid of that. Believe me, if anyone thinks we are going to back down on that issue they have another think coming. I am a preacher, and of course I occasionally-


An hon. Member:: You just preach too much.


Ernest George Hansell: That is the freedom we have in this country, and I will continue to preach a little more. If I go out and hold a political meeting and want to bring in a portion of the Bible, I am going to do it. It will not be the first time anyone has done that. The speaker who just preceded me closed his speech with a passage from the scriptures. What must we do? Must we say that he is mixing religion with politics?


An hon. Member:: You certainly have.


An hon. Member:: That is what the C.C.F. did yesterday.


Ernest George Hansell: Let me say to the leader of the C.C.F. that I did not appreciate how he applied the passages of scripture yesterday when he spoke. I am certainly not going to apply it to him. I tell him and I tell anyone that I have the greatest respect for human individuals. I have gone out in this country and made public statements to thousands of people, lauding certain men with whom I disagree. It would not be the first time I have said that Mr. M. J. Coldwell is as good a living man as anyone in Canada.


An hon. Member:: So he is.


Ernest George Hansell: I have said that over and over again. People have asked me what I thought about the Prime Minister of Canada and I have said, "There is one thing, I believe he is an honest man."


George Matheson Murray: And a Christian.


Ernest George Hansell: I have said these things. I do not go around trying to deprecate individuals. I remember one time when I was in the office of the late prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King. He wanted to see me about something and I thought he might detain me for a minute or two, but strangely enough I was there for from twenty minutes to half an hour. I was talking to him along the
TMr. Hansell.1

same lines. At that time he was also secretary of state for external affairs and I mentioned to him that I believed that there were in the world great satanic forces which were out to destroy the human race. He said, "I believe that." I quoted a phrase of scripture to him as follows:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Mr. Mackenzie King said to me, "Mr. Hansell, I believe that; no man could be in my position today, with the responsibilities I have, without believing that." Well, is that saying that we are mixing religion with politics? All I say is this: You may make that charge if you like; but one thing I certainly will not backtrack on is in my belief that Almighty God has something to do with the destinies of nations.


An hon. Member:: Do we deny that?


Ernest George Hansell: No, I do not believe my hon. friend would. I do not believe there are many who would. But when somebody goes out and attempts to correlate that very principle with world movements or national movements, then right away he is branded as somebody who wants to bring religion into politics.
Well, that is part of my business. Once again I say we are not going to backtrack on it. My time is well-nigh gone, and I shall not take up more of it. But once again I say it is a surprising thing to me that all this seems to be happening now, when we have sat here for the last 17 years, doing the same thing throughout this country for the entire 17 years. Why should all this resentment come now?
I leave that for you, Mr. Speaker, and for the people to decide. I thank you.


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


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, if my hon. friend wishes to ask one.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think he will admit I have been fair. I just want to ask him if he does not think that we on this side of the house believe in that part of his manifesto dealing with Christianity.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, I will say yes, I believe they do. But we do not go out saying, "Now, you must not talk that way." That is what I am trying to bring out. But why all this hullabaloo about religion in politics, when we go out to expound it?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not ask for another speech. I just asked a question.
The Address-Mr. Balcom,


Ernest George Hansell: And I answered the question, and gave a little bonus with the answer.


William Malcolm Mott: I am going to tell the hon. member who just spoke that I agree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). I do not believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, with the speech of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) in the background I am sure the next twenty minutes will be quiet and peaceful. Anyway, 1 have not been going out to win elections.
We modest backbenchers who really live in the oblivion of Hansard welcome the speech from the throne, as it gives us an opportunity to express our opinions and offer suggestions -yes, even solutions-for taking the world out of the mess it is in today.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I consider it very largely through your efforts that the public address system became a reality in the chamber. The improvement is already quite obvious, and I am sure most hon. members will agree with what I say in this connection. We were pleased to note that you and your committee saw fit to have a Halifax electronics firm make the installation. That, in itself, is worth something.
I wish to extend my congratulations, also, on the excellent choice made in the recent appointments of the two ministers. The choice of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney) as Solicitor General is an excellent one. With his wide experience in many fields, and the co-operative spirit that he not only shows but possesses, 1 am sure that his work will be well carried out.
The new Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), who represents the constituency of Coast-Capilano, has already shown us his capabilities, and I know that his appointment as Minister of Fisheries has been welcomed by fishermen generally and by the industry as a whole.
In the last few years there has been an upsurge of interest in research, both scientific and in the social sciences. The government has played a constructive and important role in the development of facilities and training of personnel. In fact, so important is the role the government has played as employer and as a source of funds that it raises serious problems. All of us are painfully aware of the increase in the scope of government activity. The times in which we live have created new demands which can only be met by government action. But there is very real danger that this expansionist
634	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Balcom trend will go too far. Overzealous public servants may undertake functions which are better performed elsewhere.
I suggest that there is much research that could be done by our universities, through foundations, rather than by government sources or agencies. For the more we throw under the control of government, the nearer we approach the socialist form of control. Today we live in a world divided only by ideas. Certainly space does not divide us any longer. In - our world, Canada in particular, our most cherished idea is liberty, the kind of liberty that recognizes the importance of the individual. On this we develop the concept that not only is there an equality of the individual, but also of the provinces. A wonderful idea; but things do not always turn out that way. Where there are instances of inequality I like to think that it is more of a sin of omission than one of design.
Since the last session there have been several matters that have given me some concern. The first, perhaps, was the matter of redistribution; and in that connection possibly this is the right time to consider future policy in the redistribution of seats for representation in the House of Commons. Now that the heat of controversy has died down, and before new pressures arise, it is most opportune to examine the principles. In the redistribution of seats in the last session Nova Scotia lost one seat, because our population had not grown as rapidly as other parts of Canada. A new approach is most necessary in view of the uneven distribution of economic power among the different provinces.
We are still painfully aware of the centralizing forces in our industrial life. The government, in recognition of this, has adopted measures aimed at steadying the tide of such forces. Whether or not it has been done has been hotly debated. It is desirable in any case to assure to the outlying provinces a voice in the policies of this country. Adequate political representation may help restore balance in economic power. This nation was founded on the principle of unity with diversity. If we are to continue to reap the full benefit of diversity, and to fight effectively the mass mind so common in other countries, we must make it possible for the less wealthy provinces to develop. One way to assure that is to provide a real voice in the affairs of state. I suggest that we are going at it in a poor fashion when in 1953, with a population of something over 700,000 people in Nova Scotia, we will find ourselves with 12 members whereas in 1867, with half the number of people, we had 21 members.


Much has been said during this time of uncertainty of the need for every citizen to carry his or her responsibilities. In the field of material production the government has given active encouragement for full use of all who are able and willing to work. Employers and employees alike have been asked to work longer and harder. The government has gone further and urged upon industry the advantages of employing older workers. Employers have also been asked not to make retirement automatic at 65 but to employ and retire workers not on the basis of chronological age and to consider each individual case on its merits. Yet at the same time the age limit as set out by the civil service commission for employment in the government service is from 21 to 40. If this is to be the considered policy of the government, can one expect industry to take seriously the exhortations to employ older workers end to think twice before retiring employees automatically at 65?
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) deserves our thanks for the broad view he takes of this question. He suggested a short time ago that automatic compulsory retirement at a specified age is not only unkind and wasteful but cruel. We all know that there are myriads of men and women in this country able and eager to keep on working after 65. I realize that the civil service commission must have well recognized principles to guide them in their actions, but I suggest that too much emphasis is put on age instead of ability and individuality. The work of this agency has been lauded on many sides and the standard of our public service is a credit to Canada, but I am bound to say that certain weaknesses are apparent.
Presumably a policy is laid down and regulations are made for its application. With very many employees the result has been rigidity and inflexibility, frustration on the part of employees who feel that individual initiative and ability are only secondary. Let us recognize that the government must stand for not only the basis of high level policies but also an administration at the grass roots level. Somehow we have to get a better balance in administration between local responsibility and bureaucratic control from Ottawa. I am not suggesting for one moment that the civil service commission has not done good work, but I am suggesting that in the various departments there is room for a lot of improvement. I must say it is very frustrating to hear all the beefs and at the same time have little opportunity to effect improvements.
Speaking of public services, it is most gratfiying that there are prospects of the

return of two mail deliveries a day. Persistent representation helped to convince me that the reduction in service was working a real hardship on business establishments and individuals. For postal service the public pays and pays well. People felt they were getting less for their money with the passage of time. Further, it seems pointless to rush a letter across a continent in a few hours only to have it languish in the local post office for as many more for lack of delivery service. Surely this service can be restored without hardship to the postal staff. There is good reason why postal employees should have the benefit of a half day on Saturday or its equivalent or, what is better, why post office employees should have the same privileges as business and industry today, the people whom they serve. They should have the five-day week.
We in Nova Scotia were gravely concerned about the distribution of money voted by parliament for assistance to universities as recommended by the Massey commission. Indeed, an examination of the system adopted leads to the conclusion that it has the effect of giving the least to those who are doing the most. When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) announced more than a year ago the government's decision to carry out the commission's recommendations concerning federal aid to universities, he gave it as his opinion that it was in the national interest to do so because the universities perform functions which are quite essential to the country and, indeed, to the proper administration of the government of the country. With that view I am sure every member of course agrees.
In recognizing the national importance of Canadian universities, the Prime Minister took the same view as the Massey commission which termed the universities "local centres for education at large", which serve the national cause in so many ways, direct and indirect, "that theirs must be regarded as the finest of contributions to national strength and unity". In view of this national importance which can be so easily recognized, it is a pity that the grants for the first year should have been allocated on a basis so unfavourable to the universities of Nova Scotia, none of which are wealthy. The Prime Minister, it will be recalled, made it plain that the system of allocation of the $7,100,000 which parliament voted was purely provisional. He pointed out that the government was not "in a position to ask parliament to accept any permanent scheme" of allocation.
The unhappy effect of this provisional scheme becomes so apparent when one
The Address-Mr. Balcom examines it that in all fairness it merits careful review and revision before any permanent scheme is adopted. The people of Nova Scotia and their friends are especially concerned since the method adopted for the distribution of the 1951-52 grants resulted in Nova Scotia universities receiving the lowest amount per student of any province in Canada; and the discrepancy, as I shall submit, is by no means trifling. Members of the house will recall that the money voted by parliament was distributed according to provincial populations at the rate of 50 cents a head, without regard to the proportion of eligible students in each province. Speaking of 50 cents a head, it reminds me that it is said that away back in 1867 Nova Scotia was sold for the price of a sheepskin, 80 cents. That has no relation to these remarks on universities.	'
The method of distributing the grants, based on provincial populations, seems to be at variance with the accepted view that universities are of national importance. Nova Scotia universities, without question, are performing a national service inasmuch as many of their graduates enter business, the professions or public life in other parts of Canada. I need not endeavour to prove such a statement as that. I should like to put before the house the picture of how federal aid per student by provinces works out on the basis of the 1951-52 figures. I will mention Nova Scotia first, and I should like hon. members to keep the figure for that province in their minds. Here is the result:
Amount
Per
Province	Student
Nova Scotia	 $ 92.45
New Brunswick	 136.19
Prince Edward Island	 184.27
Newfoundland	 483.16
Quebec	 105.21
Ontario	 126.28
Manitoba	 98.74
Saskatchewan	 108.73
Alberta	 162.88
British Columbia	 102.86
You can see from these figures that many universities received double what those of Nova Scotia received. That indicates how great a disparity results from the method employed. Yet surely it is unfair to penalize Nova Scotia, for that is the effect, simply because we have a high proportion of eligible students. It should not be too difficult to set up standards for all Canada and define exactly what is meant by "university" and what is meant by "eligible student", so that a system can be devised which will be fair to all, giving a uniform rate per student irrespective of location. Indeed there is no real difficulty which was not fully met and
63S	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Balcom surmounted in the system used for the Department of Veterans Affairs grants, a system which had the merits of fair play and of simplicity of administration. Simplicity of administration should recommend it.
Surely it is fair to say that one of the objectives of these federal grants to universities is to encourage these universities to educate students for the benefit of the nation. But a system which penalizes the province that has the greatest proportion of eligible students hinders rather than helps the pursuit of that objective. The case, I believe, is sound. Our universities ask for no more than a system which will be fair to all. We are not asking that anything be taken away from anyone; we are merely asking that such a system be adopted without delay so it will govern the distribution of the grants for 1952-53.
Speaking in the debate a few days ago the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) gave us something to think about. His constituency is contiguous to the United States, and the facts and figures he quoted must be particularly galling to Canadian citizens in the border areas. There was, said the hon. member for Charlotte, a great deal of criticism with regard to the subsidization of farm and fishery products, but he submitted the most glaring example of subsidization was that represented by the difference in prices of many manufactured products here and in the United States.
Differences in cost between certain specified items in the United States and Canada were quoted. The accuracy of these comparisons may be challenged, but there can be no challenging the fact that prices in Canada are much higher in many lines than in the United States. Of course, the hon. member blames the tariff and the tendency to take advantage of the tariff as the cause of the difference.
I am sure that with these instances before us more and more Canadians are wondering if the price of Canadian economic independence is not coming too high. Canada, as everyone knows, has a very great stake in the removal of trade restrictions and in broadening the market for our exports. Yet we must recognize that protection of one kind or another is part and parcel of the commercial policy of all countries including our biggest markets, the United States and the United Kingdom. In our own country, many industries have grown up behind protective tariffs, industries which have added greatly to our


wealth and development. We are reminded from time to time that this has been done at a price, which is paid by the general public in the consumption of goods.
I believe that it would be foolish to suggest the removal of all such restrictions. We are forced to restrain to some extent the purely economic factors. The efforts to encourage the further fabrication of pulp and lumber products within our own country are well justified. The processing of industrial materials, such as iron, steel and aluminum, rather than exporting them raw, is desirable. Our very strong position with respect to certain of these very important commodities should determine our public policy. But that does not mean the same degree of protection should be accorded to each and every manufacturing project which seeks it.
It is a truism that the less well-organized groups in our society tend to be neglected. 1 dm an aiu that John Q. BubllC, US the COB- sumer who does the purchasing, is in this category. Why, for example, should the purchaser of a television set pay a certain price in Canada when the identical set can be purchased across the border for not much more than half? Is there any major part of the public interest advanced by the artificial development of this particular industry in Canada? Certainly, due to our concentration of industry in Quebec and Ontario, the mari-times are suffering in paying a high price for everything they buy.
We have today a very special interest in television. When the field of television is broadened and extended to the areas of Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax, I believe everyone within the range of these stations should be entitled to buy a television set at the lowest cost possible. There should be a television set in every home, not just the wealthy homes, so the people as a whole may receive the benefit of the instructive and educational features so broadcast.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully suggest that the government take under consideration for this item, television sets, a lowering of the protective tariffs and excise taxes so the service rendered by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in this field may be enjoyed by the largest number of people possible. As it is at present, the whole of Canada is paying for the protection of the few.
Before leaving this question of protection, may I draw the attention of the house to a very serious matter that reflects on the income of our national harbours, our railroads, and the stevedores connected with

any ports of exit, such as Halifax and Saint John. It is the matter of the export of Canadian automobiles and parts through United States ports. Automobile companies receive practically all the protection they require, but they in turn are not playing the game with the people of Canada as a whole, nor with the seaports of Canada which are equipped and capable of handling our export trade. We deplore the fact that these companies are not playing their full part as they should in shipping through Canadian ports. I think it is poor gratitude, and certainly not patriotic, for these companies to export their products through United States ports after receiving concessions from the people of Canada, including the stevedores and the railway workers who are dependent upon the movement of export traffic for their livelihood.
I would like to quote a few statistics concerning these exports. In 1948 Canadian automobile manufacturers exported through United States ports 26,082 automobiles while through Canadian ports went 22,087. At the same time automobile parts to the value of $4,454,050 were exported through United States ports, and $9,091,853 through Canadian ports. Now we come to 1951 and we find almost a complete reversal. Exports through United States ports were 50,465 cars as against 10,011 through Canadian ports. In 1951 parts went through United States ports to the value of $8,435,467; through Canadian ports just about one-half that amount, $4,534,140.
I submit, sir, the manufacturers have a poor sense of gratitude, but I wish to go further. The Matheson submission last September to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) on the non-absorption by the railways of the national harbours board top wharfage surcharges contains a statement showing country of destination, dollar value and shipping weight in tons of export traffic originating in Canada and routed via the port of New York during the month of February, 1952. The figures I am giving you now are based on the United States department of census returns. The dollar value of these February exports through New York was $31,287,998, which -means 68,126 shipping weight tons, all lost to our Canadian ports and our national revenue. Automobiles, trucks, buses, trailers and parts shipped amounted in value to $15,835,869 and in tonnage to over 53 million pounds. The automobile people are not the only offenders, because Canadian goods generally have been flowing out of United States ports instead of Canadian ports. During 1951 the value of these goods
The Address-Mr. Balcom amounted to $257 million, which was about 16 per cent of Canada's total exports to overseas countries.
These figures are disturbing, and should be to every member of this house, because the tendency to ship through United States ports is increasing. In 1949 less than 11 per cent of Canada's overseas exports went out of United States ports. In dollars this meant about $155 million, and as I have told you this amount has grown to over $257 million.
I listened with considerable interest to the several speeches on behalf of the sugar beet industry, which has been affected by the importation of Cuban cane sugar. While I have every sympathy with the speakers, I cannot go along with them in their suggested remedy, namely more protection. It seems natural, I suppose, for an industry to seek government aid when that industry appears threatened. But if my information is correct, sugar is already receiving protection to the extent of $1.89 per hundred pound bag.
In considering the suggestion for increased protection, we must remember that other commodities in addition to sugar enter into the picture. In 1951, when the Cuban agreement was made, concessions were obtained for several other items of food, one of which was an important maritime product, salt codfish. Last year Canada exported salt codfish amounting in value to $2,412,000. Then, in addition to our salt codfish, potatoes were exported from the maritimes in huge quantities. Let us not do anything to protect one product that would jeopardize the trade the maritimes are enjoying with Cuba. In other words, why rob Peter to pay Paul? Personally I think Paul is doing very well now.
Later on in the session, Mr. Speaker, I intend to have something to say about health insurance. Since this is a project so extensive and involving so many services that we have not now available, I think I can well wait until a later time to speak on it. There is a subject, however, very much alive today on which I should like to touch, namely increases in the pensions of worthy indigent parents of deceased soldiers. We all know of numbers of parents who gave everything they had in order to educate their sons only to have them, on the completion of their education, enlist in the armed services. Some of these boys were killed. Many of them were married and left families, but automatically the wife and family are provided for while the indigent mothers and fathers are left without support.
638	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Balcom This government has been most reasonable, may I say even generous in their treatment of the returned soldier and the pensioner. The Silver Cross Women of Canada, to whom I pay sincere homage, have made what seems to me a timely and urgent appeal on behalf of these people who gave so much, in many cases all they had. I would ask that the same treatment with regard to pensions be

accorded to these indigent parents whose sons were killed in the defence of this country, and that the awards be made along the lines suggested by the Silver Cross Women of Canada.
On motion of Mr. Higgins the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

producers, whether agricultural or otherwise, will wish to have some indication, before they are called upon to plan for their production during the coming year, as to whether or not some solution has been found of this very great difficulty being encountered by our agricultural and other producers across Canada today.
I would recall that on other occasions great hopes have been built up by generalities, and then no positive results have followed which supported those generalities. Quite apart from what may have been accomplished for the general purpose of laying the foundation for wider plans in the future, there is the question in the minds of all of us, and particularly the agricultural population of Canada: what has been done to find markets for our agricultural surpluses? To that question I feel sure our agricultural population, and also the other Canadians who produce foods which are normally exported in large quantities to the United Kingdom, will wish an answer at the earliest possible date.
To close these comments at this point, I would further emphasize the fact that there is uncertainty about this statement which was indicated by Mr. Matthew Halton yesterday in a broadcast from London when he said, and I quote his words:
There are two answers to the problem of Britain and the sterling area.
He is referring to the statement which emerges, and he makes his own comments as to its inadequacy. He said:
One is simply harder work and better planning; the other is American help. These two facts emerge clearly throughout the verbosity of the conference communique.
Since that statement was conveyed to Canadians generally throughout Canada yesterday by the C.B.C., and also the other comments which leave the impression that the people over there were in almost as much of a fog in regard to this communique as they had been in a physical fog for a few days prior to its publication, I would hope that at the earliest possible date we may have some explanation and clarification, so that, in the words of the Prime Minister, we may consider this communique with something approaching the same measure of care, and I would hope understanding, as was devoted to it by those who drafted it in London.
Solon Earl Low: We are
not going to say anything at this time about the communique, which I should like to have a chance to study more carefully and, as the Prime Minister said, to weigh its words before making any comment.
With respect to the Currie report, I shall withhold any comment until I have had a
Proposed Legislation
chance to digest its contents most carefully. But we do want the Prime Minister to know that we join with other members in the house in welcoming his report of the audience he had with Her Majesty the Queen, and we deeply appreciate the message Her Majesty has sent to us.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 42, to incorporate Peace River Transmission Company Limited.-Mr. Murray (Cariboo).

[Stage Direction]
PROTECTION OF COASTAL FISHERIES Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries) moved the first reading of Bill No. 44 (from the Senate), to protect the coastal fisheries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 45 (from the Senate), to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1933.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MERCHANT SEAMEN


Alphonse Fournier: the first reading of Bill No. 46 (from the Senate), to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TERRITORIAL LANDS ACT


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 47 (from the Senate), to amend the Territorial Lands Act and to repeal the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
646	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry PACIFIC DEFENCE



POSITION OP CANADA IN PACIFIC DEFENCE AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. A news dispatch over the week end indicates that the United Kingdom is now being given a voice in Pacific defence, presumably by becoming a party to the Australian-New Zealand-United States treaty. What steps, if any, has the Canadian government taken to gain the same position for Canada?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I did not have an opportunity to discuss the Pacific pact, in any way, with anyone whatsoever, while I was away.



LEVEL CROSSINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport, of which I have given notice, and have sent him newspaper clippings in connection therewith. My question is prompted by a level crossing accident at the intersection of Lawrence avenue and the Canadian National Railways line in Weston last Friday night, in which two Brampton residents lost their lives.
My question is contained in a long sentence, but I believe it is as concise as I can make it and, at the same time, have it in proper form. In a case where there is a double railway track and a train is standing on one of such tracks near an unprotected level crossing or sufficiently close to a protected level crossing to make the wigwag or flashing lights operate, is there any railway regulation which calls for one of the crew of that standing train to proceed to the intersection and to warn the highway traffic of trains approaching on the other track which may be hidden from view because of the standing train?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to my hon. friend's
question is as follows:
At a protected crossing such as the one in Weston, which the hon. member has in mind, the operating rules as approved by the board of transport commissioners do not call for flag protection by a member of the crew of the standing train, since the operation of the wigwag or flashing lights is considered as sufficient protection.


Gordon Graydon: In view of the number of accidents of this kind that have occurred in the past, would the minister review the situation?


Lionel Chevrier: I should add that the board of transport commissioners have these regulations constantly under review. I am sure that, because of this terrible tragedy, they will take the matter under consideration. In any event I can assure my hon. friend that we in the government are considering the question of further protection at crossings, and I would hope at some future date to bring something more concrete to the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Defence. Will the minister say, in view of the contents of the telegram from the city clerk of the municipality of St. John's, Newfoundland, a copy of which I have sent him, that immediate measures will be taken to ensure that the south side road in the town of St. John's from Job's bridge to Fort Amherst will be put and maintained in a safe condition during the period it is being used for national defence projects?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Acting Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. Unfortunately, not through his fault, I received it only as I came into the house. It deals with a detailed matter in St. John's with which I am not cognizant. I do not know whether the department has any responsibility in the matter, but I shall make inquiry.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: On Friday the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) asked whether there was any truth in a rumour that Canadian National Railways were to put diesel engines in operation on the road from Sydney to Truro. In reply may I say that in 1953 the Canadian National Railways plan to assign ten 1,600 horsepower road diesel units to handle freight between Moncton and Mulgrave. The Canadian National Railways do not contemplate assigning any diesels to Cape Breton island during 1953, other than one diesel switcher to the yard at Sydney.



FISHERIES   BAIT DEPOTS-INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE IN NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Could the Minister of Fisheries add anything to a statement which appeared in the press about financial assistance to be given in Newfoundland for the construction of bait depots?


James Sinclair: I cannot add anything today.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce could tell the house when the letters will be tabled which were referred to in the motion for papers agreed to on December 10 and having to do with purchases of Cuban raw sugar?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall make inquiries. I believe they have gone to the office of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) and it should be only a matter of a day or two.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Earlier this session he indicated to the house that the report of the royal commission on the South Saskatchewan river project would be tabled at an early date. May we expect it before the Christmas holidays?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall have an inquiry made. When I informed the house to that effect I had been told by the secretary that under the instructions of the commission he was having it printed and that it would be made available just as soon as it was printed. It is intended that it be made available to the house as soon as it is printed, so I will make inquiry about what advance has been made in the printing.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) inform the house about the
The Address-Mr. Higgins present situation at the atomic energy plant at Chalk River, including the extent of damage to the plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been away over the week end, and, since my return, I have not been able to get an authoritative report. Dr. Mackenzie is now on his way from Chalk River to Ottawa.
I think I may say that, as far as money is concerned, the damage was negligible. There was apparently a certain amount of contamination but I am not sure of the cause. Precautionary measures necessitated shutting down of the area but that contamination has been cleared up and work has now been resumed. I will be glad to give a more complete report tomorrow.



ESTABLISHING OF COMMITTEE

Clarence Decatur Howe: In reply to an earlier question by my hon. friend, asking if the government would give consideration to establishing a committee on atomic energy, I am able to tell him today that a committee will be established.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, December 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. L. Deslieres for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Blackmore.
Gordon Francis Higgins: I wish to offer my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply, and to compliment them for their excellent speeches. I may say that I had hoped that one of our Newfoundland members would have had that honour but now, I suppose, we will have to wait until the next parliament when a Newfoundland member of the Conservative party will have the privilege. I would also like to join with my own leader and the leaders of other parties in saying to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) how glad we are to see him back and to see how well he looks.
At the outset may I say, Mr. Speaker, that I intend dealing chiefly with Newfoundland provincial matters because they are very important. I do not expect any great differences of opinion even from our own Newfoundland members now that the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) is absent.
G48	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Higgins


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Well, I do not know actually where the Secretary of State is. He is supposed to be in Newfoundland but the city clerk of the municipality of St. John's today sent a telegram to him here in Ottawa. He is not here and he is not in Newfoundland so I do not really know where he is actually. I do not know whether any of the other ministers know either.
As I said, I intend dealing chiefly with Newfoundland matters because they are noncontroversial. I won't deal with anything controversial since the rum in Ontario is of very poor quality indeed. What brings that up? Well, a column by the Junior Chamber of Commerce in the St. John's Telegram of December 6 contains this paragraph:
Plain speech is a lost art in these parts. The modern Newfoundlander needs three tots of strong rum before he clears his throat, and a good look under the sofa and behind the door before he ventures an opinion on any controversial subject:
As I say, Ontario rum is not very good and, consequently, I am not going to deal with any controversial matters. My statement is no reflection on hon. members from Newfoundland, because I do not know any one of them who partakes of such a libation- other than myself.
The first matter I wish to deal with, Mr. Speaker, is Bell island and the petition presented the other day. It is not a new subject by any means, because I note in sessional paper 149J of June 29, 1951, that I first brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) on November 19, 1949, and I did so continuously from that time until March 19, 1952. That has been a long period of time and during it I have stressed to the minister the importance of the terminal facilities between Bell island and Portugal Cove being attended to. Let me tell you that Bell island at present has the largest iron ore mine in the British empire. It has been producing constantly for some fifty-eight years and from a question answered, as it appears in Hansard of December 10, 1952, more than half of the iron ore produced in Canada in 1951 came from Bell island. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the community of Bell island has a population of more than 10,000 persons. It is a major industrial area in the province, 2,000 workmen being engaged in the mining industry. It has annual earnings of more than $6 million and the money spent, including earnings from secondary industries in the island, is very great indeed. A considerable portion of the tax on these sales, naturally, is paid to the federal government in the form of income and corporation taxes, sales tax, licence fees and royalties. The community of Bell island


is a very important factor in providing the United Nations with raw materials on which the defence of the western world lies.
We all agree that the mining industry is a hazardous one and the extension of a proper ferry service to the mainland of Newfoundland is most important, especially in view of the fact that the island is without proper hospital facilities. Last year the ferry service transported at least 100,000 passengers and 15,000 motor vehicles, together with goods and supplies of all kinds which are used by this thriving and prosperous community. Bell island required speedy dispatch of mails and freight but such service is not presently being provided. The residents of Bell island ask for a proper terminal dock to be provided at Bell island and at Portugal Cove.
The position, as the minister has told me from time to time, is that they are ferry wharves and, consequently, are not maintained by the federal government. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to take issue with the minister there because I notice that in an advertisement in the Canada Gazette of October 4, 1952, at page 2726, there is an advertisement for the construction of ferry landings, Howe island-Pickett's ferry- Ontario. That advertisement is signed by the acting secretary of the Department of Public Works, Mr. Robert Fortier. That is a provincial ferry and the wharves are being maintained by the federal government. Moreover, term of union No. 33 provides that all Newfoundland public wharves shall be the property of the federal government. No notice was ever given to the province, nor was it ever discussed at any time until this application was made, suggesting that this ferry wharf would not be maintained by the federal government. Therefore, I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is fair and reasonable to say that, as we were not given proper notice, this wharf should be considered as a public wharf and maintained accordingly. The terminals were constructed and are maintained, I am told, by the federal government for the ferry running from Amherst island to Milhaven in Prince Edward, a distance of two miles, a ferry which carries twelve cars.
Now, Bell island has been the scene of very great activity. The Portugal Cove wharf has had the honour of being the point of embarkation of the late King George VI during his tour in 1939, and of our present Queen Elizabeth when she left Canada to return to the United Kingdom after her tour last year. I must say that it was a great disgrace to see the type of wharf from which our Princess, and now our Queen, had to embark on the little ferry in order to board her ship. It reflected no credit on the minister to say that

this was a ferry wharf and he could not put it in shape.
The other day when I commented on the fact that on Thursday last we were celebrating the fourth anniversary of the signing of the terms of union, hon. members were good enough to indicate that they approved and hoped the union would be a happy one. Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the offspring, if I may use the term, of this union is this wharf, and I am quite certain in my own mind that it is the obligation of the Minister of Public Works. I want to know what he is going to do about our Bell, meaning Bell island. So far as I am concerned the matter will not be permitted to drift any longer.
I refer you to Hansard, page 4475, of June 21, 1951. At that time, I drew attention to the great difference in the moneys being allotted for public works between the districts in Newfoundland represented by hon. members on the other side of the house and hon. members on this side of the house. On page 4474 of Hansard for that day, I said this to the minister:
From April 1, 1949, the district of St. John's East had spent in it $38,108.56 . . .
In the district of Bonavista-Twillingate represented by the Secretary of State, the amount was $267,095.21.
On the same page of Hansard I said:
In this year (meaning 1951) the work called for in St. John's East amounts to $89,803; in Bonavista-Twillingate, the constituency of the Secretary of State, $1,332,575.
In the current estimates, for the same type of work, construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of harbours in Newfoundland, the Secretary of State has a total amount of $862,000 allocated to various wharf improvements in his riding, and the district of St. John's East has not got one red cent allotted to it.
Seme hon. Members: Shame.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am not referring to other Liberal hon. members from Newfoundland, but they have their share. All you have to do is look up that page in the estimates for this year, and you will see a very large figure representing the amounts they are receiving for wharves and other items of this nature. There is not one wharf in the province of Newfoundland that is as important as the wharf in Portugal cove and the wharf in Bell island. I say that without fear of contradiction, successful or otherwise, by any member. I want to find out what is happening.
I have a letter from the chairman of the citizens committee, and I am going to read brief extracts from it. The chairman is Mr. Addison Bown, who I might add was a cabinet minister in the first Smallwood administration, so I suppose he can be considered 68108-42
The Address-Mr. Higgins unbiased. The letter is dated December 7, Bell island, and reads:
I might say that the transportation problem here is steadily growing worse, especially since winter conditions have set in. The Maneco suffered damage to her engines recently in a fire, and as soon as the Kipawo returns to the service she will have to be taken off for overhaul and repair. This means that we will be left with only one boat for some time longer.
The freight situation is about as unsatisfactory as it is possible to have it. . .
I am sure you realize the desperate need for action in the matter . . .
In the Daily News of November 3, there appeared this item:
The committee has learned with grave concern of the accident at Portugal Cove on Thursday when a loaded truck owned by Chester Dawe Limited fell into the landwash as a result of the collapse of part of the roadbed approaching the wharf.
On October 31, this item appeared:
The storm has again proved up the need for a better ferry service. There have been two stormy days now and all day yesterday, Bell Island was marooned from outside contacts.
The ferry had made only one trip the day before and sources on Bell Island stated it certainly shows the need for a better ferry terminal at Bell Island and also at Portugal Cove.
This morning I received a telegram from the general superintendent of the Dominion Wabana Ore Company, the operating company on Bell island. In part, he says:
Present condition unbelievable unless seen and has making of terrible accident.
So far as I understand this ferry question, Mr. Speaker, and I have obtained this information from a top official of the minister's office, "where the need is established and the province is either unwilling or unable to provide proper facilities for ferries and ferry terminals, then even though the ferry is operating wholly within a province, suitable ferries and terminal facilities have been provided by the federal government, either on a contributory or on an outright basis, with the federal government paying the entire cost." I do not know why the provincial government is taking no action in this matter. If it is, I have not seen any appeal, as I have said before, for assistance. I am informed indirectly that the federal government have made an offer to the provincial government of Newfoundland of a contribution of 50 per cent of the cost of providing proper terminals and proper ferry services. I believe that offer was made some four months ago, but I have heard nothing officially from the department at all. As a representative of this district, I think it most unfair that I am not told exactly what is happening. If the provincial government has the money, I should like to know what is being done towards providing proper facilities, but if they have not got
"B50	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Higgins the money then I think it is time the minister stepped in and provided these facilities anyway.
The next matter that I wish to deal with is the question of the federal public building at St. John's. I recently asked the Minister of Public Works what plans he had in sight for the erection of that building. 1 sent him a communication from the chairman of the St. John's town planning commission, Sir Brian Dunfield; and in view of that communication, I asked him what comment he was prepared to make as to the building. I believe the answer he gave me was that when he was in doubt he did nothing. I do not know whether the minister is still in doubt. I should like to have from him a straight answer as to whether or not he is going to erect this building in the government house paddock. He has had this protest, and his deputy minister had a letter as far back as April 18, 1952 from Sir Brian Dun-field, chairman of the town planning commission of St. John's. The first paragraph of that letter reads as follows:
I am chairman of the St. John's town planning commission, a statutory body: and also chairman of the St. John's city planning committee, a larger voluntary non-statutory body lately appointed by the city council to help them in certain directions. The two are distinct but work together.
Another paragraph reads as follows:
I exchanged a letter with your minister, Mr. Fournier, on this subject in October last, and he kindly promised to keep us in touch with the matter, and to have a senior official see us before anything was decided; but we have not heard anything since, and we know that measuring and estimating is still going on.
In that long letter to the deputy minister he set forth various sites where the building could be erected, but he finally winds up by saying:
We trust that your department will not come to any final conclusion in the matter of this site without consulting us. The city will naturally expect to be consulted; and my committees, as arms of the city, would be considerably affronted if they learned at any time that a scheme had been adopted without local consultation.
We hear that engineers have been seen measuring on the government house paddock. You know, I take it, that the town planning commission will object strongly to any such use of this important open space in the midst of a high-class residential area? We have said so before.
I last discussed this matter with the minister in 1951, as set forth at page 4477 of Hansard of that year. Without going into all the details of the discussion at that time, it is clear that the minister said that they had picked a site. He said that the site was at, as he describes it, Circle road and Banner-man avenue. What he really meant to say was Circular road and Bannerman road.


That is the particular site that I am speaking about today. That is the site that the objection is taken to, and it is against the use of that site that I am again protesting.
The minister at that time in 1951 said that all that remained to be settled was the question of price; that he had been negotiating with the premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Smallwood; that Mr. Smallwood had agreed to give him that land but had not put any price on it as yet; and that was all that was holding the matter up.
The last time any land was taken from government house property was when it was taken by the present Secretary of State, (Mr. Bradley) and it was taken by him when he was solicitor general in Sir Richard Squires' administration, I believe. I again protest against any selling by the Smallwood administration of this site to the federal government for use in the erection of a public building. I have already told the minister of the strong protests that appeared in Newfoundland newspapers and that have come from various public bodies such as the municipal council and the board of trade. I trust that he will not only remain in doubt about the matter, but will definitely make up his mind to do nothing further about erecting a building on that site. He has had suitable sites given him by the chairman of the town planning commission, and I recommend to the minister that he follow the commission's request.
The next matter that I wish to deal with is the question of the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland. On several occasions during the last session and previously I asked the minister in charge of this particular project whether there had been any agreement to relax the standards of the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland; and on all such occasions he said that no such agreement had been made. The last time a formal question appeared on the order paper-it is question No. 20, but unfortunately I have not the date; it was some time during last session-it was as follows:
Is the completed highway in Newfoundland to be of the same standard as that of the other provinces?
The answer he gave was:
The government of Newfoundland signed the same agreement as the other seven signing provincial governments. The agreement provides for variations and specifications to meet local conditions but in general the same standards apply for all provinces.
I take it that those specifications the minister refers to are minor indeed. What do we find? Somebody is fooling somebody. I do not accuse the minister, but certainly
65]

somebody is doing that because here is a statement by the minister of public works of Newfoundland dated July 17, 1952, as published in the Evening Telegram of that date. It is 'headed, "Discuss Trans-Canada Highway Work in Newfoundland", and reads in part as follows:
. . . federal provincial cooperation in the building of trans-Canada highway links in Newfoundland . . .
Trans-Canada standards demand that muskeg be excavated or blasted to a depth of ten feet and replaced by stone or gravel fill. The custom in Newfoundland has been to build roads across muskeg with a brush mat or corduroy foundation.
While the Newfoundland method has been perfectly satisfactory for light-traffic roads with a gravel surface, it will not work for a paved highway, Mr. Spencer said, since the roadbed tends to settle, and the rigid surface of the road to become broken.
"We have been in the habit of excavating marsh only to the depth of about two feet," Mr. Spencer continued, "and we are not yet sure whether we will attempt to meet the full standards of the trans-Canada highway locally."
That is an extremely serious matter. If the trans-Canada highway is to be built in Newfoundland-and I believe a considerable portion of the road has been built, and I also believe the money has been paid over by the federal government for the amount that has been built-if it has not been built according to standards, we should like to know about it, and we should like to know what the difference or variation from the standard is, and who made the agreement to relax the standards. I would ask the minister, when he has the opportunity to reply, to let us know a little bit more about it. Obviously he and the minister of public works of Newfoundland cannot both be right. If they are speaking about different matters, that is something else again.
I should like to continue on the subject of roads. It strikes me that the speed of motor cars is a pertinent question and should be discussed here. I hope I am not being offensive in regard to this matter; I shall try not to be anyway. As hon. members know, I was incapacitated for a time, and as a result of that I did pay much more attention to motor accidents as reported in the papers than I normally would. From reading the notices in the papers it appeared to me that by far the greatest cause of these accidents was speed. I noticed that the answer given to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), which appears on page 512 of Hansard, shows that from January 1 to June 30 of this year 655 Canadians lost their lives as a result of highway fatalities. This figure does not include the number in Quebec. In Ontario 377 people were killed. I assume it is safe to say that about the same 68108-42J
The Address-Mr. Higgins number were killed in Quebec. In other words, we can take it that the approximate number killed in that time would be nearly 1,000. That is a serious matter, and particularly in view of the finding of Professor Oscar Martin as set forth on page 21 of the Ottawa Citizen of December 2. It is headed: "Find Ontario roads risky over fifty miles an hour." The report says:
Ontario motorists who drive more than fifty miles an hour take a dangerous chance on most provincial highways, a Queen's university highway expert said Monday. Professor Oscar Martin, who studied highways in several European countries including Russia, before coming here recently, said Ontario roads, except the four-lane highways, are engineered for top speeds of fifty miles an hour. The four-lane roads were safe at sixty to sixty-five miles an hour. If you drive beyond the engineered speed of the road you obviously are in danger."
He talks about driving 15,000 miles during the past summer over Ontario roads, and he says:
A car travelling at sixty needs four times as long to stop as a car going thirty.
I would remark, quoting from memory in this case-you, Mr. Speaker, can probably check me on this-that a car going twenty miles an hour requires forty feet in which to stop. I think that is correct.


An hon. Member:: On the level.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Yes, with a dry surface. When you think of that you begin to see the danger inherent in the motor car of today. We all know that motor cars are being stepped up every year to a faster speed. The new models coming out next year will have a very much higher horsepower than the ones of last year. We ask ourselves the question: Why all this speed? Where are we trying to get? Why are we travelling so fast? If we save ten minutes, is it worth it, and do we enjoy going as fast as that? I must confess that I also drive pretty fast, or rather I used to drive pretty fast. I have not been driving very fast recently. I submit it is time that legislation was passed controlling the speed of motor cars to a safe limit. How we are to do that I do not pretend to suggest. Whether a governor should be put on the motor or not, I do not know. However, there would be nothing to ensure that it would not be removed. If we are to do anything about this we shall have to demand that motor cars be geared down to a speed which will not exceed sixty miles an hour at the very most.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Do you agree with that? Why anybody in this day and age wants to travel at seventy-five or eighty-five miles an hour, I do not know. If they wish to travel that
652	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Higgins fast, why do they not buy an aeroplane or rent an aeroplane, because by the time you are going eighty-five or ninety miles an hour you are ready to take off anyway.


Mr. Prudham:: Less Newfoundland rum might help.


Gordon Francis Higgins: We do not care where we go then.
There is another matter to which I take exception. It is an item that appeared in the Peterborough Examiner not very long ago. I would not have minded, Mr. Speaker, if this item had appeared in the paper published by that blatherskite Bertie McCormick, but when it appeared in a reputable paper like the Peterborough Examiner then I must take note of it. I am sorry but I cannot find the clipping; however, it complained of the expense to Canada of keeping the province of Newfoundland. All I want to say to that, Mr. Speaker, is this: Whatever Newfoundland is getting from the federal government by way of family allowances, old age pensions, and the other social services, the federal government is taking away as much if not more than that amount from Newfoundland; and I do not want the Peterborough Examiner or any other paper in this dominion, or any hon. member of this house, to think that we in Newfoundland are not paying our way. I am not going to say any more on that because I have not much time left, and I have still a few matters to deal with.
Another newspaper, the Globe and Mail, a paper which I believe is not unfriendly to the party of which I have the honour to be a member, makes the comment that the first generation of Newfoundlanders to be educated will be those after confederation. Well, what a lot of trash and nonsense! I pass this along without meaning any disrespect to hon. members. Yesterday I spoke to a Newfoundland senator who was prominently connected with education before becoming a member of the Senate. I asked him what he thought of it. He said: "Canadians did not know how ignorant they were until they joined Newfoundland." I did not say that. That statement was given to me by an hon. senator, but I certainly do object very forcibly to any suggestion that we did not have education in Newfoundland before confederation. We may not have had degreegranting universities to the extent that you have up here, but many a person with B.A. after his name may be regarded as a B.A., but not a bachelor of arts. I am not saying any more on that subject.
Another matter that I should like to deal with is the question of statement of policy issued by the mayor, H. G. R. Mews, and the


city council of St. John's on December 1, 1952, as it appeared in the Daily News of that date. It says this:
When in Ottawa early this year I called on the Minister of Defence and presented him with a copy of the report.
He is describing the report on water services of the city of St. John's. It continued:
I called his attention to the fact that the city of St. John's had to provide water services for the various defence bases and barracks in and near St. John's. The fact was also stressed that a second source of supply in time of emergency was essential, and that the federal government might properly assist in view of the heavy demand for water on the part of all defence forces. In the absence from Ottawa of the minister of civil defence I discussed the matter with his deputy. In neither instance could I report more than mild interest and great sympathy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. I am sorry, but I must point out that the hon. member's time has expired.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in the debate will be brief. It is prompted by some of the remarks made by hon. members concerning the Department of Transport. I am hopeful that, if I am not able to deal with all the remarks about the department, hon. members will not think that because of that I do not consider the matters they raised to be important. I hope, too, that the hon, member who has just taken his seat will excuse me if I do not follow him in the remarks he has made.
There are four matters I wish to discuss at this time, and they are as follows:
First, they have to do with comments made by the senior member for Queens (Mr. McLure) last Friday evening. The hon. member seemed to be dissatisfied with a reply I made to a question he asked. I am sorry if he was dissatisfied, but there was no other answer I could give to the question as it was put. It happens very often-and I am sure the hon. member will not take this as a reproach on my part-that some of the questions he asks should be put on the order paper. It is my opinion that this was one of them.
However, I gave him the only reply that could be given at the time, namely that, on the subject of whether or not the maritime commission had considered an application made by Northumberland Ferries Limited, my only reply to that question was no. Perhaps I might add a word now. The hon. member was complaining, too, about the treatment received by Prince Edward Island at the hands of a Liberal government. Well, I disagree most heartily with him on that state-

ment, because I do not think it is factual. On the contrary I suggest that, since it has been in office, this government has considered all legitimate claims of the Islanders, and has dealt with them accordingly and granted many of them.
The hon. member said in his speech that- -when a Conservative government takes office we will look to it for the proper fulfilment of the terms of confederation of 1873.
Well, with respect, may I remind him that Conservative administrations have been in office three, if not four, times since 1873. Surely my hon. friend, and others who have represented his constituency, have had the opportunity of bringing to the attention of those administrations the agreement of 1873. Yet, little or nothing was done by Conservative regimes in that time. I think therefore that the hon. member's point is badly taken.
Then, he seems to be under the impression that he is the only one interested in the welfare of the Islanders. I can tell him that that is not so. There are many of us on this side of the house, including myself, who have given the affairs of Prince Edward Island very careful consideration. I should like to tell my hon. friend-perhaps he is not aware of this-that I saw a delegation representing Northumberland Ferries Limited in my office early last week. That delegation was brought to me by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries, and he was accompanied by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Kickham), as well as by two hon. members from the other place, and a minister from the provincial government. They came to see me about the very matter with which I am concerned at the moment, namely the application by Northumberland Ferries Limited for a new vessel.
I listened to their representations, and suggested a course of action, which they followed, namely that they make their application to the maritime commission, the body charged with the responsibility of recommending whether or not an increase in subsidy should be granted.
The hon. member has referred to the commission as a buffer commission. Well, let me say to him that that buffer commission has been very generous, or at least very fair, to Northumberland Ferries Limited. The company began its operations in 1941, at which time it received a subsidy of $34,000. That subsidy was increased from $34,000 to $158,000, thanks to the consideration given to the problem by the maritime commission. While it is true that the commission did not consider the inauguration of the service,
The Address-Mr. Chevrier it must be kept in mind that the service began in 1941, and that when the subsidy of $34,000 was paid there was only one ship in operation. Today there are two, and that has meant an increase in the subsidy.
All in all, since the service has been in existence-that is, between 1941 and 1952-a subsidy somewhat in excess of $1,030,000 has been paid to Northumberland Ferries Limited -and much of it on the recommendation of the Canadian maritime commission, which my hon. friend calls a buffer commission.
The hon. member seemed to feel that very little attention was paid to the just and rightful claims of the Islanders. Well, I can assure my hon. friend that I do not cast aside any of their claims; I give them the best possible consideration of which I am capable, as indeed the commission is doing with the present application.
The application was made to the maritime commission. In effect, it seeks a new ship. In other words, Northumberland Ferries Limited seeks the approval of the commission for the construction of a new ship. That is a pretty serious matter, and for that reason the commission must study it carefully. It has asked the company for additional information, and that information is not yet forthcoming. When it is received the commission will deal with it carefully and will report to me, at which time I will be in a position to tell my hon. friend, and all other hon. members, what the recommendation of the commission is.
Then, if I may pass from that matter to a second one, I would turn to a complaint made by the new member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) in which he expressed criticism concerning the construction of the ferry vessel between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor. This criticism came somewhat as a surprise to me, because when the announcement was made by the government that there would be a new ferry in that part of the country it was well received by the house. My recollection is that all hon. members, even those from New Brunswick, were clearly of the opinion that it was a good thing to add a new ship to this very vital service between a state in the United States and the province of Nova Scotia.
This is why I should like to take a moment to review the position, in so far as the decision concerning this ferry is concerned.
The house will recall that in 1949 Eastern Steamship Lines, a United States firm which was operating a passenger service between Boston and Yarmouth, served notice of its intention to discontinue that service entirely. The first step which the government took
654	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Chevrier was to seek out some other contractor who might be willing to give consideration to carrying on the service. The government got in touch with a number of operators, but only one offer was received. That offer could not be accepted for two reasons. First, it called for the payment of a subsidy of $300,000 per annum for ten years and over and above that a guaranteeing of a $500,000 bond issue on behalf of the applicant. The second reason why we could not accept the application was that the applicant proposed to purchase and operate the S.S. Yarmouth, the ship then being used by Eastern Steamship Lines on the service. Our investigations indicated that that ship, which was 21 years old, was definitely unsuitable for the modern type of traffic.
This inability to find a contractor who would operate the service led us to establish a committee composed of representatives of the province of Nova Scotia, of the Department of nanspoi l. cinu uj. the Canadian National Railways. The committee made an exhaustive study of the economic and operative features associated with a service between Yarmouth and Boston and after giving the whole matter careful consideration came to these conclusions. First, there should be constructed a vessel suitable for a daily round trip service and designed especially to transport a large number of refrigerated trucks and tourist automobiles. Second, Bar Harbor should be selected as the New England terminus because that point was sufficiently close to permit a daily round trip.
The hon. member made two criticisms. First, he suggested that the new vessel should operate on a triangular run and take in Saint John, New Brunswick. I should like to point out that a vessel operating on such a run would require accommodation for overnight traffic. The vessel we are building for the Bar Harbor-Yarmouth service is to provide a daily round trip service. If we were to include Saint John we certainly could not operate on the basis on which we are operating now. It would not be profitable to operate on that basis and we simply could not do it. The report of the committee to which I referred a moment ago shows conclusively that we could not economically justify the construction of a vessel of that type, namely, one with cabin accommodation, dining room lounges and necessarily a larger crew.
The other suggestion was that the former Saint John-Boston service be resumed. If we could not find an operator to run the service between Yarmouth and Boston I am extremely doubtful whether we could find one who could operate profitably between

Saint John and Boston. It is most doubtful that such a venture would be profitable under any circumstances in view of the increased cost of operation and present-day trend toward travel by motor car. I think that that suggestion answers itself.
Based upon studies which the committee to which I have referred made and based on a study which we made ourselves, it is our opinion that there will be no detrimental effect upon the tourist traffic to New Brunswick because of the operation of this new ferry between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor. On the contrary, it is our view and our anticipation that this service will encourage larger traffic inasmuch as United States tourists will find it possible to make a circular trip, either entering through New Brunswick and departing from Nova Scotia or vice versa.
May I pass to the third matter that I rose to discuss, the Vancouver airport. In making his statement, the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) was critical of the government because it did not purchase the airport. He seemed to be under the impression that because there had been an offer of a little more than $1 million by the municipality and a counter proposal of a little less than $1 million by the government we should move in and either split the difference or take over the airport on a more generous basis. I can assure the hon. member immediately that there has been no offer on behalf of the government of $900,000.
Perhaps I could review the proposition as I recall it. Representatives of the municipality of Vancouver approached the government in connection with the purchase of the airport. Immediately on receiving that request we reached the conclusion which I think any reasonable person would under the circumstances, that is that an independent appraisal should be made of the airport buildings, facilities and real estate.
That independent appraisal was made and it indicated that the airport was valued at $1-5 million. We took exception to certain small payments as having been made by the federal government, and if those were deducted from the appraisal it was reduced to $1-25 million. After consideration of the matter an offer of from $400,000 to $500,000 was made to the committee acting on behalf of the municipality. That offer was based on the city's interest in buildings and equipment and on the assumption that the municipality should provide the land. That is the basis on which we proceed in the department, as my hon. friend knows, that the municipality should provide the land or the largest portion of the land.


Howard Charles Green: Was that the case with Dorval?


Lionel Chevrier: No, that was not the case at Dorval; but I have indicated to my hon. friend on several occasions that that is the policy of the government. There are only two exceptions to that policy. In the case of Dorval an exception was made because that was built during wartime when an emergency existed and it was necessary to move quickly. It was used for war purposes at the outset and for that reason we moved in and took over the land. Apart from that, you will find that there is only one other exception additional to Dorval. The general policy is that the municipality provide the land or the greater part.


Howard Charles Green: Which is the other exception?


Lionel Chevrier: Uplands. An offer of $400,000 was made and the city replied that it felt it should receive $1,287,000. Then during a discussion with the municipal officers, or those appointed by the municipality, in my office I suggested that I would not be averse to recommending to my colleagues an amount in the neighbourhood of $900,000, but it was clearly said to them that that was not an offer in any sense. The suggestion was made provided they were willing to accept it. But they still wanted $1,287,000. I did not blame them and I commend them for the decision to operate the airport.
We are happy with the manner in which the city of Vancouver is operating that airport. It is a great international airport and I think the city can operate it profitably. It has done an excellent job, it has done a thorough job, and I am hopeful it will carry on. As a matter of fact, we are entering into an agreement with them for the purpose of leasing the airport and its facilities to the municipality for a further term.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege relates to a question I put to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) this morning on the orders of the day. I feel that I am obligated, in the light of that question, to ask him to press the inquiry I directed to him on the basis of a further comment I should like to make. I asked whether there was any other printed copy of the Currie report.
National Defence-Currie Report
I have since had an opportunity, which I had not had at the time I asked my question this morning, to compare some of the pages in the printed report which was tabled this morning with the same pages in another printed copy of the report which has been in our possession for a few days. I find, Mr. Speaker, having thus far been able to read thirty-eight pages-I have not been able to go through the whole report-that there are some seven pages on which changes appear to have been made. Some of those changes, I must say, are purely editorial, but there are at least three pages-page 7, page 13 and page 17-where the changes seem to be quite substantial.
On page 7 a paragraph has been left out and the page has been reprinted with triple spacing instead of double spacing. On page 13 the number of rules broken, referred to in that particular section, has been reduced from 34 to 33-one has been left out. On page 17 where the sentence formerly read:
But, if this spirit permeated the lower echelons of the army, it is more difficult to condone the same attitudes at or near the top.
-the phrasing of the latter part of that sentence has been changed to read:
... it is more difficult to condone the same attitudes higher up.
My point in raising this at the present time is to press the question I put this morning; and I hope that the Prime Minister will find out all there is to be found out about the two printings of the report-in particular that he will get a full explanation why these, and any other changes there may be, were made. Who made the changes? Did Mr. Currie make them? Did he make them on the orders of the chief of the general staff? Did he make them on the orders of someone else or on the suggestion of any of these people?
Mr. Speaker, I fully accept the statement the Prime Minister made this morning, and he has made it to me personally since, that he had no knowledge of any previous printing of this report other than the one tabled this morning. But in view of this evidence which I have communicated to the house, I feel that this matter should be gone into very thoroughly.
While I am on my feet I should like to say that if it had not been for the illness today of my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), he would have raised this question. It was he who received this copy of the earlier printing and because of his illness he gave it to me, asking me to raise it in the house today.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I must confess that I am taken
65G	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Chevrier entirely by surprise by the suggestion that there has been another printing of the report made available to anyone at all before the signed report was delivered to the Department of National Defence on the late afternoon or evening of December 8. I will certainly endeavour to have a full inquiry made, and that inquiry will also cover the aspect of there having been copies of a report to the minister distributed before it was sent to the minister.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I raise one other question which presents itself in view of this extremely surprising information which has been placed before the house by a very responsible member. We may not always agree with the views he expresses but I do not think that anyone at any time has challenged his sense of responsibility to this house. I do point out that a question does arise as to how this copy came to be delivered to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: This is the first I have heard of the existence of any other report. The fact that there are two copies and that there is a difference is in itself very important, but there is also the question of how this other distribution took place-a distribution of which I certainly was wholly unaware.


Mr. Mutch:: I think you can count on it that it will be investigated.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The $64 question.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. J. L. Deslieres for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Blackmore.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, when I rose earlier I indicated to the house that there were four matters on which I wished to speak during the course of this debate. I have spoken on three of those now and I come to the fourth, namely the matter which the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) dealt with during the course of the latter part of last week.
Before I begin any remarks I have to make in this connection, I should like to extend to the hon. member for Greenwood my congratulations upon his having attained another


milestone in life. This is his birthday anniversary and I wish him the very best for himself, personally; and for himself, politically, I hope that he will continue to sit in the cool shades of the opposition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Don't make it too hot for him.


Lionel Chevrier: 1 do hope that the hon. member will not be offended by anything I have to say in connection with his remarks. I do not intend anything I have to say in any offensive way, and I hesitate to be critical of him on this particular day.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Help yourself.


Lionel Chevrier: But I must be critical of the speech which he made. To my mind it was one of his weaker efforts in the House of Commons. On many occasions he has risen in this house and has made substantial contributions during his addresses on the budgets; but this one, I am sorry to say, was not only a weak speech from the point of view of its logic and its legality, but it was also weak from the point of view of its politics.
The hon. member began his remarks by charging the government with a transfer of a manager from one hotel to another-from the Fort Garry hotel in Winnipeg to the Prince Edward hotel in Brandon. He charged the government with outrageous injustice in that transfer; with gross injustice on another occasion; and with political indignation and political interference. All of those charges were based not on facts but on surmise. All of those charges were based not on evidence that he had himself, not on knowledge that he possessed himself, but on knowledge which he obtained from other sources. In other words, the evidence which he obtained, or at least the information which he obtained, was obtained from a newspaper report. The newspaper in turn obtained it from its. reporter who, in turn, got it from an employee or a group of employees of one of the hotels involved. This important charge, this serious charge of gross injustice and outrageous injustice, is based not on facts but on hearsay of the worst possible kind. If my hon. friend were defending an individual, a group, or a corporation charged in the manner in which he has charged the government, the department, or the railway, all he would have to do would be to move for non-suit and I am sure that the judge would not only accept his motion for non-suit but would refuse to accept this evidence, which is hearsay evidence of the worst kind.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the
minister permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just want
to ask one question. Does the minister challenge any of the facts related by the Winnipeg Tribune upon which I based my case?


Lionel Chevrier: I would ask my hon. friend to sit in quietness and listen to what I have to say. If he has any questions to ask after I am through, I shall do my best to reply to them. I think the charge was based on surmise of the worst possible kind; that is what I was saying.
The next point I wish to make is that my hon. friend's remarks were wholly contradictory. In the first place he begins by saying: We shall keep the Prime Minister out of this; he has absolutely nothing to do with it. But in the greater part of his speech, by inference, he proceeds to bring him in. I hope the hon. gentleman does not want to ask me to quote citations because there are at least five different references in his speech to the part played by the Prime Minister. I am sure that the hon. member did not intend them as such, and I am sure that he is satisfied in his own mind that the Prime Minister had absolutely nothing to do with this incident. But whether he is or whether he is not, the fact is that in his statement he proceeds to make assertions that do, in fact, implicate the Prime Minister.
Another point I wish to make is that while these statements are based on surmise and on newspaper reports on the one hand, on the other hand he quotes the president of the Canadian National Railways who denies them all. You have a newspaper report on the one hand and you have the statement of the man who knows or should know on the other hand, but the hon. member proceeds to say, "Oh no, I do not believe that; that cannot be true. I do not believe the statement of the president."
There was another point which my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made very forcibly the other evening. It is this, that the person involved is not an employee of the government. If he were, it may be that my friend would be in a stronger position than he is now. This person is not an employee of the government, he is an employee of the Canadian National Railways, a body set up by this parliament with a board of directors to deal with the affairs of the Canadian National Railways.
Then, the hon. member seemed to think there was something mysterious about the manner in which those questions he put to the department were answered. There is nothing mysterious about it at all. If he will only read the questions, he will find they are
The Address-Mr. Chevrier perfectly in order, and he will find also that they are answered in the same manner as all questions having to do with the Canadian National Railways are answered. The answer begins:
The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
Then there is the answer to 1(a) and (b); 2(a), 3(a) and so forth. Any question that has to do with Canadian National Railways is answered in that manner. In answer to question 3 the Canadian National Railways advised that there was no complaint made to them or to the hotel management or to the railways on behalf of the Prime Minister or anyone associated with him. In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned, since the hon. member coupled the two groups in that question, the department answers no. It is for that reason there are two no answers to that part of the question, simply because my hon. friend lumped the two of them in his question. The answer is quite clear, and I do not think there is anything mysterious about the manner in which it was answered.
Dealing with question 1(d), whether there had been any complaint regarding his work there, the hon. member said that was an unworthy answer. Well, I do not think the answer is unworthy. The Canadian National Railways, through its management, makes that answer. I do not think the answer is any more unworthy than the speech which my hon. friend has made. I repeat that I do not think he intended to implicate the Prime Minister in the manner in which he did. But whether he did or whether he did not intend it, he certainly has done so in the record. My hon. friend has a clear denial from the president of Canadian National Railways to his third question which reads as follows:
Was any complaint, verbal or written, regarding any incident at the Fort Garry hotel during the Prime Minister's visit on September 10 last made to the railway or hotel management or to the Department of Transport, or to any representative of any of the foregoing by or on behalf of the Prime Minister or of any one of those who were accompanying him at Winnipeg on September 10 last?
The answer is:
The Canadian National Railways advise as follows: No.
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned: No.
So that my friend has his answer there, and I ask him to accept that answer. Now, then, if he does not accept the answer let me make a suggestion to him, and it is this. There is a committee appointed by this house to deal with the affairs of the Canadian National Railways. He is a member of that committee or at least he was a member during the last session of parliament. He may appear before the committee and inquire himself from the
658	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Chevrier officers of the Canadian National Railways what the facts are surrounding this case, and that is really the place where he should get his information, not in this house. It is the policy of this house, established by this house and followed by governments of the faith to which my hon. friend belongs, for many many years, namely that in matters concerning the internal management of the Canadian National Railways, there should be no interference. If there is any question that comes up, it can be asked or dealt with in the committee on railways and shipping.
The hon. member says this is a case of political interference. Let me put this to him, that what he is doing at the moment is political interference in the affairs of the Canadiln National Railways. While this matter may appear large to him, in fact, in the affairs of government, in the affairs of parliament, in the affairs of the Canadian National Railways, he will I am sure agree it is a small matter. I am surprised that my hon. friend should feel he had to make the lengthy speech which he made on Thursday of last week.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not think justice is a small matter.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member thinks that justice is not a small matter and he wants to obtain justice, let him bring the matter forward in the usual and appropriate manner, and that is before the committee on railways and shipping.
There are one or two points I should like to make before I resume my seat. First, the Canadian National Railways hotel system is under the management of a board of directors of the Canadian National Railways and should be, in my estimation and in my humble opinion, left to them. If that were not the case, then we would be inquiring in this house continually, and it would be my business to inquire into every transfer, demotion and promotion of a superintendent of the Canadian National Railways. There would be no end to that. Parliament has decided that is not the way it should be done, but it should be done by the management themselves.
The next point is that it is the long-established policy of the government not to interfere in the management function of the railway. I have tried not to interfere throughout the years, and I hope I shall continue to follow that policy. Then, the employee in question is an employee of the Canadian National Railways and is responsible, not to the Department of Transport or to the government, but to the management of that company. He is not a government employee; and, as I indicated earlier, his position is


not in any way subject to political interference or control. In the case before us here, in the words of the question, there has been no such interference.
The answer made by the railways denies that any complaints were made to it by or on behalf of the Prime Minister or anyone of those accompanying him at Winnipeg on September 10 last. The same answer has been made with reference to the Department of Transport. The accusations made by the hon. member for Greenwood are founded on newspaper reports based on alleged statements of unnamed hotel employees and of other unnamed persons contacted by the newspaper in question.
I repeat what I said earlier, namely that this is hearsay of the worst possible character. The only political interference in this case is that of the hon. member for Greenwood who made the former manager of the Fort Garry hotel the subject of parliamentary debate to no useful purpose. The policy of the management of the Canadian National Railways is to operate its transportation system, including its hotels, efficiently and in the best interests of the country. To do this it must have a free hand to deal effectively with its employees.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I now
repeat the question I asked before of the minister? Does the minister deny any of the facts as set out in the report of the Tribune on which I based my remarks?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I say that the
report in the Tribune is based on hearsay; and I am not prepared to accept hearsay evidence.


George Alexander Drew: He does not deny it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not
know just what the minister means by hearsay; but I point out that he has not attempted-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I would speak only once in this debate. However, I wish to bring to the attention of the house this afternoon a matter to which I think hon. members should give some consideration. I have on my desk a file of newspaper clippings that are startling in this day and age.


An hon. Member:: Is that hearsay evidence?


Clarence Gillis: For example, this clipping from the Citizen is headed "Riots at Louise-ville". This one has big black letters and reads "Quebec Police Fire, Dozen Strikers Hurt" and mentions the fact that tear gas was used. These are merely two examples, and I have a large file of them.

My reason lor rising this afternoon is to focus attention on the particular subject of that strike at Louiseville and the attitude of the provincial government with regard to labour relations in that province. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), if he were in his place, or his parliamentary assistant might say: "Yes, but labour relations in the province of Quebec are a matter of provincial responsibility." That is quite true, but in this strike there are federal implications. In addition to the police entering and taking over that town, because of the reading of the Riot Act that town is placed in the hands of the police exclusively. While the provinces enforce the Criminal Code-and the Riot Act is read under the Criminal Code-nevertheless we here enact these laws and are responsible for the implications in connection with their enforcement in the provinces.
For the benefit of the parliamentary assistant to the minister I should like to stress the fact that once that Riot Act is read and that town is placed under the jurisdiction of the provincial police-as this town in Quebec is at this time-there are certain penalties which apply in a situation of that kind. For example, once the Riot Act is read and the town is taken over by the police, as a result of a small gathering or of any infraction of the law or of the curfew that is imposed under the Riot Act, a man can be placed in jail, with a maximum sentence of life for any violation of that particular law. As we make those laws, I say that we should give some consideration to them when these amendments to the Criminal Code are being brought about.
There are two parties to this dispute as there are to any dispute. On the one hand, you have approximately 1,000 textile workers at that plant which is that of Associated Textiles of Canada, Limited. These textile workers are citizens of Quebec and of Canada; they are taxpayers. In the great majority of cases the wages of workers in that industry, in that province particularly, are not too high.
This strike took place last March. The interval between then and now is a long time for a dispute like that to drag along. It is reminiscent of what happened a short time ago in the asbestos industry in the same province when the police used tear gas and batons. That asbestos strike at the Johns-Manville Company should have taught the government of Quebec, and maybe the union also, that the way to settle wage negotiations today is not on the street with batons and with the use of police. But apparently nothing was learned from the strike in the asbestos industry, and now we have this
The Address-Mr. Gillis mess in Louiseville. As I stated a moment ago, on the one hand you have 1,000 workers in the textile industry-and they are Canadians with families-who are low paid and who have legitimate grievances. The union involved is the Catholic syndicates. Then on the other hand, you have the industry itself.
Let us have a look at it for a minute. I have here just a brief synopsis of it. It is the Associated Textiles of Canada, Limited. This is a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Merchants and Manufacturers, Incorporated, an American firm with head offices in Delaware, U.S.A. The parent company is a holding company owning a number of textile plants-mills, finishing plants, converters, factory facilities and merchandising outlets- in the U.S.A., Argentina, Canada and several other countries. No separate figures for the profits of the Canadian subsidiary, Associated Textiles of Canada, Limited, are available. Its net assets, as at June 30, 1951, however, were $4,610,688. Net profits of the consolidated companies, however- including Canadian and other subsidiaries- were as follows: Total net profit, 1950, $10,805,290; in 1951,	$16,158,186; or an
increase of 49 per cent over 1950. The source of this information is Moody's Industrials, 1952, so it is right up to date. As I pointed out a moment ago, you have that large group of workers and you have this huge corporation. The dispute is over wages. From the figures that I have set out here, it can be seen that in the years 1950 and 1951 the company was not in a bad position. They have substantial profits. They had an increase in their profits of 49 per cent in 1951 over 1950. The workers at that plant, in their wage demands, are not looking for a 49 per cent increase, although they would be justified if they were doing so.
In reference to the dispute itself, and in the matter of money, all of the arguments are on the side of the wage earners who are attempting to settle their grievance in the only way that befits this day and age, namely, around the conference table. The action taken in that province with respect to this dispute indicates very clearly that labour laws and conciliation in the province of Quebec must be at least thirty years outdated, because that kind of thing did happen in my own province thirty years ago. Both government and industry have discovered in that province that there is no solution in that kind of action, because nothing like that has happened in the last thirty years. Conciliation machinery prevents it.
In the last year the steel workers' union in my own province went through negotiations lasting for five months. They extended

The Address-Mr. Gillis their contract. They had conciliation board after conciliation board. Nevertheless they finished up with a good agreement, which indicates that patience and some understanding are necessary on both sides in order to work out the problems that confront the workers.
The time is past, Mr. Speaker, when the federal government should give consideration to the enacting of a basic labour relations act in order at least to fix the basic legislation so that the provinces could pass the necessary enabling legislation to prevent this kind of thing. No one can justify what is going on today in that strike in that textile plant in Quebec. I am suggesting that the labour department should at least conduct an investigation into what is taking place there, in the interest of peace, order and good government. I am sure the parliamentary assistant to the minister will agree with me that what is happening in Quebec today is certainly giving a lot of aid and comfort to the elements within the organized labour movement whose job it is to foment trouble. Mr. Duplessis and his policies are certainly doing a first-class job for them, and I think it is the responsibility of the federal Department of Labour to check up on the matter on the grounds of peace, order and good government.
In addition to that, during the consolidation of the Criminal Code that will take place within the next year, consideration should be given to some modification or changes in the section of the code that permits of police action, the reading of the Riot Act, curfew, and the taking over of a town, with the drastic penalties that are involved once that action is taken. Today that town is in this position. If a small group of men gather they can be arrested; they can be charged with violations under that section of the code, and the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Judging by the lack of understanding that is shown in that particular field at the present time, it would not surprise me if some judge in Quebec would hand out that maximum sentence.
I rose in my place this afternoon because I think that the headlines we are getting in relation to that strike in Quebec indicate that some action on the part of the federal government is necessary to straighten out the matter, and that some over-all labour relations act should be enacted, which would lay down the basic legislation that would at least prevent this kind of thing taking place.


Mr. Raymond Bruneau (Prescott):: Mr. Speaker, before participating in the present debate, I should like to congratulate the


mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne upon the manner in which they performed the very arduous task, and for the credit they brought upon themselves and the ridings they represent in the House of Commons.
(Translation):
I wish to tell the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi that his eloquent speech and the invaluable information he has communicated to us on the electoral district he represents here have evoked the greatest admiration among all his colleagues.
(Text):
The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) no less commends himself to our attention for the most interesting speech he has delivered, and I am sure that his constituents will never regret having elected him as their representative.
To the hon. members for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) and Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney), I wish to extend my most sincere congratulations upon their recent promotions to cabinet posts.
May I note also the visit of our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to the conference recently held in Great Britain. Their wonderful participation, their most helpful suggestions, and the way in which they dealt with difficult problems commend them to our very great admiration.
The brilliant expose delivered in this house a few days ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), and his election as president of the United Nations assembly; his capable way of dealing with most delicate questions; his outstanding attitude of gentleman at the council table have undoubtedly put him to the fore and wholly justified the esteem we all hold for him.
In a world already torn by false ideologies, already deprived of peace of mind and soul, where harmony, good will and understanding are lacking, where cold wars are in fashion, let us hope that the unceasing good will of representatives from democratic countries will find a solution to the war in Korea. The battle is still raging with as much intensity as before the cease-fire negotiations which are now in their second year, a fact which likely has no precedent in history; and yet it seems that it is still impossible to get a glimpse of peace or bonne entente on the horizon. Valiant men are called upon to make great sacrifices, and a good many of them have already given their lives so others may continue to live in order to uphold the principles of freedom in the world; purges are going on

behind the iron curtain and many democracies have been brutally silenced at the crack of the Russian knout.
Once again, those of our generation are facing the invader. True, he does not bear the same name but is always in search of domination, instilled by tendencies of imperialism, and most eager to impose his will on other nations who fall under his heel; to have them adopt his mode of living, his ideologies and his firm belief in materialism; communism bred in the twisted brain of an unbalanced professor, Karl Marx, applied by Lenin, and imposed on a good many countries of the world by ruthless methods, is accompanied by a repetition of violations of the frontiers of once free countries.
Yesterday we had to fight Prussian imperialism and more recently the nazism of a mad painter. The free countries of the world have always presented a united front, which enables them to erase these awful nightmares which have haunted the world. On the morrow of the awful ordeal these very same free nations met at San Francisco to prepare a charter for the United Nations. Canada was co-signatory to the clauses of this charter where it was stated that, should a signatory country be attacked by another power, these countries pledged their help, and offered to come to the rescue.
On June 25, 1950, the United Nations commission in South Korea informed Trygve Lie, then secretary general of the United Nations, that the North Korean troops had crossed the 38th parallel, and were invading from east to west. Canada, as co-signatory to the charter of the United Nations, had commitments and, like other countries of the world, we were involved in military activities in that corner of Asia.
Our contributions through manpower and defence purposes have entailed a severe drain on our national budget. A discussion of the budget in its various provisions and implications might well be regarded as a general survey of the national economy, and an examination of the state of the country. Speeches delivered so far by some opposition members reveal the definite pattern taking the form of a concerted attack on taxation. Some criticism has been notable for its lack of constructive suggestions, and a dispassionate onlooker would gather the impression that the main purpose of the criticism is to tear down the budgetary structure, rather than consolidate its foundations.
Parliament, composed as it is of representatives of all parties, both government and opposition members, is presumed to be the mirror of the nation. Keeping this thought
The Address-Mr. Bruneau in mind, one may well inquire at this stage, what substantial segment of the country do the criticisms voiced so far represent. Some suggestions have been made as to high taxation, or some taxation measures that should be discarded, and the fiscal policies that should be made effective to provide the necessary revenue for the management of the country's affairs.
Canada's taxation structure is, at best, a delicate fabric. It must be designed to establish the proper balance between the national economy and the economy of the ten provinces constituting the dominion. No government, federal or provincial, relishes the task of increasing the burden of taxation; but there are times when a state of national or near-national emergency leaves no other course open to the government.
National necessity imposes sometimes on the government unprecedented duties such as the levying of taxes to provide revenues for the purchase of death-dealing armaments and the waging of war against the forces whose sole aim is the destruction of our civilization and all that it implies in the realm of human rights and fundamental liberties. The action which the government has taken on behalf of the people of Canada is actuated by but one desire, the determination to prevent occurrences such as the rape of Korea and the further enslavement of the free peoples of the world.
A nation is no stronger than the sum total of its individual strength. In this time of crisis, the people living in the 262 ridings that make up the dominion must integrate their efforts so as to give the fullest support to the government in the pursuit of its main policy, that of strengthening the country from within and helping friendly and still free nations to meet the threat of the common enemy.
True, anybody in this house would welcome a considerable reduction in taxation, but nobody would want to do so at the price of a democratic form of government.
A man of outstanding sagacity has set forth the axiom of the art of governing with a precision that has never erred. Junius, the great legislator, said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"; and, with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I will add: "The cabinet form of government lends itself marvellously to this necessary vigilance: on one side of the house, those who govern and, on the other, those who watch." However, I am sure that our legislators, bearing in mind that their first care is the security of our land, the welfare of our fighting men, and the well-being of the nation at large, will, when possible, alleviate the burden of taxation. Millions of
662	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bruneau dollars have gone into social security measures such as family allowances, unemployment insurance, old age security, veterans allowances, invalidity allowances in some provinces; and let us hope that before too long we shall be in a position to implement a program of health insurance assistance for our Canadian people. Such a plan, drawn in close co-operation with the provinces, would surely be a wonderful achievement on the part of this government.
Our defence program alone has drained our national budget of considerable sums of money. Nobody here will advocate drastic tax reductions at the sacrifice of defence preparedness. My constituency is in the happy position to make a not inconsequential contribution to this national effort. During the second world war, my riding, where topography of the land is admirably suited for aviation purposes, had the benefit of two airfields-one at Pendleton, and the other at St. Eugene. These two airfields, which played an important part in the expansion and full development of the eminently successful commonwealth air training plan, have been virtually unused since 1945 or 1946. A moderate outlay would be sufficient to ensure their rehabilitation and utilization. Hawkesbury has a flying club which has been in existence for several years now. The unflagging enthusiasm of its members has ensured its successful operation in spite of many handicaps, among others, the lack of finances. The preliminary training of fliers, under the direction of flying clubs like the one operated in the outskirts of Hawkesbury, is directly associated with the broad pattern of national defence. The theoretical and practical knowledge of flying acquired by these groups constitutes an important preliminary step in any national air training plan. Bearing in mind the overall cost of training each flier, the national budget is relieved of a portion of the financial burden which the complete air training course entails.
I should like to stress another factor that ties in closely with the national defence program. I have in mind the decentralization of industry. Economic and strategic reasons make such a decentralization increasingly imperative. Decentralization relieves transport congestion in heavily populated areas and facilitates the quick movement of traffic, in times both of peace and of war. New methods of warfare centred around the use of the atomic bomb and its more lethal companion, the hydrogen bomb, are undoubtedly the most compelling reasons for the decentralization of industry. Prescott county,
(Mr. Bruneau.]

situated as it is midway between Ottawa and Montreal, -can ideally meet the needs of decentralization. There is ample power for the operation of almost any type of industry, and the county is well endowed with rail and highway transportation facilities. The full development of Canada's agricultural possibilities is another paramount consideration. This constituency is most fortunate in that there is a fairly happy balance between its agriculture and its industry. We are all well aware of the outstanding part that Canada's agriculture played in the successful prosecution of two world wars.
On the basis of its farming population Prescott county ranks as the largest cheese-producing area in the British commonwealth with a yearly output of over 5,872,198 pounds of cheese from the 43 cheese factories in operation, which represents a value of no less than $2,024,521. My constituency relies upon the manufacture of this commodity for an income which is a very important factor in its economy and to that end I strongly urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to do his utmost to see that the support price is maintained at a level of not less than 30 cents to 32 cents for cheddar cheese. I hope that this spring we will not see a recurrence of a drop in the price of cheese with which the farming element in my constituency had to cope last spring. In the same way our agricultural class is at present also concerned over the prices of beef and pork.
Some amendments to the National Housing Act are to come before this house. Canadians throughout the country are in dire need of living accommodation at low cost as those with small incomes are unable to pay high rents for inadequate quarters. With our present world in turmoil and unrest one of the greatest stabilizing factors we could have would be homes owned by Canadian citizens and not have our people living in rented abodes where they are nothing but tourists under a two-year lease, where they live in tenements from which they can be evicted on the expiration of their contract.
We have just gone through a second world war after which many young couples have attempted to settle under circumstances of prosperity. Many of our young men are fortunate enough to be drawing large salaries and have decided to purchase homes, but after a while they may find this investment to be beyond their means. The strength of a nation depends a good deal upon the security of its inhabitants. Home owners are a great asset to any government because they enjoy a form of security for the preservation of

which they are willing to undergo great sacrifice. Furthermore, a national housing policy would be beneficial, not only to individuals but to the nation at large, because it would be one of the best weapons with which to combat communism.
We all want to see new homes sprouting throughout Canada and I hope methods will be devised by which prospective owners will find themselves in a position where they can build new homes. But we shall have to make sure that the initial payment, which becomes a condition of ownership, is not too high for the average income earner.
Canada is going ahead with the development of the St. Lawrence seaway. This project will considerably improve water communication between the head waters of the great lakes and the ocean, thus giving a tremendous impetus to shipping and improving industry and agriculture in both eastern and western Canada. Moreover, I believe it will prove in the not distant future to be of immense advantage from a military and strategic point of view.
I have the honour to represent in this house people of different nationalities and religious denominations who live together in harmony and bonne entente. There is never any friction or conflict between the different segments of our population. On the contrary, there exist the most cordial and sympathetic relations. We understand each other and in our courteous relations with each other we never stop to consider that one is Irish, Scotch, English or French. We think of ourselves only as Canadians having the same interests, the same aspirations and the same love for our country.
How much closer these ties and bonds of harmony and unity would be if we all lived under the same symbol, a truly Canadian flag to which we could look, a flag behind which we could all rally, could revere and love, a flag for which we could fight and die. Our country now ranks among the great nations of the world and I believe sincerely that we legislators owe it to our people to give them a true symbol of Canadianism. It is true that our boys are fighting and dying in Korea but they are doing so under the flag of the United Nations for the sake of humanity. This is idealistic enough, but would they not feel that they were fighting for a cause much dearer to them if they could only see their own Canadian flag streaming beside that of the United Nations. I hope sincerely that before not too long a measure will be brought into the house to give our people a Canadian flag which they can consider their own and love as their own.
As I have mentioned previously, Canada is now considered among the great nations
The Address-Mr. Nowlan of the world and I think it would be most beneficial if we had our representatives in the city of the seven hills, where most countries today have their ambassadors who are able to exchange views and bring back to their own governments information necessary in the management of their own affairs in regard to international relations.
With the presentation of the report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, we should now strive toward giving our young people a real opportunity to prove their ability and put their talents to good use. At the present time many of these people find it impossible to do this because of a lack of money. I suggest that there should be some form of youth department which certainly would not overlap provincial departments but which would rather constitute a vocational guidance school for our young people and which would, on a national scale, guide them in the liberal arts and sciences, in different fields of knowledge and agriculture and enable us to develop right here at home better trained citizens and not have to import skilled or specialized labour from abroad. This division, administered by a federal commission, would enable young men to attend schools, universities, industrial or experimental stations of their own choosing located in their own regions, where they could take their training in the language most familiar to them and in an environment most suitable to the development of their own talents.
In conclusion, sir, I will say that it is quite comforting for us legislators in this House of Commons to be able to stand up and debate, as free men, upon a legislative program prepared with a view to achieving security, prosperity and well-being for the people by whom we were entrusted with a mandate and, in this way, co-operate also towards bringing freedom and liberty of expression to other people living in countries where democracy no longer exists.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, coming into the debate after the weeks which have elapsed, it is perhaps more or less formal to commend the mover and seconder for the work which they did on that occasion. But any one of us who has had the responsibility or privilege of moving or seconding an address, in this chamber or in other chambers, realizes the responsibility and difficult nature of the task which confronts a new member on such an occasion. We certainly can congratulate both those gentlemen on the excellence of their efforts.
I do not, of course, propose to follow the remarks of the hon. member for Prescott
664	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nowlan (Mr. Bruneau) who has immediately preceded me, but there is one subject on which he touched indirectly that I will refer to in a few moments.
Before going on, I should like to congratulate, as have so many members, the two new ministers who have been sitting on the government benches since we last met. Whatever we may think of the political policies which they enunciate, we appreciate their personal qualities. We recognize the tribute which has been paid to them by their appointment and we wish them success personally, sir. We know that, with those peculiar qualities they possess, should they survive the next election they will undoubtedly adorn the benches of the opposition and develop still further there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: This is perhaps a unique occasion today as there is recorded in Hansard the proclamation read by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) this morning- an historic document in which we find the new title of Her Majesty set forth as a preliminary to the coronation. I am sure his speech this day, and the records attached thereto, will be of historic significance for years to come-marking the evolution which takes place in this house and in this commonwealth as time goes on. It has been said by many others but I say, simply in passing, that we are all happy and all thrilled at the prospect of the coronation which will shortly take place. Those of us who are privileged to sit in this house are pleased that we should be here in the year immediately preceding the coronation.
The other night the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Balcom) gave a speech here which I thought was of some special significance. It was of particular significance to me, sir, because some of the matters on which I intended to speak at some length are adequately covered there; so I will speak but briefly on one or two of the points he mentioned.
One matter with which he dealt was the problem confronting the universities in Canada and university grants

particularly universities in Nova Scotia. Without repeating matters which he gave in some detail, I simply say that on page 635 of Hansard one finds recorded the average amounts of money paid to the various universities in the various provinces of Canada. One finds that the universities of Nova Scotia are at the bottom of the list receiving only $92.45 per student, while the figure ranges up to $483.16. Perhaps the latter is an unusual figure because it applies to the province of Newfoundland


where there are not so many universities, but there is a wide discrepancy in the amounts paid to the various universities within the various provinces. Nor is that all, sir; there is a marked discrepancy in the amounts paid to the different universities within the same province. I think the member for Halifax was right in urging that some special attention should be paid to the problem- not on a per capita basis of 50 cents per head for each province but on the basis of availability of students within each province.
In Nova Scotia we find a peculiar problem because of the fact that we have located in Halifax Dalhousie university with the professional schools-the medical school serving the maritimes and beyond, the pharmacy school, the school of dentistry and, sir, I am sure I will not be accused of undue modesty if I mention the school of law which is undoubtedly a very eminent school of law. Therefore, we have students from Ontario, the western provinces and the other provinces of Canada attending that law school. That influx of students coming to the professional schools at Dalhousie draws upon the per capita grant which is made to the province and, as a result, other universities serving that province draw far less. Those schools serving the humanities, undergraduate work, arts and sciences, receive as little as $50 per student. Those universities are serving a very useful purpose and, without boasting again, one might suggest that they are making a real contribution to Canada. One thing in which we have an advantage is that today instead of our graduates going to the United States to earn their living they are coming up here to Ontario, to Quebec, to Alberta and British Columbia, to develop the natural resources of those provinces. One only has to mention Borden of Brazilian Traction or Godsoe of British American, or Perry of Consolidated Mining and Smelting, to realize something of the contributions which those small universities are making to the development of the wealth of other provinces in Canada.
Without labouring the matter at length, sir, I can say that this is a matter which has caused the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) some concern. It is a matter which I have discussed with him and I do not think he is entirely satisfied with the arrangement that has been made. I do say, sir, that it is not a proper one; it is not a right one; and something should be done about it. The professors labouring in those colleges, teaching there, are performing a real national service but, because of economic circumstances, they are living on salaries which are not commensurate in any shape or form with those

paid in other parts of Canada or with the service which they are rendering. I do urge upon this government that steps be taken to reconsider this matter of university grants, and even a maritime unit might be feasible. After all, Dalhousie serves all of the maritime provinces and that way one would get more equitable distribution than one gets today when you have these watertight divisions or compartments between provinces.
One does not suggest that this government is responsible for education in Canada; but this government has accepted a responsibility towards the universities as recommended in the Massey report. This government did a remarkable job in assisting the universities.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question? I am interested in what he is saying about grants to universities. Do I understand him to suggest that the basis of the grant to Dalhousie should be changed so that there would be a grouping of the maritime provinces and then a division of the grant?


George Clyde Nowlan: As I understand it, the basis of the grant is 50 cents per head of population in the province. Nova Scotia, with a population of 750,000 or 800,000, draws 50 cents per head of population. As the professional schools are serving a wider area, with students coming from New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the other provinces of Canada, they are actually chargeable against the amount we receive in Nova Scotia on a per capita basis.


George James McIlraith: What was the suggested remedy? Was it to take the population for the whole of the maritimes?


George Clyde Nowlan: I said that would be an improvement. The same situation is true for Acadia, St. Francis Xavier and Mount Allison. They are serving the maritimes although perhaps not to the same extent as the professional schools. I do think it would be a help if the basis of the maritime unit were enlarged. I think we should go further and consider some direct assistance per student, on the same basis as was done during the war when this government did a remarkable job in connection with the rehabilitation of returned men. The government paid so much to each university for each student in attendance. I am not trying to give a concrete solution of the problem, Mr. Speaker. I quite appreciate the question my hon. friend put, but I do say that it is a problem with which we are confronted and a problem which must be solved if the eastern universities are going to function properly.
Another matter to which the hon. member for Halifax referred, and about which I
The Address-Mr. Nowlan intended to speak at some length, is the matter of the use of the ports in the maritime provinces, particularly Halifax. I shall not say much about it now. The other day I noticed in the newspaper that the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), the minister from Nova Scotia, spoke in Halifax-I have forgotten whether it was before a board of trade or some other organization-and dealt with the problem to some extent. On Friday night the member for Halifax put on the record some most alarming figures, showing that there had been a substantial decrease in the export of Canadian products through eastern Canadian ports, and a tremendous increase in the export of those products from United States ports. I shall not bother to put those figures on Hansard again, and I shall not weary the house by repeating them. Hon. members will find those figures in that speech, and they do indicate a trend. Unfortunately, a change has taken place during the last three years.
When the minister was speaking the other night, I believe he asked what one could do about it. I would suggest that there are two things which should be done. In the first place, we have in Canada these industrial fairs and exhibitions of various kinds which have been held in Toronto. We know that merchants, manufacturers and businessmen, not only from this country but all the countries of the world, come to these industrial exhibitions. I am informed by those who are close to the situation-I have not personal knowledge of these matters-that at all of these industrial fairs one finds public relations officers from the port authority of New York, the port of Boston, of Baltimore and all the eastern United States cities. Apparently these men occupy mammoth suites and have unlimited expense accounts. I am not suggesting for a moment that the mere fact the gentlemen are there with large suites and expense accounts necessarily influences the business to any extent; nevertheless the fact remains that these ports apparently find it a good investment to do that. I wonder how many public relations officers, how many representatives of our ports, are present at industrial fairs or exhibitions of that kind. I am told that there are none, although of course there are official representatives of the Department of Transport and of the port authorities.
However, there needs to be a more aggressive selling campaign put on, and to some extent much could be accomplished by seeing that our ports were properly represented at all fairs and meetings of businessmen. In a return tabled the other day I noticed that our army in western Europe, which I understand is substantially a brigade, has four
666	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nowlan public relations officers attached to it. If we have four public relations officers for that, then I suggest we should have at least one public relations officer doing a task for Canadian ports, and particularly the eastern Canadian ports.
Again, the member for Halifax said that there were many industries which were benefiting by national policy. He singled out the automobile industry and said that since they were benefiting from national policy it should be the duty of the government-at least this is the implication but it is not exactly what he said although I believe it is a fair inference from what he said-to see that those who benefit from national policy carry out their responsibilities toward the nation. Accordingly, the automobile industry should use Canadian ports for the shipment of products which they manufacture pursuant to that policy. I believe there is an argument in that connection.
In any event, sir, today business and government are so closely associated through matters of taxation, priorities, allocations and in dozens of other ways directly and indirectly, that it would be an easy thing for the government to at least urge, to advise and to encourage the export of Canadian goods through these Canadian ports. It is certainly a necessary thing, because they are a national need. They perform a national function in time of war. This nation cannot exist without them. There seems to be something radically wrong when we hear the boasting about the increase of our gross national product, and yet we find that the share of it which is going through these Canadian ports is getting less and less instead of more and more.
I recall once attending a film sponsored by the minister of finance. I am sure he regretted it because he came from Nova Scotia. I happened to be in the theatre one night when a new bond sale was being inaugurated under his auspices. Some firm had been retained to prepare the film and they showed Canada as stretching from the Pacific to the St. Lawrence, where it stopped. I am sure it was rather embarrassing to the minister. The other night I saw another powerful film prepared for "The March of Time". I saw a preview of it, and it was encouraging to Canadians. The only reference to Canadian ports and the only scene of them showed a group of immigrants going through the sheds at Halifax. It was stated that they were on their way to the possibilities which awaited them in Canada. This attitude is not too well appreciated in the east. I think the time is coming when something should be done about it.


Speaking about transportation, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to deal with a local matter. I want to say again what I have said in this house on other occasions, and that is that one of the transportation problems in the east which I think needs attention is the bringing into Nova Scotia of the Canadian Pacific Railway from Saint John to Digby and then up the valley to Halifax. In days gone by the principle underlying national policy dictated that our access to central Canadian markets should be by a long, tortuous route going up around the baie de Chaleur, up the Matapedia valley, and finally down the St. Lawrence. At that time policy dictated that we should be kept as far as possible away from the United States border, because it was assumed that at some time the United States would invade the provinces of Upper Canada and the Nova Scotians would have to come up here to protect them.
Now, policy dictates that we should be closely associated with the United States. We have markets there and we need accessibility to those markets. We, however, have to follow this long, tortuous route or else we have to ship l.c.l. across the bay of Fundy and then reload afterwards. Some construction work seems necessary both at Saint John and at Digby, and I hope that at some time in the not too distant future this matter can be rectified.	,
I am reminded of what the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bruneau) said a few moments ago about a national flag. I am not going to venture to discuss that matter at the moment. However, since the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is here, and since I believe this house and this building comes under the jurisdiction of his department, I want to refer to a matter which I think is of great importance. About the middle of last July, sir, I happened to come back to Ottawa. I came up to these parliament buildings here, the centre and capital of Canada. I found the place swarming, to use a slang expression, with tourists, both from the United States and Canada; there were thousands of them. I found that we had R.C.M.P. constables, wearing their red coats, patrolling up and down in front of this building. I even found an R.C.M.P. constable wearing a red coat and mounted on horseback patrolling in front of the building in order to give us a little national flavour. Then I found this graceful tower out here adorned with a flagpole reaching up to the heavens like a gnarled finger, without anything on it.
I think it is a disgrace to this country that in this capital of Canada, when tourists



IS, 1952

[Stage Direction]
come here-whether they are Americans, Canadians or whoever they are-to these parliament buildings the only flag they find visible from the parliament building is the flag of Norway flying over the Norwegian consulate down here on Sparks street. I realize the difficulty with respect to a national flag. I appreciate the fact that it should be settled and determined. I know there are difficulties which may delay that outcome. But, Mr. Speaker, what I say is this. A flag which is good enough to fly over this building now to advise the people of Ottawa-or alarm them-that their members happen to be sitting here, which flies here every day we sit, which flies at half-mast when any member of this house or of the other place dies, and which flies over our embassies abroad, is a flag that is good enough to be flying over this building every day of the year. In order to develop a national sentiment it would be much better to have a national flag upon which everyone can agree. But I suggest to the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bruneau) or to any other hon. member that certainly anything is better than this barren flagpole which sticks up here like a sore thumb every day during the time the house is not in session.
A moment ago I mentioned the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), but I notice that he has left the chamber. There were some things I wanted to say about his department. I am not going to speak at any great length now because, from the order paper and from references in the press to what is going on in another place, I learn that before too long we shall have legislation here dealing with the fisheries problems of Canada, and perhaps particularly those of the eastern seaboard. I think it is desirable, Mr. Speaker, that the new minister give special attention to those problems. His predecessor worked hard and undoubtedly made a contribution to the department which he administered. The new minister, with imagination and with drive, can perhaps accomplish even more.
One of those problems with which we shall be confronted before this house rises
is,	I believe, that concerning coastal waters. I believe that matter is now being debated elsewhere. I have heard there is an interdepartmental committee already appointed and dealing with that matter at the moment. I hope that committee deals with it seriously. I hope that the chairman stays here in Ottawa and gives some time to looking after
it.	I think Canada should take the lead in dealing with this matter of coastal waters. The whole conception of it is changing, as we know. European countries have altered their concept with respect to it. With its
The Address-Mr. Nowlan thousands and tens of thousands of miles of coast line, headlands, harbours and bays, I think Canada more than almost any other country in the world should be paying special attention to that problem; and when the time comes we shall discuss that matter at length. I want to impress upon the minister now, or when he reads Hansard, at any rate, that so far as the bay of Fundy is concerned there is a real problem which is interesting historically and which is open to solution today. If he goes back in history I think he will find that in the Rush-Bagot conversations of many years ago, or in the convention, the British who were then in charge of Canadian negotiations emphasized the fact that the bay of Fundy was a coastal water. The Americans said it was not a coastal water but that it was part of the high seas. No agreement was reached; they agreed to disagree, and the matter was left open. Now that this whole matter is to be reviewed, I think something concrete should be done in the near future.
Referring to the Minister of Fisheries, I should like to digress for a moment or two. I was intrigued by a statement he made here on Friday afternoon. The minister is always a most ebullient speaker, one who likes to rush in and charge at windmills and make political speeches which are sometimes scintillating and witty but perhaps not entirely authentic. I think he gave a brilliant example of that on Friday afternoon because, in referring to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), my deskmate, or in replying to him, as reported at page 616 of Hansard, you will find that he was deploring the Tory trade principles of the Bennett depression days and said: "Look what we, the Liberals, have done with our magnificent trade policies as compared with those repressive, unfortunate and stupid Tory policies of Bennett."
An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: My hon. friend says "hear, hear". Let him wait until I finish and see whether he says "hear, hear" then. He took the figures, as they are set out here; you will find them at page 616 of Hansard. He said that under the beneficent and brilliant leadership given by this government, the trade of Canada which under the policies of Tory Bennett was only $1 [DOT] 9 billion had now reached $8 billion, a little bit more than a 400 per cent increase. I was rather intrigued with these figures. I was impressed because it was one of the first things I had seen which had impressed me with the policy of this government, and I thought perhaps one should check on the figures a little bit. So I obtained the figures for the United States,
668	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nowlan and wondered what a dismal failure they had made and how they would compare with the scintillating leadership which had been given to Canada by this Liberal government. I found that in the same period trade had gone from $3-7 billion to $25-99 billion or in other words had increased seven times as compared with the increase in Canada. Whether that is a coincidence I do not know. I say I am not entirely impressed with the logic of the minister's argument; nevertheless that was his argument. If it was logical and sound, then I think this comparison should be put into effect, and one might deplore the fact that we did not have the Democrats or the Tories of Bennett or somebody else rather than these Liberals whose policies did not give us so much. I would also point out to the minister what happened to the government which increased the trade of its country by seven times while his government was increasing trade in this country by only four times. Three or four weeks ago the people, having become tired of it, kicked it out. That was not an entirely happy illustration for the minister to use.
Then he also rang the changes on the Tory gloomsters. I do not think I am divulging any secret when I say that the Tories are not the gloomy ones, but that there are others around here who are much gloomier than they are. If he wants to know who the gloomsters are in Canada, I can tell him who they are, or at least some of them; I could not take time to tell of them all because my time would run out. They are the fruit growers of British Columbia and of Nova Scotia, the fishermen and the lumbermen who have lost the British markets. They are some of the gloomsters. Then there are the cheese manufacturers who are prohibited from selling their cheese in the United States; and the tobacco growers who find that because of the crazy taxation policies of this government their industry is threatened with extinction. Then there is agriculture in general, because according to figures shown the other day in the columns of Chester Bloom, which were taken from the bureau of statistics, the various costs of agricultural production have increased at an alarming rate whereas the prices received by agriculture have decreased in a corresponding way.
One could go on and enumerate others in this country who are gloomsters. I would suggest that they have some cause for gloom. I do not think they are going to be particularly encouraged by the rather derisive laughter with which the Minister of Fisheries dealt with them. I would also remind the


Minister of Fisheries that there was a gentleman by the name of Stevenson who in embarking upon a campaign not long ago said he was not going to run his election campaign against Herbert Hoover; but before he got through he found he was running against Herbert Hoover. We know what happened. I suggest that when my hon. friends opposite start campaigning against R. B. Bennett in the days of the depression, and when they try to resurrect other speeches which men made in the past, then the political poverty of that party is certainly greater than we realize and its desperation is even greater than we had anticipated.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this making of speeches seems to be a disease of the junior ministers from British Columbia. We have noticed in the press reports of speeches by ministers from that province. I am not sure what is the exact status of one of the ministers from British Columbia. He is something like Lucifer, suspended halfway between heaven and hell. Although he is still Solicitor General, he is taking over the Department of National Defence, or part of it, when the necessary legislation goes through. One of the functions of the Solicitor General is to recommend clemency and exercise mercy. That may be one of the reasons that incumbent is being brought into the Department of National Defence. I do want to tell him that the Department of National Defence is more suspect, under greater criticism and more discussed by the people of Canada generally than is any other department of this government, and that is saying quite a great deal. And if this minister expects to restore the confidence of the people of Canada in that department he should avoid going on political junkets and making cheap political speeches, because if there is any record that needs to be changed it is the record of the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Fleming:: That will keep him busy,
too.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not sure how much time I have left. I want to refer to a matter which came to my attention the other day. I found that a paper published in Toronto, which is generally considered to have some access to information from the government, and which is certainly not hostile to it, stated that tax reductions will come in July so the taxpayers in Canada will get the benefit of them before the election in October. The article states that this information is derived from an informed source, whatever that may be. It is one of the anonymous informed sources we hear of around here. I notice that it is datelined Ottawa, December 8.

I was rather intrigued by this suggestion of tax reductions, which have been asked for so often by the opposition, and I wondered if by any chance they would be brought in again on the eve of the election. I checked back to some other tax reductions and some records to see what took place during the last few elections. I find, for instance, that prior to the 1945 election the excise tax of 25 per cent on refrigerators was repealed by order in council 28 days before the election. It was reimposed afterward, and it was substantially reduced again before the 1949 election. I found that the tax of 25 per cent on electrical appliances was reduced by order in council 28 days before the election. After the 1945 election was won the tax went back on, and then it was reduced again before the 1949 election and reimposed at 15 per cent in the budget of 1951. One could go on. There was a tax on stoves, cameras and soft drinks. The 25 per cent was repealed in the 1949 budget and reimposed at 30 per cent in September, 1950. On candy and confectionery the 30 per cent tax was repealed in the 1949 budget and reimposed in 1950. The radio tax of 25 per cent was reduced to 10 per cent by order in council just before the 1945 election, and reimposed by radio again. Thus began radio ukase in Canada by the Liberal government in 1947. It was reduced to 10 per cent just before the 1949 election, and was increased again in the following budget after the 1949 election. One could go on, Mr. Speaker, giving example after example of those tax reductions; and the pattern has emerged of reducing before the 1945 election, increasing after the 1945 election, reducing before the 1949 election and increasing after the 1949 election, reducing now before the 1953 election and if this government by any misfortune happens to come back to power undoubtedly increasing again in the following budget.
We have heard a great deal of cyclical budgeting. That was the way it was described at one time, but we all know the term the press gallery coined for it and which is much more descriptive, namely cynical budgeting. And if we get a tax reduction on the eve of this election it would be the most barefaced, the most glaring example of cynical budgeting this country has ever known,


Gordon Graydon: Beware the Greeks bearing gifts.


George Clyde Nowlan: This morning the Prime Minister gave us a brief resume or review of what happened recently in London. I know of no matter of a positive nature which is of more importance to Canadians generally than is the problem of sterling and of accessibility to the British markets. Certainly, sir, there is no problem of such paramount
The Address-Mr. Mcllraith importance in eastern Canada; and when we have had a further report on it and have received greater details, we shall then discuss that matter on the budget or on some other occasion. We do hope and trust that as a result of the varied belated efforts which this government has put into the matter of dealing with the problem of sterling at the conference of commonwealth ministers some concrete good will emerge for the primary producers who are dependent upon that market.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it is usual in taking part in these debates to say a word of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am very happy to do that, and since I am frequently accused of or being told that I am quite an ardent Liberal, I am particularly happy to do it because of the fact that these two hon. members confirm the belief I have always had in this House of Commons as the effective method of governing not only in this country but in the world today. I am a profound believer in the Canadian system of government and in the part the House of Commons plays in it. During my experience as a member of this house for some twelve years and the opportunities that are provided for contact with members of other government bodies in other countries I am only strengthened in my view on that subject. The whole history of each of these hon. members about whom I am speaking confirms me in that belief.
I should like to say a word about the hon. member who has just taken his seat, and particularly about one point he raised. He spoke about the difficulties certain of our universities in the area with which he is naturally most closely concerned have in financing their efforts. That undoubtedly is a very real problem, and I am glad to hear him raise it in this debate and say a word about it. It is an embarrassing and difficult problem, because the history of this country makes it impossible and undesirable for the federal government to interfere in the field of education. Yet while we recognize that fact, there is also no doubt that the universities and some of the other educational institutions are having some difficulty in carrying on their efforts, and need some further help.
I was glad to hear his acknowledgment of the good work done in the post-war period with veterans in the field of education, and to hear his reference to the federal grants to universities. There is one other phase of the subject he might have touched on that
670	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Mcllraith has been a very real help to some of the universities, namely national research council grants and scholarships. They are a very positive help to the science faculties, at least.
I am sorry the senior hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) is not in his seat. I propose to say something about his remarks of Friday last. Those remarks I found most upsetting and disturbing, and I am quite sure most hon. members feel that way about them. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) is naturally very proud of his constituency and his province, and I think quite justifiably. I have nothing but commendation for him for that. I have no doubt the constituency is a very fine one. Each of us, of course, thinks his constituency is the finest and his province the best. The province from which the hon. member comes is indeed a fine province, one that has come to be known not by its name but rather as "The Island". We know the affection with which other Canadians use that term when they are referring to Prince Edward Island.
However, the hon. member did say some things that I think must not be permitted to go unanswered. He was dealing with some unfortunate or bad publicity the province had received through an article appearing in a Canadian publication. In dealing with the article the hon. member made reference to a photographer from the constituency I have the honour to represent. In dealing with that photographer he quoted from a newspaper, the Summerside Journal and The Pioneer. Referring to this portrait photographer the newspaper article, in its first sentence, contains these words:
This big-feeling foreigner, now Canadian, who visited Charlottetown this summer on his tour for Maclean's magazine-
And so on. Apparently the hon. member quoted that with approval; and in his own comments, as they are reported at page 600 of Hansard, he said:
If Maclean's magazine wanted to get some information about Prince Edward Island, why did they not get in touch with some of the people who have been coming for years to Prince Edward Island, rather than go to a foreigner-who is now a doubtful Canadian-looking for a report they might publish later as, in this instance, they have done.
Well, it is the implication in those remarks with which I wish to concern myself, the reference to a fellow Canadian of long standing as a foreigner and, not only that, the implication that a foreigner is in some way a person to be held in less esteem, or despised. This fellow Canadian about whom the hon. member was speaking is a man who came to this country as a boy, about 1924, from a


country in which there were great political upsets and disturbances. I suppose had he come in more modern times the term "refugee" would have been used. He was then 16 years of age, and settled in the Sherbrooke area of the province of Quebec. In 1933, one of the years when things in this country were not very good from a business standpoint- and at a time when the then leader of the party to which the hon. member for Queens belongs was prime minister of this country- this young man, who had become a naturalized Canadian as soon as the necessary time elapsed after his entry into this country, started to carry on business here in Ottawa.
At first he was working for another man. In a very few months, when the older man went out of business, the person in question continued the business himself. He built up that business, and has become not only a portrait photographer of great reputation in the constituency I have the honour to represent, but a portrait photographer of great reputation throughout the whole of this country, of great reputation throughout the United States, the United Kingdom and indeed the whole world. Probably he is the best portrait photographer in the world; certainly he is one of the greatest.
I make nothing of the point as to his degree of greatness, but certainly it can be said that he is a very great portrait photographer. I do not know if other hon. members have shared my experience when visiting other countries, of being asked if I know this Canadian photographer, who took certain very famous pictures of persons known throughout the world. While this great Canadian photographer may be a small man physically, he is a man of very real stature, and I am sure the attack made against him and the references to him will not concern him personally to any great extent. Figuratively speaking his shoulders are very broad and he can bear attacks of this kind, and many more like them, without any damage whatever. But the implications of the attack are of real consequence, because this country is built up of persons coming from many different lands. Our racial origins are diversified. Some 48 per cent, by racial origin, came from the British Isles. The next largest racial group are of French origin, and the remaining racial groups come from some thirty or forty other countries, in varying percentages.
Great numbers of our population came here, by choice, as immigrants. In most cases they came because they felt there was a good opportunity here to develop their human personalities, earn their living, and provide opportunity for their children. Having come here they brought with them from their

homelands skills and cultural attributes. Those skills and cultural attributes have done much to develop this country. They have been a great factor in our present development. Not only are we fortunate in Canada in having been blessed with great natural resources, but also by the fact that our population comes from a diversity of origins, each contributing its own cultural background and acquired skills. These have been blended to make our Canadian nationality something of which each one of us can justly be proud.
This portrait photographer from Ottawa, this "foreigner", this "doubtful Canadian"- and I use the language of the hon. member for Queens-was chosen to be the representative of Ontario at a very impressive ceremony in this country when the new citizenship act came into force early in 1947. A most impressive ceremony was held in the Supreme Court of Canada on that occasion, when the Chief Justice of Canada presented citizenship certificates to representative Canadians. The man chosen from Ontario on that occasion was this portrait photographer who carries on business in the constituency of Ottawa West.
Surely if we are to continue to develop this country, we must continue to have immigration into it. That immigration must include people who come here feeling they can become full Canadians, if they meet the requirements, after the necessary lapse of time. They must never be made to feel that they will be second-class Canadians, third-class Canadians or fourth-class Canadians. They must have the right to feel that they and their children, provided they have met the conditions and have acted properly, are full Canadians the same as any others. The term "national unity" must in fact be something real, not just a phrase used in speeches. I do not want to say anything more personally about Mr. Yousuf Karsh, but I do want to say something in protest on behalf of those millions of Canadians who are in the same position, who have come here of choice, who have become full citizens and who want to carry on as full citizens, who want their children to carry on as full citizens.


Mr. Brooks:: Does not the hon. member agree that he is making a mountain out of a molehill?


George James McIlraith: No, sir. I am glad that question has been raised. I consider that this goes to the very root of our national unity. Not only that, it involves a deep-rooted principle. When I started to practise my profession in Ottawa about the same time as this man was starting up in a little shop, I took a great interest in politics. I worked in some of the branches of the national young Liberal
The Address-Mr. Mcllraith organizations. There was one thing that impressed me, not so quickly at first but gradually, and that was this question of national unity. Our former prime minister used that phrase a great deal and was ridiculed for doing so. In that work I found that when we were considering current matters we were always coming up against the consideration of that principle. You began to realize that it applied not only geographically to this strip of country along-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would consider this to be a matter between the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) and Mr. Karsh.


George James McIlraith: This matter was raised by an hon. member in this house, and judging by the calls I have had about it I consider it to be a most important matter of principle. If I may just finish my remarks, we had to consider national unity, not only from its broad aspect geographically and from the other variations by reason of great distances, but also as it affected persons because of different racial and language backgrounds. In the last number of years when I have dealt with representatives of governments of other countries, an opportunity for which I am most grateful, I have noticed that the one thing that seems to bear in on their minds is the fact that this country is one where there is more practical application of this idea of national unity and more hope for our people because of it than in any other country.


Mr. Kickham:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he consider that Mr. Karsh made a truthful statement in his reference to the food served in Prince Edward Island?


George James McIlraith: I consider that the hon. member for Queens was quite right in raising the question as to the food served in the hotel. There is no question that the hon. member was quite right in raising that matter and defending it to the limit. But that does not permit him to attack and cast aspersions upon a fellow Canadian citizen on the ground that he came originally from another country.


Thomas Joseph Kickham: If the hon. member made such a statement in Armenia he would be kicked out of the country.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry I did not hear the hon. member.


Mr. Hodgson:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: I will give the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Hodgson) a good deal more if he wants me to. I would like him to discuss principles in this house instead of having his leader saying that he must not discuss their policies as he is the Leader of
672	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Mcllraith the Opposition. Any time the hon. member wants to discuss questions of Liberal principle I shall be glad to oblige him.
As I was saying, when I was working in those days with the Liberal party the question of national unity came up quite often, and it impressed me. I think one of the reasons I am as ardent a Liberal as I am today is that I felt the basis upon which we must operate in this country was a strong recognition of national unity in all our policies. Any time the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) wants to discuss this matter further I am ready to discuss it with him and I will give him book, chapter and verse.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I would like to invite the hon. member to Victoria to discuss it any time he wishes. He can set the date and place.


James Sinclair: Is the hon. member tongue-tied here?


An hon. Member:: Do you have to be home to talk?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order.


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member for Royal considers that this matter involves no question of principle, let me tell him the Liberal party has been discussing this type of question as a matter of principle for a number of years, and as far as I am concerned we are going to continue to discuss it for years.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: On a question of privilege, I did not say it did not involve a question of principle. I said it was principally a matter between the hon. member for Queens and Mr. Karsh, and the hon. member was simply trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. That is what I said. An apology as between these two men would be very much in keeping. It does not involve the whole principle of two parties in this country.


George James McIlraith: It involves the principle of first, second and third-class citizenship in this country. As far as I am concerned, it is going to be discussed and treated as a matter of principle because you cannot have a country with first, second and third-class citizenship.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You should know.


George James McIlraith: I notice the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) seems to be agitated, but he will have to save his remarks for another time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the hon. member if he spoke to similar effect to his British Columbia colleagues when the question of the treatment of Japanese Canadians was before the house?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I did. Not only that, I am on record as speaking at a meeting not many blocks from this chamber during the election campaign. I told them at that meeting that they were seeking to raise racial prejudice but that we were Canadians one-and all. A questioner in the audience, planted there by friends of the hon. member's party, questioned that policy. Furthermore I told him that as soon as I finished with that meeting I was going to meet a group of Canadians of Syrian extraction in the west end of the city, and when I got there I proposed to tell them the same thing. I asked this questioner if he wanted me to take a message from that meeting, which was being held at the corner of Queen and Metcalfe streets, to the effect that there were different classes of Canadians among our citizens.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then you did not support the government's policy.


George James McIlraith: I do not want to get diverted too far by the hon. member for Eglinton, but I can tell him about a meeting in his own constituency where he was the speaker. One of his friends who was a member of his audience walked out and has never voted Conservative since.


An hon. Member:: Good sense.


George James McIlraith: I can give him the street address if he wants it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can bring you a hundred of the other kind.


George James McIlraith: That may be, but I just wanted to point out the technique that has been used. As I said, we talked about national unity and so on. So that I cannot be accused of drumming up something and making it into a question of principle I should like to go back to the record. You know, we Liberals are not ashamed to go back and read from the previous speeches of our leaders. We are not afraid to have them quoted. The hon. member for Eglinton is justifiably upset.
Just let me read to you thte remarks made by the former prime minister of Canada when he was retiring as leader of this party at the great Liberal convention held in August, 1948. There was a phonographic recording made of his words and I would commend it to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and to any other of his colleagues if they are interested. I will just put on record two or three sentences. Here is what he said:
It is a basic principle of Liberalism that all its policies should make for the maintenance and strengthening of national unity. If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. We should strive for that which will help to give to all our people a united faith in the future of this

great country. Our policies should be framed to serve the general interest and not the interests of any one section, class or group. Our outlook should not be local, or provincial. It should be a national outlook.
Our country is a federal state, occupying half a continent. We must seek our unity in diversity, not in unformity. Canada was created from diverse elements, each with proud and noble traditions and customs. It is composed of several provinces, each with its own history, and each with constitutional responsibilities which must be respected and safeguarded. Every one of us, if we are to be true Liberals, will endeavour to understand the background, the feelings and the outlook of other Canadians.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I notice that he waited until he retired to say that.


George James McIlraith: That interjection is a reflection on the member who made it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Inhuman policy is the word for it.


James Sinclair: He retired voluntarily; he was not turfed out of his own party.


George James McIlraith: That speech was made to his own followers, and that is the doctrine of the Liberal party.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Those are the words of the Liberal party-not its actions.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Another Rhodes scholar?


An hon. Member:: You have him worried.


George James McIlraith: I have just finished reading a book.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Your first one?


George James McIlraith: The bright remark by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) is probably warranted and I take it in quite good part. It is Mr. Creighton's first volume on the life of the first Canadian prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. One cannot read that book and not be impressed by the recognition by the first Canadian prime minister of the problem of national unity, and the struggles to recognize the diverse backgrounds of the different parts of what became Canada. You cannot help but be impressed by his appreciation of his problem. I can only regret that his followers today have not the good judgment to read and study some of his views on that matter and apply them to themselves and to their policies. I make no apology whatever for making reference to that fact.


An hon. Member:: That is only your
judgment.


George James McIlraith: That is my judgment of the first Canadian prime minister and his appreciation of the problem. It is a matter of tragedy that in this country today the party that is called, and properly called, the official opposition, which in our system of government
The Address-Mr. Mcllraith implies the status of being an alternative government-


An hon. Member:: The next government.


George James McIlraith: -has not seen fit to recognize what their first great national leader saw fit to recognize, a broader policy-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just absurd.


George James McIlraith: I do not reply to the hon. member for Eglinton in kind because he used the word "stupid" on one occasion and then objected when I used it in reply. I refrain from using the word "absurd" either in reply to his interjection or in any way connected with it. The hon. member for Eglinton is quite agitated, and well he might be because I propose to speak for a few moments about trade in this country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why not about redistribution?


George James McIlraith: There has never been such a satisfactory job of redistribution done since confederation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You mean such a butchery of riding boundaries to serve the government's interests.


George James McIlraith: I may tell my hon. friend that one of his colleagues, a member of his own party, did not come into the house when he was raising all the disturbance about redistribution. That member was too disgusted with the fuss raised by the hon. member for Eglinton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is utterly untrue.


James Sinclair: Don't be childish.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has just made a statement, Mr. Speaker, which I do not think should be allowed to pass without being controverted. He has stated that certain members of the Progressive Conservative party in this house stayed out for a particular reason.


Mr. Rowe:: There are some out from over there.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The statement that some of our members stayed out of the house for the reason he has given has not one shred or tittle of truth in it. If the hon. member does not know that it is high time he did.


George James McIlraith: If I have in any way offended the hon. gentleman's sensibilities-


Donald Methuen Fleming: You do not offend my sensibilities, you only offend the truth.


George James McIlraith: As to why the hon. member was out of the house, I withdraw my remark
674	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Mcllraith completely; but I mention the fact that an hon. member on the committee from his own party was out of the house throughout the time he was debating redistribution.
On the question of national trade, which the hon. member for Eglinton does not want discussed, and which he is seeking to prevent being discussed-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is equally untrue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: I must remind hon. members that the hon. gentleman who has the floor may not be interrupted' without his consent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am rising on a question of privilege. The hon. member has said that I am trying to prevent him discussing trade. That is quite untrue. I would be glad to hear all he has to say about trade.


George James McIlraith: I thank the hon. gentleman for that courtesy, and I will be very glad to continue my remarks.
For the first ten months of this year trade figures in total or in gross are pleasing to all Canadians. There is no doubt about that. Our exports are up rather substantially. With the United Kingdom they are up 23 per cent and with all countries they are up about 10 per cent. There are some tables here and, if the house wishes them put on record, I will be glad to do so. One table gives the exports for 1935, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1950, 1951, and the first ten months of 1951 and of 1952. The figures are broken down by countries: United States, United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries. The same breakdown is given for imports. I would be glad to put the figures on record in that form:
Canadian External Trade
($000,000)
Exports (excluding re-exports)
Total
1935		 729
1937	  997
1938	  838
1939	  924
1950	  3,118
1951	  3,914
1951	(10	months)	
3,1561952	(10	months)	
3,512
Total
1935		 550
1937		 809
1938		 677
1939	  751
1950	  3,174
1951	  4,085
1951	(10	months)	
3,4861952	(10	months)	
3,324
Those figures show a sharp increase in
United	Other	OtherU.S.A.	Kingdom	Commonwealth	Countries266	304	74	86360	402	104	131270	340	103	125380	328	103	1132,021	470	185	4422,298	631	241	7441,899	510	195	5521,977	625	223	787U.S.A.	United Kingdom	Other Commonwealth	Other Countries312	117	57	64491	147	89	82425	119	67	66497	114	75	652,130	404	241	3992,813	421	306	5452,385	369	274	4582,449	296	160	419
The table for animals and animal products
general trade. Much has been said in this is as follows:
house about particular products, and I have no quarrel with that. But it is always difficult, when a nation trades to the extent this country does, to deal with all particular products all the time. It is interesting to note that Canadian exports of agricultural and vegetable products are running like this:
Canadian Exports of Agricultural and Vegetable Products
1938		 $191,000,000
1950		 637,000,000
1951	(year)	
894,000,0001951	(10	months)	
677,543,0001952	(10	months)	
918,324,000
Canadian Exports of Animals and Animal Products
1938		 $118,000,000
1950		 366,000,000
1951	(year)	
348,000,0001951	(10	months)	
294,000,0001952	(10	months)	
192,000,000
It will be seen, therefore, that the reduction in exports of animals and animal products for the first ten months of this year is considerably less than the loss of exports of those products which were cut off by reason of the embargo resulting from foot-and-mouth disease. It will also be seen that animals and

The Address-Mr. Mcllraith
animal products, and agricultural and vegetable products exported from this country during the first ten months of this year are sharply up. When the problems of individual products are discussed it is quite wrong to say that markets for agricultural products have been lost and that farmers generally are in a bad situation.
A great deal is said about exports to the United Kingdom. Here are some of the main items in which there have been sharp increases in those exports. Let us just look at them for a minute. My time will not permit me to give the figures, though I have the figures for each item if the house wants them. There is an increase in the export of barley, of wheat and tobacco-quite a sharp increase in
Some representative Canadian products whose
Barley	 bush
Wheat	 bush
Tobacco, bright	cured	 lb
Pit props	 cord
Softwood lumber	 m. ft.
Woodpulp, sulphate,	unbleached	cwt.
Newsprint	 cwt.
Ferro silicon	 ton
Aluminum	 cwt.
Zinc spelter	 cwt.
Asbestos milled fibre	 cwt.
Something was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) about British Columbia apples. He regretted the loss of the United Kingdom mafket for them. Something like one month before the hon. member made his speech in this house all the apples in British Columbia had been sold, and I am happy to say sold at a very good price. I have not had the opportunity of examining the question of price in detail, but I am told that it is certainly higher than anything in the last ten years. I have not, as I say, checked the precise figures, but in any event the price was high.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think your information is accurate.


George James McIlraith: I do not know where the
information came from about there being a problem in the marketing of British Columbia apples.
Then one other aspect of the subject of marketing was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). I could quite sympathize with the hon. member for Anna-polis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) when he said he did not want us to refer back to his leader's previous speeches. His leader said that 80 per cent of our exports went to the United States. I cannot find anything to support that 68108-43J
the export of tobacco to the United Kingdom- of pit props; softwood lumber; woodpulp, sulphate, unbleached; newsprint; ferro silicon; aluminum; zinc spelter; asbestos milled fibre. I have the figures if the house is interested in them. You will notice that the first items, barley, wheat, tobacco and pit props, are all items produced by farmers. Although pit props might not be ordinarily classed as a farm product, anyone knowing the maritimes and the method of operation in New Brunswick would certainly consider them as farm products. If I have the consent of the house, I will put the table on the record.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: The table is as follows:
exports to the United Kingdom have increased
Nine Months	Nine Months	Nine Months1950	1951	1952-	536,664	1,032,06765,934,335	62,730,157	82,646,08013,714,922	18,441,788	28,471,85412,798	40,325	248,030177,930	668,128	741,65349,534	382,748	593,868155,282	1,056,126	1,769,96632,346	32,927	41,5301,647,473	2,831,745	3,909,259556,301	746,469	1,373,67121,666	21,315	25,754
figure, even for one month. In 1950 the figure was 65 per cent; in 1951, it was 59 per cent, and the current figure this year is 53 per cent of our exports go to the United States. As a matter of fact, at no point have I ever found any item that would support his statement that 80 per cent of our exports went to the United States. If he has authority for it, it is not to be found in the trade figures available.
I wanted to deal with another statement; that is that these trade figures do not affect the real standard of living. They very much affect the real standard of living in this country. I shall have to abbreviate my remarks, but I might point out that consumer spending is up a great deal in Canada, something of the order of 6 per cent higher than in 1951. The current rate of retail sales is about 61 per cent higher in value than in 1951, and at least 3| per cent greater in volume. As an example of that, at the last session we heard a great deal of talk from the opposition about particular sections of business or industry being injured or damaged. Let me point out that retail sales of automobiles, for instance, in September 1952, were up 12 per cent over the previous September, while radios and electric appliances were up some 43 per cent.
676	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Mcllraith
Perhaps it is not a good thing to isolate particular products like that; perhaps we would do better to take food purchases. Food purchases were 7i per cent higher in value and 7 per cent higher in volume in the first nine months of 1952 than in the first nine months of 1951. Now, in dealing with that figure, you must remember that there are many new consumers in 1952, about 400,000 more than in 1951. After you allow for that, there is still a very substantial increase in the consumption of food by Canadians. I do not know of any index that is a better indication of the material well-being of Canadian citizens. Any of the other indices you take, of course, indicates the same thing.
In another speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition just last week end, which is reported in the Globe and Mail of Monday, December 8, he talks about the trading policy of this Liberal government. He went on to say that he would not be content to sit back in palsied impotence-that is the phrase he used. He referred to the government's trade policy as palsied impotence. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is there to indicate palsied impotence in a policy that has resulted in our trade increasing to something over $8 billion last year? It will be slightly higher this year. The whole trade policy of the government has been anything but palsied impotence as indicated by the Leader of the Opposition. The whole policy has been to continue to expand and increase trade on a multilateral basis. The fact has been stated and restated here to the point where I am sure it must have aggravated many listeners.
This policy has been exemplified by these facts in the administration of the Department of Trade and Commerce. During the war years we had to close some 12 foreign trade offices. Since the war we have reopened 10 of those and in addition opened another 17 foreign trade offices. We have set up a commodities branch. We have set up an agriculture and fisheries branch. The United Kingdom and Canada have a continuing committee on trade and economic affairs which sits at irregular intervals during each year. The policy has been one of continuous and aggressive effort to seek to increase trade.
During a bit of crossfire the other night reference was made by one of the members of the opposition groups-I am sorry I have not the precise reference-to the period 1935-39. I just want to remind hon. members that with a very short bit of work I have been able to turn up some eleven or twelve trade treaties executed by this same Liberal party during those years. I ask hon. members if that is a policy of palsied impotence. I suggest that the palsied impotence is in the inability of the


opposition to develop its policy with respect to trade and expound it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Even your colleagues are laughing.


George James McIlraith: I am very happy that they are pleased with my remarks. I appreciate that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Palsied laughter.


George James McIlraith: I see that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) still wishes to interrupt. He is not able to possess his soul in patience; but whether that is a chronic condition with him or is caused by my remarks, I do not know.
It will be noticed that the trade with Latin America is tremendously increased. Not only that, but we have had one trade mission there since the end of the war headed by the then minister of trade and commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and we have another one going there, headed by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). In my opinion that is a substantial indication of the Liberal policy, and is a thoroughly good one.
I had intended to make some reference to industrial raw materials in relation to trade, but I fear my time is extremely short. I shall try to condense those remarks greatly. I just want to remind hon. members who are discussing this question of export of industrial raw materials of one or two basic facts. They are that last year our industry required to import something of the order of three times as much industrial raw materials as Canada exported. This is a hard fact. Now we are becoming less dependent on industrial raw material imports. I cannot perhaps elaborate, in the time I have at my disposal, on the development of Canadian industry in processing Canadian raw materials; but it is interesting that of industrial materials the main exports are pulpwood, nickel, asbestos, zinc, iron ore and copper. Our imports are crude petroleum, coal, raw cotton, crude rubber, raw wool, iron ore and vegetable fibres. In addition to that, we must import all the bauxite for the aluminum industry, all the cryolite for the aluminum industry and of course sulphur for the newsprint industry whose product is of tremendous export value.
On this question of iron ore, the situation today is that Canada must import more iron ore than she exports. We import iron ore to the extent of about $23 million in value, and we export iron ore to the extent of $19 million in value. Hence, when I read speeches by some hon. members and others decrying the fact that we export iron ore, I would just remind them that our steel mills could not carry on if we did not import more iron ore than we are at present exporting. There is a

reason for that, having to do with the quality of the ore and so on, and the need for mixing different ores.
The exports of industrial raw materials in 1939 were some $56 million and our imports in that year of industrial raw materials were $142 million. In 1951 the exports of industrial raw materials were $251-6 million and the imports were $724-1 million. In 1952, for the first eight months-those are the latest figures I was able to obtain-the exports of industrial raw materials were $184-2 million and the imports were $376-8 million.
The exports of foodstuffs-on the export of which our country is dependent to a great extent-in 1951 were some $905 million. I ask hon. members to consider well just what would happen to our exports of food materials if we stopped the export of industrial raw materials.
The Address-Mr. Bourque Then the exports of partially manufactured materials in 1951 were some $1,259-8 million. The exports of fully or chiefly manufactured articles were some $1,497-3 million. That gives total exports for 1951 of $3,914-5 million. In other words out of a total export of $3,914-5 million in 1951, the industrial raw materials exported were $251-6 million. 1 have here the precise table worked out for 1939, 1951 and the first eight months of 1952, except that I was not able to get the breakdown between partially manufactured goods and fully or chiefly manufactured goods for the first eight months of 1952. If hon. members wish that it be placed on the record, I should be glad to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: The table is as follows:



TABLE 2.-EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF INDUSTRIAL RAW MATERIALS, CANADA 1939, 1951 AND 1952.

[Stage Direction]
Item	1939	1951	1952(>)	Exports $ Mill.	Imports $ Mill.	Exports S Mill.	Imports S Mill.	Exports S Mill.	Imports $ Mill.Industrial Raw Materials(2)	
Foodstuffs, etc.(3)	
Sub-total	
Partially Manufactured	
Full or Chiefly Manufactured	
Total	56-4 217-4	142-4 58-4	251-6 905-8	724-1 282-0	184-2 -0)	376-8 -(*)273-8	200-8	1,157-4	1,006-1	-0)	-0)247-0 404-1	66-0 484-2	1,259-8 1,497-3	304-0 2,774-8	- 0) -{*)	-0) -(*)924-9	751-0	3,914-5	4,084-9	2,805-8	2,596-4Industrial Raw Material as Per Cent of Total	6-1	19-0	6-4	17-7	6-6	14-5
Source: Trade of Canada.
0) Covering first eight months of 1952.
(21 Items with a value of $1 million and over in 1951.
(') Includes besides foodstuffs, seeds, tobacco, live animals, furs, skins and hides. (4) Not as yet available.
I realize that I have had the indulgence of the house in being allowed to go slightly beyond the full extent of my time. I therefore want to thank the house for the courtesy.
Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremont-St. Jean):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with my address I should like to join the many hon. members who have preceded me in
congratulating the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Deslieres) and the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) who respectively proposed and seconded the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, on the brilliant way in which they acquitted themselves in their task.
Mr. Speaker, I am fully cognizant of the honour and privilege that is given to any
678	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bourque Canadian who is called upon to represent his fellow countrymen in this house. I am fully cognizant, too, of the responsibility that rests upon anyone who speaks here on behalf of his constituents. I do not take that responsibility lightly.
In Canada today we are on the very threshold of our greatest national development. We who are assembled here are well aware of the great developments that have taken place during the past two decades. We are aware of the vast industrial progress that has been made, of the great improvements in our standard of living, and of the new spirit of Canadianism and Canadian unity that is creating here a country of unequalled opportunity.
We must also be aware, as we listen to the addresses by hon. members from the other side of the house, that we in Canada must always guard against those divisive influences, those sectional and regional appeals which in other countries have led only to confusion and despair. Canada is not a totalitarian country. It believes in giving voice to every brand of opinion that is within the bounds of decency and does not involve treason or sedition. It believes in preserving all the rights and privileges of those in opposition so they may serve, and they are intended to serve, as constant, alert and vigilant critics of government measures.
All this is designed for the protection of the public. It is the very basis of our political system, but it should not degenerate into criticism for criticism's sake, nor should it become a long series of attacks and innuendoes bringing into disrepute the honourable actions of those who are responsible for administering the nation.
I must, however, state here that I do not approve of the smearing campaign carried on by many members of opposing political parties. By insinuations and by indirect accusations they hint at corrupt and improper practices. If they have any accusations to make against the government in power why do they not come out openly and make those accusations? Of the billions of dollars collected in taxes and spent for the benefit of the country, not one charge of graft or scandal has been made against one member of the Liberal administration. From the taxes collected in the last few years over $2 billion of the national debt has been paid off, and this by the Liberal regime.


Donald Methuen Fleming: By the taxpayers.


Romuald Bourque: Certainly. We hear constantly from the members of the opposite side of the house what seems to be their theme song, "It is time for a change". Time


for a change, when our money is at a premium on the United States money market; time for a change, when we have almost full employment in Canada; time for a change, when our industries are busier and our payrolls higher than ever before in the history of Canada; time for a change, when the take-home pay of the average Canadian worker is higher than it has ever been; time for a change, when each and every Canadian citizen has more things than he ever had before, such as an automobile, an electric refrigerator, an electric stove, a radio, a home, and many other things he never owned before; time for a change, when every class and group of citizen is enjoying new prosperity; time for a change, when Canada holds the respect of most of the other countries of the world and when millions of people are clamoring to come here to make their homes; time for a change when Canada is at the threshold of its greatest era of prosperity, guided and helped by the able leader of this government and his ministers.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on the record what two leaders of finance in Canada had to say about the affairs of this country. I will not read the whole advertisement of the Dominion Bank but only the part that applies to my subject. Mr. Robert Rae, president of that bank, in an advertisement published in a Montreal newspaper on Thursday, December 11, 1952, had this to say:
Canada's population may be 30 million by 1975. Future depends on investment of savings, says Dominion Bank president.
Canada's national income has again achieved a new peak. The physical volume of production has also broken all records. The 1952 crop of wheat and coarse grains has surpassed that of any previous year. Export trade has been greater than ever before, both in dollar value and in physical volume. Capital investment in new plant and equipment has established a new record. Retail sales have been buoyant. The cost of living is much the same as it was a year ago. This means that the Canadian people are now living more comfortably than ever before.
The current rate of population growth is striking evidence of the faith which native-born Canadians and new Canadians coming from abroad have in this country's future. During the past twelve months the number of persons in Canada increased by no less than three per cent-a high rate of growth. If this rate of population increase is maintained Canada will have nearly 30 million people by 1975

twice as many as at present.
During the past four years, while Canadians were saving 8J cents out of every dollar of personal income, the people of Britain-faced with unprecedented need for the rebuilding and modernization of plant, equipment and housing-could only save one cent out of each dollar, due to the character and burden of taxation. Practically all of British investment during the post-war period has come from government funds and from corporate savings. In these fields also the rate of savings in the United Kingdom has been somewhat less than in Canada.

We Canadians may learn much from the present plight of Britain. The load of taxes which burdens us is less heavy than the load burdening the British people. The fiscal system here is less harmful toward enterprise than the fiscal system in Britain. Canada is rich in resources. The longterm prospects are bright. Developments now under way will increase greatly the range and volume of materials which the world needs and must have, and which Canada will be able to supply at fair and competitive prices. If risktaking and enterprise are encouraged, if Canadians are given an incentive to save and invest, Canada will continue to move forward to greater achievements.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on the record what Mr. Gordon R. Ball, president of the Bank of Montreal, had to say in an advertisement published in an Ottawa paper on Friday, December 12, 1952:
Canada today . . .
Who has
the lion's share?
It is not surprising that Canada should be viewed as a fertile field for the investment of money from abroad and still less surprising that, under existing circumstances, the lion's share of these funds should come from the United States. In the development of the resources of this continent, the international boundary line is becoming of less significance.
In point of fact, however, the relative role played by external capital in Canadian development has not been as large as is popularly supposed. For example, in the three years 1949-51 inclusive, the book value of non-resident investment in Canada increased by about $1,900 million, of which $1,700 million represented an increase in United States investment in this country.
While these figures in themselves appear large, they must be viewed in conjunction with the fact that in the corresponding period something like $12,000 million was spent in Canada for new capital development of all kinds.
In other words, then Canadians themselves provided, in this period, about $84 out of every $100 of new capital expenditures in this country, with foreign investors providing the remaining $16. It is also a fact that at the end of 1951 the proportion of Canadian industry controlled outside of Canada was somewhat smaller than in 1939.
If there are any Canadians who are inclined to view with alarm the extent of foreign participation in Canadian industry, the facts I have just recited should certainly tend to allay their fears.
I believe the citizens of Canada today are enjoying the most wonderful way of life it is possible to enjoy, and I feel sure that very few Canadians would want to go back to the days gone by. We hear complaints from many people, but is it not human for intelligent people to complain? We have not reached a Utopia; nobody ever will. No matter how high the standard of living there will always be those who will wish it were higher. Does the workingman want a full breadbasket with employment at high wages, with taxes at a high level, or does he want to go back to the uncertainty that existed in the days of the depression, when taxes were low and the breadline was long? Does the workingman
The Address-Mr. Bourque earning approximately $75 per week, and paying approximately $10 per week for income tax, want to go back to the days of not so long ago when he earned an average of $25 per week, if lucky enough to be employed, but paid no income tax. Personally I do not think so. He is better off today financially, socially and economically than he ever was before.
Does the workingman, want to go back to the days previous to the last war, when labour had almost reached the starvation point? Do the people want to go back to the days of not so long ago when our foreign trade was almost at a standstill? Do the people want to go back to the days when our farmers and our factories could find no market for their goods at home or abroad? Do the Canadian people want to go back to the days when our Canadian money was at a discount of 20 to 25 per cent on the United States market?
Nowhere else in the world outside of the United States can you find as high a standard of living as we now enjoy in Canada. The Liberal government provides the family allowances-a measure which was greatly derided by many members of the opposition, and christened by them the baby bonus-the old age pensions and pensions for the blind. These are some of the fruits of a taxation policy which is designed to create for Canadians a better and happier way of life. The Liberal government has given to all workers the protection of a sound unemployment insurance program which has eliminated for all time the need of a dole. The Canadian worker does not want charity, and the government recognizes and appreciates his position by providing a protection in which he can participate with dignity and with full respect for his position, as one who contributes to the development of our national wealth.
While each of us in this house represents a different constituency in Canada, a constituency with its own individual problems and its own individual claims for special attention and consideration, we realize that together we represent a great and growing nation. We do not seek uniformity of opinions or ideas, any more than we seek to destroy the individuality of each of our Canadian people. We welcome in Canada a diversity of races; we cherish the contributions to our Canadian civilization made by the English, the French, the Jews, the Italians, the Germans, the Scandinavian people and the people from many other lands who have come here to make their homes in our country. Each of these peoples has a vital contribution to
680	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bourque make to our way of life, and each of them should feel that he is represented in this free and democratic parliament. We want no repetition here of the hatreds which in Europe today are again producing the wave of anti-semitism which once characterized nazi Germany.
In this House of Commons we have a duty to perform to the people of Canada, a duty which goes far beyond the mere passage of bills and resolutions, a duty which involves providing leadership to the rest of Canada. No other deliberations in Canada receive the attention in the press and on the radio that is given to the deliberations in this house. Here, during the session, Canadians look for that inspiration and leadership which will symbolize their own faith in their country. Here, in our words and in our actions, they look for the expression of true Canadianism which will provide them with the courage and the enthusiasm to help them carry on their own individual tasks. It is our responsibility to see that we provide that leadership and that example which they are seeking.
The government of Canada, through the program it has carried out during the past 15 years, under the leadership of the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King and under the present able leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) through the program which was outlined in the speech from the throne, has endeavoured, and I believe has succeeded, in providing that leadership. Nothing has ever entered into this continuing program which has favoured one section, one group of interests, or one class of individuals over another. Legislation has been introduced and enacted in the best interests of the country as a whole. Mistakes, when they have been made-and who is so perfect in this world that he never makes mistakes-have been recognized and rectified. The affairs of the nation have been conducted with one over-all purpose in view, to give to Canada and the Canadian government the greatest possible measure of good government, administered by able ministers and, above all, by honest men.
Criticism of the methods which have been followed, of the legislation which has been enacted, of the measures which will be introduced-this is the legitimate function of hon. members in the opposition. Such criticism creates no personal animosity and is accepted in good faith as a contribution to our national welfare. It is entirely different from that type of criticism which sees nothing but evil in everything the government undertakes, which throws suspicion at each and


all of those who are responsible for the administration of the government, or which seeks to divide one section of our population against another. The constituency which I have the honour to represent is also literally a cross-section of Canada. Its population includes many races and several creeds. We have a variety of national backgrounds and a diversity of interests, but we are all united in believing first of all in our own constituency, and secondly in the nation of which we form a part. We would not welcome in Outremont-St. Jean any forces which sought to divide us one against the other, and we do not like that kind of force to be operating in our country. We believe that here in Canada there is room and opportunity for all, and we believe in seeing that all those who live and work among us are given an equal chance.
As a new member of this house I have much to learn, and I appreciate the many kindnesses and attentions which have already been shown to me, not only by the members of my own party but by the members of the parties in opposition. It gives me pleasure to think that I am received here not as an unreasoning partisan but as a loyal Canadian who is eager in this chamber to make some contribution to the welfare of his country. I believe in the government program which, over the past 17 years, has helped to produce such great prosperity in Canada. I believe in the many measures which have contributed so much to the welfare and happiness of all our people. I believe in the spirit which is evident throughout all the national legislation which over the years this government has introduced and implemented by efficient action. And I believe, too, in the right of all those opposed to the government to state their objections, and to have them seriously and thoughtfully considered by the hon. members in this chamber.
It is the privilege and the duty of the opposition to present counter-measures; it is their responsibility to offer at all times an alternative program to that of the government in power. I cannot believe, however, that the good of Canada is well served by criticism, real or implied, based not upon facts but purely upon political considerations. And I am sure my friends on the opposite side of the house will agree that our first obligation is to the people of Canada, and that only those things which add to the stature of parliament and contribute to the welfare of the country should be introduced into our proceedings.
No Canadians have ever had a greater opportunity than we to add to the glory and the prestige of Canada. Let us not throw

away that opportunity, but let us be united in purpose and love of country whatever our personal or political opinions may be. (Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to vote in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). So as to avoid any possible misunderstanding about my position, I wish to give a few words of explanation.
I am not in favour of Social Credit and I am not associated with what is known in Quebec as the "Union des filecteurs".
I am voting in favour of the amendment not so much to show my approval of a principle of Social Credit, but rather because I hope, in doing so, to focus attention on a suggestion I want to put forward.
For the past few days, we have witnessed in this house rather acrimonious debates between members of the Social Credit party and members of other groups. I believe that the quality and tone of those debates will not serve to enhance the prestige of those groups among the public at large.
But that is not the matter I wish to raise. Since I came to this house in 1949, I have been astonished on several occasions to note the indifference with which the Social Credit doctrine has been received in this house, when it has not been ridiculed. For my part, this theory interests me, like any number of others, in so far as I can understand it. It seems to me that it might be interesting to know this theory, especially since its advocates boast of being able to cure the numerous evils which our present financial policies have not always managed to deal with successfully.
I have no intention of being a prophet of doom but, Mr. Speaker, what would happen here, in Canada, if the large international or supranational organizations, which influence our national policy to an ever-increasing degree, suddenly should decide to declare peace? That is bound to happen some day.
Our country, no more than any other, in fact, is quite unable to support, indefinitely, a war economy such as the one we have to cope with these days. Otherwise we should have to neglect that great principle which states that in order to defend itself a country must first of all ensure its own means of livelihood. Should we go on at this rate for too long, our very existence might be threatened whenever the time comes to 68108-44
The Address-Mr. Poulin transform a wartime economy into a peacetime one.
The apostles of the Social Credit faith claim that they are capable of lessening these economic catastrophes, even of preventing them. Would it not be worth-while to give these gentlemen a chance to express their theories freely, here or elsewhere, to serious-minded, unprejudiced people, who would listen to them attentively and intelligently?
There is no getting away from it; either this theory is absurd, unattainable and consequently dangerous; or else it is practical, attainable and consequently deserves consideration.
As regards the first alternative, we would be already far behind, for the harm would now be very much widespread and the old political parties-no disparaging sense being attached to the term "old"-know it by experience, because in at least two of the Canadian provinces, they are being soundly trounced by the apostles of the new creed.
As for the second alternative, there are some who would be only too happy to prove intelligently rather than by means of stupid denegations or inappropriate interruptions, the insanity and economic danger of this doctrine.
For my part, I refuse to believe that everything is basically wrong in the social credit doctrine, as long, at least, as the contrary has not been proved. I also refuse to believe that a considerable and ever-increasing part of the Canadian electorate is totally mistaken as to its value and that of its supporters.
There must be something to this, just as there must be something to the theories expounded by socialists, Liberals, Conservatives and, if I may be permitted to add this, independents. Otherwise our democratic system would be a complete failure.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat that in voting in favour of the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge, I mainly desire to stress the fact that more attention should be paid to the monetary theories of the Social Credit party. Should they be dangerous, we would then be in a position to strike back at them more effectively. On the other hand, should they contain practical elements, capable of application, we would be able to make the most out of them.
(Text):


Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal with the pressing and vital question of Canadian airports, the
682	HOUSE OF
The Address

Mr. Macnaughton place of airports in the life of this fastgrowing nation, the function of airports in our economic future, the importance of airports to the defence of the free world.
Most of us have a proud awareness of the present travel facilities provided by Trans-Canada, Canadian Pacific and other Canadian air lines. We agree with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) "that aviation is growing faster than Canada," but how many of us get the full significance of such a statement as Ronald Keith, editor of Canadian Aviation, made the other day. He said:
It is hard to realize that as recently as 1937- fifteen years ago-Canada was six days wide and relatively few Canadians had ever flown. Today, our country is only twenty hours from coast to coast, and last year nearly a million passengers flew on T.C.A. alone!
But those are only a few more facts and figures. If you want to get the full impact of what they mean may I suggest that the next time you have occasion to be at an airport anywhere in Canada, look at it closely, critically, watch the coming and going of planes, trucks, cars and people. Mostly watch the people. If you are in doubt about anything, ask the first twelve-year-old boy you come across. He can tell you better than I can ever hope to just what it means to live in a country only twenty hours wide, because you will find his main hope is that by the time he is a man, Canada will be only ten hours wide. And no doubt it will, if science has its way and provided we in this house see to it that Canadian airport facilities are adequate to meet the needs, not only of the growing travelling public but of this nation's booming commerce and industry as well.
I have suggested that you look critically at our airports, but I do not suggest that you seek only to find fault. In fact I am sure you will agree that, despite many obvious shortcomings, the picture of Canada's airport facilities is so good that we can afford to indulge in a little self-criticism. And that is not just my opinion, it is also the opinion of the world's top air travel technicians. We have come a long way from the cow pastures of not so many years ago to the 415 licensed airports of today. We have certainly progressed from the time, just after the first world war, when our investment in airport facilities was almost zero, to our present investment in airports of well over half a billion dollars.
You may say, and rightly, that much of this growth was forced upon us by circumstance. I say it is to the lasting credit of the ministry of transport that through the years it has known what it was doing, has fostered and nurtured Canadian aviation, and


channelled its development along the lines of undeniable common sense, so that today we have a solid foundation upon which to build for the future, as build we must if we are to keep pace with our natural growth and with the new demands which technical aviation advances impose upon us. Jet planes are almost here, remember.
How did we make the transition from cow pasture to modern airstrip, you will ask. The answer is that the real history of civil aviation in Canada started just after the first world war, when we found ourselves with a large supply of competent pilots and engineers, a few aircraft and airports, a little know-how, and a lot of enthusiasm. In June of 1919 the Air Board Act was passed in this house. This act, now known as the Aeronautics Act, together with the air regulations, which were first passed in 1920, are the basis for the air law of Canada. On New Year's day, 1923, control of civil aviation was placed in the newly created Department of National Defence. Progress, though steady, was unspectacular. A few ex-war pilots flew the north country airways. A few small companies were organized for photographic and charter flights. Then in 1936 we formed the Department of Transport, and under Right Hon. C. D. Howe civil aviation was moved from the Department of National Defence to this new department, to be combined with the meteorological division and the radio- now the telecommunications-division to form the air services branch.
Between the two wars a start was made on the development of an air mail service to the prairies. Small emergency fields and aids to navigation at intermediate fields were established by the federal government. Larger centres such as Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton provided their own airports, primitive affairs by present standards. In 1937 the coming of Trans-Canada Air Lines made it imperative that these fields be improved, and the federal government undertook to grant assistance in those cases where the municipalities would and could carry out the required improvements. Where the community was too small to make any major contribution, or where for other reasons it was felt the community could not be expected to take the initiative, the federal government built the necessary airports and services so as to ensure a continuous chain of ground facilities.
The demands of the second world war caused still further improvements to be made. Municipal airports were taken over on lease and developed as combined civil and military bases. A great number of entirely new airports were built to meet defence needs. Where

possible, these were so placed as to be usable for civilian needs when the R.C.A.F. was finished with them.
By 1946 the picture of our airports had changed beyond all recognition. The cow pastures had become large, expensive and complex plants requiring closely co-ordinated effort by many specialized services. It became increasingly evident that airport activities must be considered in two lights: one, the operation and maintenance of runways, hangars and workshops, administration buildings, and so on; and, two, the activities revolving around the aids to navigation such as radio ranges and beacons, communications, instrument landing system or ground controlled approach, air traffic control-both airport and airway control-and meteorological services which can only operate by virtue of a vast and complex system of communications covering the entire country and dependent on an even vaster system covering the whole continent. No municipality could hope to bear the cost of such a tremendous, complex system.
On the subject of costs, it takes anywhere from five to ten million dollars to build a major airport providing the services I have just described. It costs as much more if you include all the buildings and services constructed by and for the R.C.A.F. at such airports.
From the very beginning it was agreed that these aids to navigation are a federal government responsibility, partly because they are part of a larger co-ordinated system and partly because the costs were away beyond the ability of individual municipalities to pay. Where the municipalities felt unable to take on the maintenance of their airports, it has been necessary for the federal government to bear the entire cost of construction, operation and maintenance.
To get the full magnitude of the picture, you must remember that in 1939 Canada had 65 land airports. Our airways extended over about three thousand miles. Something like $5 million would cover the estimate of total airport and airway facilities of 1939. Today Canada has 143 hard-surfaced airports. Air routes and airways cover more than 14,000 miles. Four hundred and fifteen airport licences are in force. The total capital value of this tremendous airport and airway plant is something like $550 million, or 110 times more than 13 years ago.
So far as the financing of our major airports is concerned, you must keep in mind that all of them have some defence value, either immediate or potential. The question is, how can these airports be made to pay.
68108-44J
The Address-Mr. Macnaughton Certainly, so far as is possible, each airport should be self-supporting.
Airport activity should be divided into two parts, for accounting purposes. Part one is directly concerned with the landing, taking off and manoeuvring of aircraft. Revenue from airport landing fees at major airports, by the way, is said to be sufficiently high to cover maintenance and operating costs that can be directly assessed to aircraft activities. Part two covers the non-flying facilities such as hangars and workshops, administration buildings, equipment, garages, offices, restaurants and so on. To these a percentage of the cost of operating utilities must be charged. The problem is to increase revenue to cover the cost of facilities which cannot be assessed directly to aircraft activities.
With the exception of Ottawa and Montreal, every community of sufficient size to be expected to make any contribution toward an airport has made it. And for the record it is interesting to note that Montreal is said to derive a revenue benefit of no less than $3 million a year just because ICAO keeps its offices there. But apart from these two cities, most communities have bought the land on which their airport is now located. In western Canada, in some cases, the communities themselves have made considerable strides in airport development. So far as Ottawa is concerned, it is argued that Canada's capital city's airport should be a charge on Canada as a whole. Perhaps so, since because of its location, near defence headquarters and numerous scientific and research bodies, Ottawa airport runways are now being extended and facilities installed to make it one of the largest in the world, much larger than is necessary simply to serve the needs of a city the size of Ottawa, and at a cost far beyond the means of any one community.
Montreal's present airport, at Dorval, was developed largely to facilitate movement of aircraft to the United Kingdom during the war. Dorval, among other things, is one of the reasons why today Montreal is the aviation capital of the world, why the international civil aviation organization has its headquarters there, as has the equally important international air transport association, the agency which co-ordinates the activities of all the world's airline operators.
The picture I have painted so far has been rosy, so rosy that, as I said earlier, a little self-criticism cannot hurt us or detract from the splendid achievement of the Department of Transport through the years. But, for one thing, our very prosperity in aviation, the giant progress we have made, has flowed over us before we were really prepared for
684	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macnaughton it. Although technically our airports are among the world's best, most up-to-date and safest, and although our engineers and technicians are well in the lead in keeping them abreast of latest developments, the impression the travelling public-you and I-get in going through our air terminals is inclined to be depressingly grey. It is not a bit unusual to find a large crowd of people jammed together, milling around in a waiting room far too small to accommodate them. If they go outside to get a breath of air-that is, if customs and immigration will let them outside-the prospect is anything but pleasing. In winter you face snowdrifts and icy blasts; in summer, a monotonous sun-baked landscape. Back inside, out of the cold or dusty heat, you can squeeze in for a just-adequate meal at some of the larger airports, or drop a coin in the coke-vending machine or automatic shoe-shiner at the small places. So far as the delayed passenger is concerned, he just sits and fumes. Sometimes he cannot even sit.
But let us leave for the moment the matter of the inadequacy of our airports in the way they try to cater to public needs. Although the deficiencies are annoying enough, they do nothing to detract from the progress made. Meantime let us consider seriously the importance of air travel and transport to this country. Just a month ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) pointed out that he expects total revenues from our commercial air carriers this year to exceed $80 million. That is five times as much as it was in 1946. In fact revenues have been increasing at a rate of between 17 and 20 per cent for the last few years, and show every indication of continuing to do so. Mr. J. R. Baldwin, chairman of the air transport board, has pointed out:
If rates of growth which have existed over the past three years in Canada and the United States continue-and this appears to be the case-then the faster rate of growth in Canada may mean that in virtually all fields of aviation, with the possible exception of cargo, Canada will not only be in an equal relative position but may pull ahead of the United States.
So far as future growth is concerned, it will be obvious that with our air lines and airports handling passengers at the annual rate of one for every fourteen Canadians-a million a year, that is-with half a billion dollars invested in airports, and hundreds of millions in planes and personnel and equipment in general, aviation is not just growing at the same tempo as the Canadian economy. It is, in Mr. Baldwin's words, "taking over new and additional fields of activity and has by no means reached the maximum degree of penetration of new markets."


In the air coach and air cargo markets there are tremendous new sources of traffic to be tapped. I hope you will not think it trite if I remind you that as our north country continues to pour forth its riches, so must our north-south feeder lines, and our east-west trunk lines, carry more and more air passengers and air cargo. In fact, without the planes you could not open up the country, and without the planes you certainly could not maintain contact once you had opened it up. So the future of a vast segment of the Canadian economy obviously depends on what can be carried through the air; where it can be set down, and in what quantities.
Consequently, traffic is increasing faster than facilities to handle it on the ground are being provided. The Toronto terminal at Malton is just managing to keep abreast of its traffic. The Vancouver terminal, also, can just barely keep up. The present Calgary terminal was converted to its present use at government expense. The federal government owns the building, which has tarpaper outside and a softwood floor inside. At the moment new terminals are being erected at Lakehead and Moncton which should be adequate for some years. At other points in the east and west, in smaller cities, the situation is not acute, even if the facilities are not completely modern and efficient and comfortable.
The main problem, of course, is how to make terminal facilities pay for themselves, especially since customs, immigration, health and the post office all take up a lot of space and do not pay for it. Also, a good deal of space must be allocated to public needs. The air services people themselves have to have space to accommodate the airport manager and his staff, air traffic control services, radio services and meteorological services. At Dorval, for example, the amount of space used by each of these government and air services adds up to 29-7 per cent. Another 25-7 iper cent is unrentable, and 31-9 per cent only can be rented. The remaining 11-7 per cent is basement, which is vacant and presumably unusable. Obviously the ratio of non-revenue space to revenue space is quite high, and it seems to the experts, so far as I can gather, that as long as this ratio remains the way it is no terminal building is likely to pay for itself. Air operations pay for themselves already, as I have pointed out. In order to make a terminal pay, then, it has got to be big enough and must include enough sound commercial enterprises of a nature sufficiently attractive to induce passengers and visitors alike to patronize them.

As a matter of fact it has been proved over and over again that airport terminals can be made to pay, aside from regular air traffic revenues. On this continent the most experienced voice is that of the port of New York authority, which over the years has had to solve the financing problems involved in the provision of what are known as "domestic" and "international" air services. As you are aware, New York airports must handle traffic not only American in origin but also between all parts of this continent and from Europe. If the port of New York authority were dealing with, say, the problem of Dorval in Montreal, which is in a measure comparable to New York airports so far as domestic and international traffic is concerned, you can be sure the first consideration would be to make a capital outlay sufficient to provide all the basic facilities essential to the operation of an efficient airport. This capital cost would then be supported by the general revenue of all the air lines using the airport, as well as by the development of concessions.
A comprehensive airport plan envisages construction of hangars, shops, offices, air freight terminals and other operating facilities. The construction budget for these amenities, according to the New Yorkers, would be supported by air line and other leases so that these amenities would immediately be placed on a self-supporting basis. So far, so good. But the New York port authority's fundamental concept does not stop there. It believes that airport development, to be successful, requires the judicial exploitation of all revenue and concession areas in each air terminal. This means the encouragement, by concession, of restaurants, shopping areas, facilities for recreation and amusement, spectators' promenade, and any other development which might contribute to the support of the project and to the obtaining of net revenues.
Many of the hon. members of this house have travelled, as I have done, extensively in the United States and Europe, so I am sure they will be disposed to agree that the port of New York authority's idea of how to make an air terminal pay is not too far-fetched for Canadians to grasp. In fact, those of you who have travelled in Europe will remember that the above-mentioned concessions were extended to include such items as a newsreel cinema, cafes, restaurants, cocktail bars, conference rooms for rushing businessmen, a nursery for harassed mothers, souvenir shops, dress shops, handicraft shops-all kinds of shops-exhibitions, tourist bureaux, observation decks, and even first-class hotels. I
The Address-Mr. Macnaughton might say that today there is room for a 200-bed hotel at the Dorval airport. The present hotel of 80 beds is totally inadequate to meet the situation.
In addition, really modem airports have such things as spur lines for the fast and efficient handling of rail freight; fully developed fringe areas owned or leased by the airport and containing busy warehouses and even factories; well landscaped surroundings, and whole communities which live by and with the coming and going of air passengers, air cargo and, almost as important, sightseeing throngs.
Yes, I said sightseers. I mean the kind of people who, a couple of generations ago, always met the afternoon train at the depot; the friendly Canadians whose instinct is to give silent welcome to the newcomer, and kind farewell to the voyageur. All they have done is transfer their affection from the railway station or the jetty to the world's modem equivalent. And then, of course, we have the youngsters. Most of them are stiff old-fashioned enough to be thrilled by the roar and throb of obsolescent airscrews, but lots of them have lost their hearts to the blowtorch swoosh and keening whine of the midcentury jet job and are already searching with their young minds the quiet chill spaces of the outer universe. Yes, these are the sightseers. That is one of the things I meant when, in my introduction, I suggested you look mostly at the people you will find around Canada's airports. If you think there are not enough of them to warrant attention from concessionaires consider that, during the summer months and well into the colder times, thousands of regular Sunday visitors throng Dorval, which is not easy to come by, being eleven miles from the heart of Montreal and situated in a pretty bleak setting. They come by bus, by car, by bicycle and on foot. If there were rapid transit they would come by that, too. Their object, as stated to me by my own constituents of Mount Royal, who live practically next door to Dorval, is to see the "biggest free show in town"; to see the more than one thousand passengers arrive daily, on 70 domestic flights and 14 or 15 transatlantic jumps. I can assure you, as will any of the oldtimers at Dorval, that just a little landscaping, just a little in the way of creature comfort and amusement, would bring many thousands more to this latter-day caravanserai, not only during the hours of sunshine but also during the spectacular airport night with its multi-coloured lighting effects and its thrilling rushing sounds.
Let us consider Dorval. It is an international airport in the true sense of the
686	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macnaughton word. It is the European's and the American's first ground contact with Canada and Canadian ways. But instead of the voyageur peering into the showcase of this nation- which Dorval should be-his first encounter is with jammed waiting rooms, milling with crowds; cramped quarters for health, immigration and customs, making efficient handling almost impossible whilst waiting for transfer from international to domestic flights. Although Dorval is so close to Canada's first city-a bilingual city at that-and although frequently flying schedules allow transient visitors three or four hours between flights, you have to be a real adventurer to take a chance on a run into Montreal in search of the normal amenities of civilization which are somehow denied you at Dorval. Montreal is known for good shops, good hotels, good food and drink and entertainment. Why then should a traveller have to come so near to remain so far away?
Why cannot Dorval be so reconstructed and conducted that it will do a public relations job for the nation in the short time it takes the worldly-wise traveller from Antwerp or Abadan or Los Angeles to change planes? And just as much as we want to give the non-Canadian what he wants, we must be prepared to cater to the people of our own country; and airports, we must remember, have become in these times social and cultural rendezvous of the first magnitude, the meeting place for those who travel in the modern style as well as for those who think modern thoughts. There are millions such today. Just look at our air travel figures alone. These millions could turn your air terminal into the "coin box" of your airport. Let us start with Dorval, to design our air terminals so they will present the best shop window for Canada, not only to visitors from abroad but to our own people too.
All this foregoing is not just eyewash. It is good commercial horse sense, that is all. Other countries have made it pay off. So can we, once we, as Canadians, get used to the fact that you do not have to subject yourself to the discomfort of a log cabin at this stage in Canada's development, even though log cabins were good enough for grandpa and are even good enough for a whole lot of people who are currently engaged in pushing our mining frontiers northward to the Arctic. We are an air-minded country now. Let us realize it. As my good friend Leslie Roberts says in his splendid new book "Canada: The Golden Hinge", "there are too few Canadians and we tend to live in clumps, too widely separated for our own good. The growth of population and the development of rapid


internal communications is correcting this basic problem, but we still have a long way to go." But I might remind you, it is not so far for your constituents and mine to go to the local airport, and if we make it attractive enough for them they will soon make it the social and cultural bazaar it could and should be.
So much for the business of encouraging the public to support your airport. There are other sources of revenue, to be sure. There are air freight, air express, air coach service, to name a few. Most of you know that Canadian charter carriers have always carried substantial quantities of air freight into outlying areas and that air express and some air cargo has been carried in space available on main-line scheduled passenger flights. However, two recent developments are not so widely known.
First, new and larger types of aircraft, such as the Bristol freighter and Curtiss C-46 are now being employed on charter freight operations in northern Canada which, because of their greater load capacity and lower unit costs, are opening new aviation fields in these areas. Such aircraft make it possible to transport far greater volumes of traffic and provide a new flexibility to operations leading to the development of our northern regions.
Even more significant to the development of air cargo is the fact that we stand on the threshold of the introduction on a substantial basis of all-cargo scheduled main-line operations. A substantial volume of traffic has already been developed on such services in the United States. Canada, hampered by a shortage of suitable aircraft equipment up to this time, will soon be moving in the same direction. Several specific proposals for the introduction of all-cargo operations are now before the air transport board. Some idea of the general trend of development which may be expected can be obtained from the experience in the United States, where the growth of air cargo has been rapid following the expansion of all-cargo operations.
The principal advantage offered to the shipper by air freight is, of course, speed. There are, however, numerous ancillary advantages. Among the savings to the shipper are frequently reduced inventory requirements; savings on packaging; increase of sales of style merchandise which must be available for temporary spurts in sales; increase of sales of current interest merchandise such as newsreels, periodicals, etc.; savings through speedy shipment of parts which avoid production delays.
The increases in cargo traffic which undoubtedly lie ahead in the fairly near

future will necessitate substantial improvement in the cargo-handling facilities not only of the air lines but also of the airports where both materials-handling equipment and warehousing facilities will require expansion.
Another substantial development which lies in the future for Canadian aviation and will also lead to a marked expansion of traffic is provision of higher-density seating for air coach service. By the introduction of higher-density seating and possibly elimination of free meal services it may be possible to provide a reduction in passenger fares and as a consequence marked increases in traffic. Trans-Canada Air Lines and other transatlantic carriers introduced tourist fares on the Atlantic in May of this year and some similar trend may be expected in domestic services in due course. As a matter of fact, based on United States experience, a 25 per cent reduction in fares has been shown to produce as much as a 40 per cent increase in passenger volume. It is worth thinking about, and Canada's air line companies are doing lots of thinking in that direction these days.
It is these air coach and air cargo prospects and the steady growth of their present regular passenger, express and mail operations which have justified the orders for new Lockheed super Constellation and Vickers Viscount turbine aircraft which have been placed by T.C.A.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was dealing with the place and function of airports in our national and economic life. I had given a short resume of how the Department of Transport, with a long-range plan in mind, had carefully and wisely developed a chain of efficient airports across the country. I was attempting to point out the next necessary stage of development, namely the need for better terminal facilities, in particular at Dorval airport in Montreal. And it was not just a question of local pride. It is bigger than that. My purpose was to show that a heaven-sent opportunity exists to do a public relations job for Canada with the travelling public; furthermore, that it would pay for itself; and that even if it did not the government still has a social job to do in that regard. I was attempting to indicate new sources of revenue and I had pointed out that air cargo and air coach services were already knocking on the door.
The Address-Mr. Macnaughton
You are all familiar with the important work being done by the helicopter on military operations in Korea. It is also doing valuable work in Canada, performing such functions as depositing freight on mountain sides in British Columbia for the aluminum project, doing geophysical surveying in northern Canada, carrying mail in Newfoundland to outpost stations. However, the helicopter cannot come fully into its own until an economic passenger-carrying helicopter is available. The day when such a helicopter will become available in large numbers is not too far away, and there is every prospect that in less than ten years there will be regular helicopter services between some of our major cities. Such new services will present a host of new technical and economic problems ranging all the way from consideration of appropriate flight techniques over crowded cities to the building of helicopter alighting areas on the tops of railroad stations. There is no likelihood that the helicopter will replace the long-distance aircraft. It will be for transportation purposes, the short-haul adjunct to it, whose combination of slower speed and ability to land closer to the city centre will create new short-haul traffic.
The advent of the jet age will undoubtedly mean a revolution in landing strip design, for a variety of technical reasons; but the best authorities are of the opinion that it is no problem to plan and build advanced airport buildings right now. Just because a super-jet take-off strip may look like a toboggan slide does not affect the service in an airport restaurant or an airport hotel. And we had better start planning now, or the jet age will be upon us before we know it. I notice that the air line run by the C.P.R., that same company which, 64 years ago, saw the last spike-a gold one at that-driven into a railroad tie high in a Rocky mountain pass, the company which helped so much to give Canada confederation, are now saying to the world:
Across the Pacific, Comet jetliners, vibrationless, silent, smooth . . .
It shakes you a little. It makes you remember how, when you were younger, people used to say: "Canada has got responsible government, the world's finest bridgebuilding company, the world's greatest travel system and world's greatest future."
Yes, as an anonymous editor wrote on the dust-cover of Leslie Roberts' vital, significant "The Golden Hinge":
In the opening years of the second half of the twentieth century, Canada possesses a treasure trove of wealth which cannot be matched in the
688	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. D. F. Brown western world. That wealth lies in the seas off Nova Scotia; in the forests of the north; in the giant timber of the Pacific coast and its offshore islands. You'll find it in the mines of seven provinces; in the great Alberta oil pools; in the soil of the great plains. You'll find it in the orchards of Niagara and in the valleys of the Rockies; in the waters off the western coast; in the humming factories of the heartland, from Windsor eastward to Quebec. You'll find it, too, in the Canadian people and the qualities they possess.
Yes, the Canadian people; it is they whom you should watch when you pass through your next airport. Watch them, milling, patient, curious, interested in this modem wonder, trying to be a part of it. And as you watch them, agree with me that they deserve better than they have been given by us and agree, too, that if we give them better airports we will once again prove the truth of the adage that "it pays to be modern"; pays not only in extra revenues but in an extra line of defence against those who would destroy our freedom.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, may I add my congratulations to those of others who have spoken in this debate, to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have certainly served this house with distinction, and have brought credit upon their constituencies, and I might say also to the whole of Canada, in the attitude they have assumed in the conduct of the affairs of parliament.
I want to say a word about the licensing of radio-television sets. On another occasion I have spoken in this house with respect to radio licences, and I will not repeat what I had to say on that occasion. Suffice it to say that I am opposed to a radio licence because of the fact that such a licence is not collectable; and if it is not collectable and is paid by only a part of the population who are in possession of radio sets, I am opposed to it.
A report has appeared in the newspapers- and I do not vouch for its authenticity-that there is to be a radio-television licence fee of $15 imposed upon each radio television receiving set. In the constituency which I represent, Essex West, we have the United States on three sides of us. By reason of the geography of that part of the country we are south of the United States. Within a radius of a hundred miles there is a population of about three million people, which means that there are about three million people who would be in a position, as radio television set owners, to obtain broadcasts in the Windsor area. At the present time we have three channels of television, each emanating of course from Detroit. We have excellent reception; we have no complaints


whatsoever, television reception there is probably much better than in most places in the city of Detroit itself.
Anything that I have to say, Mr. Speaker, is not in condemnation of the C.B.C. or to be considered as such, because we are well served with radio broadcasting in that area. CKLW, which is a 50,000-watt broadcasting station, serves and has served that area very well for many years. We were opposed to the licensing of radio receiving sets until such time as the C.B.C. established what is now known as radio station CBE, and my praise for that station cannot be expressed in words. It is making friends not only for C.B.C. but for all Canada. Among the three million people who are potential listeners I know there are many thousands, and the record would so verify what I am saying, who listen to nothing but that particular radio station.
According to C.B.C. policy, as announced, I understand that in addition to the radiotelevision stations situated at Toronto and at Montreal, there are going to be other stations at Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver. This does not include a radio-television broadcasting station in the Windsor area, where we have three million potential listeners and viewers. For that reason we feel there should be no taxation without a corresponding benefit to the area.
I am not alone in that thought. I am supported by several resolutions I have received. I am not going to read those resolutions in full, but shall make reference only to that from the city of Windsor received on October 17, 1951, which indicates that it opposes any system of television licence fees that may affect local set owners until such time as those owners will get the direct benefit of Canadian-owned stations. This resolution is supported by resolutions from the town of Riverside, the town of Kingsville, the town of Sandwich East, the town of Harrow, the township of Mersea, the township of Gosfield North, the township of Sandwich West, and others.
So my first point is that I do not think there should be taxation unless we are to have the benefit of C.B.C. radio-television broadcasting.
Then the report states that the licence fee will be $15. Even in these modern days I believe such a fee is somewhat oppressive. It is too high. I would recommend that, if at some later time a fee is to be set, it should be nominal.
Finally I believe there should be no tax until some means is found whereby there will be full coverage; that is to say, a time

The Address-Mr. Rowe
when everyone in possession of a radio-television receiving set would be paying a licence fee. Until that time I do not think there should be any fee whatsoever.
In my view the government should be commended for adopting a careful attitude and for making a cautious approach to the subject, because I think much can be learned from mistakes made in other countries which will make it possible for us to develop this vital means of communication so that it may be used for the full benefit and advantage of the people of Canada.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, it is of interest to all to note such concern paid to the speech from the throne. The debate has proceeded for several days, and much has been said by hon. members on both sides of the house.
I should like to join those who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) on the splendid speeches they made in moving and seconding the address in reply. They are new members. I wish for them many years of happiness and satisfaction in the service of their respective districts. It was to be expected that, as new members, they would in faithful admiration compliment the government upon what it has done, and say little about what it has not done.
I believe this debate has brought to the attention of the house and the taxpayers the signs of the times. It has given an indication of what the government has been doing, whether it is smugly satisfied with what it has done or whether it has any ideas for the future. As hon. members will agree, the speech from the throne is in the nature of a pattern or a plan for the year's business. It is not given in as much detail as one might wish, or as we may expect to see later in the budget and in legislation to be brought down.
Some say that we will see a strange type of budget. This, of course, will depend upon what those who sit to the right of Mr. Speaker intend to do in the next twelve months. We must decide for ourselves, when we have heard what might be called boasting about our greatness, our great natural resources and the prosperity we have enjoyed, whether these conditions are basically sound, or whether they are the result of a post-war development, or the result of preparations for another war.
In any event there is no one in the house, and few in the country, who would view without a keen sense of pride the fact that Canada, a country offering the greatest opportunities of any country in the world, has made great progress. While the United States
of America may have increased its trade sevenfold in the last few years, Canada has increased hers fourfold. No similar number of people in the world enjoy the advantages of greater resources than we do.
However, I sometimes wonder if it is not important, either in one's private business transactions or in the transaction of public business, to stop, look and listen, even when things are going well. There never has been a time in the last several years when it was more necessary to stop and consider the basis of the prosperity we are now enjoying. In other words, I say this would be the proper time for stocktaking in this country. There is a feeling of uncertainty among business people. There is excitement among labour; there is unrest in agriculture; there is concern among military people. All across Canada people are asking themselves:	What
about tomorrow? I often wonder if we are not prone to become hypnotized with the type of prosperity brought about either by the war through which we have passed or in preparation against another war. I think of the millions and millions spent on the war that is past, and the millions being spent to prevent another one, and sometimes I wonder if we should not ask ourselves what will happen in the days ahead.
We have heard many rumours about state planning, but there seems to be very little preparation made for days of peace. I have always felt that we should put first things first. While I have been in the House of Commons a considerable number of years, I do not think I could be called a reactionary, because I have suffered reverses in politics for being too much the other way.
No one has greater sympathy than I have for the man who needs assistance. I could not have remained as long as I have in public life had I not recognized that need. But, in all sincerity, I say we should stop and be prepared to put first things first; because no matter how anxious we may be for social security, our first need is national security, and that national security depends upon financing, development and expansion. National security depends upon economic soundness in this country. I say again that it does not matter whether the Liberal party sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, is in power, or whether the reins of office are held by the party to your left; the fact remains that national security is of first importance.
I do urge that we work for a common purpose in this house. No matter how bitterly hon. members from the other side castigate the leader of our party, no matter how bitterly they castigate some of the things of years ago, we have many things in common. I say
690	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rowe it is with common pride that we think of the great resources of Canada. It is with common interest that we speak about the great advances we have made. It is with a common thought that we talk about our magnificent future and our great resources. But I often think it is not always with common tactics that we try to approach these things.
After all, a popular political appeal is not always sound statesmanship, any more than popular learning is sound logic. There are all too many who seem afraid to face the future. There are all too few who seem brave enough to say what they think should be done. I sometimes become alarmed when I think that we are building up prosperity on war preparations. I see dangerous trends, and I know every hon. member of this house also sees them. Signals are being disregarded, storm warnings are ridiculed.
We must realize that this country is being overtaxed. I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said it was only pretended overtaxation, pretended by the opposition. But I believe in the same speech he said that in one or two instances they might save only $3 million anyway, and he said that if it was all added together they would not save any more than $100 million. This indicates the trend of the times. It shows that a government in power is disregarding some of these fundamentals.
I ask hon. fhembers to realize that today we are paying in taxation $320 per person or $1,600 for every average fajmily of five. Realize what that means to the average home. We are paying in taxation today to this government twice as much as we pay to feed the whole population of Canada, and an amount almost equal to what we pay for food,* clothing and housing.
I know that progress knows no retreat. I know that we have made no more advance along certain lines than they have made in the United States of America. I know that following the first great war there was tremendous advance until 1929 and 1930. It was to be expected that following this last world war there would be a great improvement in our prosperity. We are blessed with rich resources in the form of gold, silver, nickel, copper, asbestos, every form of base metal you cam think of, plus iron ore and oil. In addition we have our great agricultural wealth, our forest wealth that exports more than all our base metals and wheat combined. These things are great blessings.. We could not help being prosperous in times like this, no matter what party was in power. When I hear hon. members tell of some panacea they have which has made this country


prosperous in the last few years I am absolutely amused at their nonsense. Even with the folly of our friends down in the far corner we would have had great prosperity in the last few years anyway. You could not have avoided it. The world was at our feet; great resources were at our hands. The Lord never gave so few people so much. You could not help but have prosperity.
What has the government done to bring about this prosperity? They have increased taxes and practised extravagance such as we have never known. I am not going to relate them now, but surely in the face of what we have heard in the last few months no one can say that the government are the great apostles of economy. You do not buy half a dozen raincoats for each girl in the service if you are trying to economize. You do not even buy them for your own girls.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


William Earl Rowe: You do not buy a million and a half pairs of shoes for 100,000 men in active service if you are trying to economize. You do not pay wages to horses up in Petawawa if you are trying to economize, such as we see reported in the evening paper. In fact, I have a lot of horses and I think they would earn more for me up there than any place else.


An hon. Member:: Your horses never pay off.


An hon. Member:: Not when I bet them.


William Earl Rowe: I am not endeavouring to ridicule this government, not for a moment. If I were I would speak much more vigorously. In all seriousness I urge all sides of this house to figure what is happening and to pay some attention to the warnings being given. They are the signs of the times. If the government in all its smug complacency has not seen these signs, I ask them to talk to the apple growers of the east, to the grain and fruit producers of the west, to the lumbermen on the coast, to the cheese makers of Ontario, to the cheese producers of Quebec, to the poultry producers of Ontario, to the dairy farmer in Ontario, to the beef cattle people in Ontario.


An hon. Member:: Nothing wrong with the beef farmer.


William Earl Rowe: That shows that you do not know anything about the beef industry. For the benefit of my hon. friend who was not here at the time I should like to quote what happened on October 21, 1949. I know he will be glad to hear it. I quote from page 1023 of Hansard of that date, where I am reported as follows:
In. order to assist the government to try and open up greater opportunities in this country, to

try to broaden the basis of taxation and to try to have our great resources flourish and expand so that the people can get the most out of them and this country reach her destiny, in order to assist the government in that and in safeguarding our economic security and progress generally, I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris):
That was seconded by the late Mr. Joseph Harris, who I regret is not here today. My amendment was as follows:
That all the words of the resolution after the first word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets that the government has failed to take effective measures to prevent the present decline in our trade with the sterling area and is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of inviting the nations of the commonwealth to a conference in the immediate future for the purpose of working out arrangements to preserve and enlarge those traditional markets on which jobs and opportunities for Canadians very largely depend."
That was in 1949. At every session since some hon. member of this party, and on two occasions our leader, has urged the government to initiate a British commonwealth conference. It is now history that it was with reluctance that Canada joined the conference which was initiated by the old land and Australia and New Zealand. At one time we of the opposition were not sure, because we were not told whether the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) would attend. When the Minister of Finance comes back optimistically impressed we are very glad because, as an hon. member said the other day-I believe it was the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton)-this conference is now three years late. What has happened in the interval? Why, Mr. Speaker, we have lost our markets in that land for almost every commodity I have mentioned. We have lost that market for apples and we are selling that market less cheese than we have ever sold in half a century.


An hon. Member:: No cheese at all.


William Earl Rowe: No bacon, no cheese, no beef. We are just written out of that market for about the first time since before 1900. Remember, Mr. Speaker, we sold Britain 110 million pounds of cheese in 1900.


John Lambert Gibson: Why did we not throw you in as a bonus?


William Earl Rowe: Well, they might have been glad to have me, but I do not think that they would have paid much for you.
I am not going to be interrupted on something as important as this is by any remarks that are more noisy than relevant. I do say, Mr. Speaker, that it is time we took stock. I am not going to try to say that, if times
The Address-Mr. Rowe should continue as they are, this government could not sit smugly by and do as they are doing. The western farmers have suffered to the extent of $750 million through the folly of your socialistic experiments in marketing wheat. You have oleomargarined the dairy industry until you threaten to shatter the very cornerstone of agriculture. You have been stocking pork so fast in the last few months that I do not know whether you have packed 65 million or 90 million pounds of bacon. I know you have lost $5 million of the money of the general taxpayers of this country already.
In spite of all this, Mr. Speaker, what has the government done? What is the state of planning for agriculture? What has this price support plan of the government, this socialistic approach to the great agricultural industry, meant to this country? Somebody says it has not hurt beef at all. Well, I am still in the beef cattle business and I know very well the price dropped $2 to $3 per hundred over the week end, and that certain classes of cattle dropped 50 per cent in the past year. The very best steers have dropped 35 to 40 per cent. Can any of you men in industry or interested in industry tell me what you would have done if the price of your product had dropped 35 to 50 per cent in the last twelve months, if you had to meet union labour negotiations? What would you do? The farmer in the beef business has seen his returns drop by from 35 to 50 per cent.
You may say he does not have to meet union labour demands. No; he says to his wife: I am sorry, darling; you will just have to take the hired man's place. We will have to take Sally out of school and Johnny out of university, and we will probably have to work more hours per day. Despite these facts, you may say; what can you do about it?
Well, Mr. Speaker, in the face of the fact that we are selling no beef, we brought into this country 13,752,000 pounds in the first eight months of 1952. When we are packing bacon at the taxpayers' expense why did we bring in 7,435,000 pounds in the last eight months? When we are selling only 1,214,000 pounds of cheese, the least we have sold in almost 70 years, why did we import 9,716,000 pounds while the cheese factories from coast to coast are closed up?
So, Mr. Speaker, if I have been cruel in saying this government has done nothing to plan for the peace, I pray to God that they have done more to prepare against a war which God forbid should come. Perhaps they have been too busy. Perhaps the leader of our party was right the other day when he said you could have done this or that; perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was right when he said that if his ministers
692	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rowe and deputy ministers had had time to look things over they might have saved some money. If the cabinet ministers and their assistants had taken the warnings seriously they might have said: Maybe we are not right all the time. Perhaps we had better look at what the opposition says. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) was right when he said we were going to lose our markets overseas. They came to scorn but remain to adore-


An hon. Member:: Who adores George
Drew?


William Earl Rowe: I will tell you that after the next election there will be more who adore him than will adore your leader. Mr. Speaker, I do not mind telling you that you cannot carry on that personality business of who adores whom. The taxpayers of this country -the farmers, the cheese producers, the apple producers-will say: Here, independent of what these fellows say about personalities when they have nothing else to talk about, what is the policy? They will say: Who is the man who first said we should have had a British commonwealth conference? Who is the man who said that we should lower taxes?
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the farmer of Canada is rapidly becoming the victim or the guinea pig of these novel socialistic experiments. It is all very well, Mr. Speaker; unless you watch the markets in advance one fails to see just how fast they are lost.


Mr. Decore:: What do you want? Protection for Ontario?


William Earl Rowe: No, I want to protect you, because nobody needs protection more than you do. We have heard from both sides of this house for many years that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada. Despite the uncertain future for the farmers-and there are less people engaged in agriculture now than at any time in the last quarter of a century-despite the fact that the warehouses are filled with bonus bacon, the government now fixes a price that threatens temporary bankruptcy for the whole hog industry in Canada.
The other day I asked an old farmer who is in the hog business very extensively what he was going to do. He said: "I am going to sell my brood sows and vote Conservative."
I said I could not blame him, because there is no profit left. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) laughs but he was a hog producer at one time, and I must give him credit for knowing something about feeding hogs.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not selling mine.


William Earl Rowe: No, but I expect yours are sold in advance.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they are not.


William Earl Rowe: I know and he knows that the price he has fixed for hogs leaves the farmer, if he keeps books, perhaps $1.20 but-


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not fixed a price for hogs. We have fixed a floor.


William Earl Rowe: Nobody has meddled more with the farmer's business since confederation than the present government.


An hon. Member:: Thank God for that.


William Earl Rowe: We now have a situation that is beginning to reflect its effects all down the line. Why were 2,500 men recently let out of the farm implement industry? Why are there so many unemployed in your textile industry in Quebec and in other places, too? Mr. Speaker, it is just as sure as it has always been, that if you threaten the stability of the great agricultural industry of Canada you endanger other industries that are very important. You cannot continue to haphazardly tax people as you are doing and pay as little attention as you have to longterm marketing.
I do not believe anyone worthy of calling himself a Canadian is going to worry about the taxes he is paying to prepare for defence. God forbid that we should have a war, and I would co-operate with the government in every way I could to see that we were prepared to avoid a war. I think that is sound. I think it cuts right across race, creed and politics in this dominion. We cannot afford to go into that destructive enterprise again if it can possibly be avoided. If it can be avoided, I do not believe there is any reason why we should expect a period of depression, merely because the danger of war is over. That is no reason.
Following the last great war, Mr. Speaker, we had a similar period of good times from 1918 on. There was a slight depression in 1921 and 1922, just as there was a little bit of a fall in 1946-47, but it bounced right back. We have had a great post-war shortage of civilian goods, and then the requirements for preparation to avoid a war. This year we are spending $4,800 million. While we are doing that, we should not forget some of these fundamentals.
The leader of our party has shown you the signals on scores of occasions. He has issued the warnings as solemnly as any man could issue them to you. He has told you of the hopes and chances of converting exchange. This was laughed at by hon. mem-

bers across the line. Since that time I And that at the recent conference in England the leaders of the commonwealth are saying now that convertibility of exchange is fundamental. I see now that in the United States the new president has made the statement that convertibility of exchange looks as though it is the answer. When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) comes back filled with optimism,
I hope he remembers that the commonwealth conference was suggested ,by the Leader of the Opposition. I hope he remembers that convertibility of exchange was suggested here by our leader and ridiculed by those who sit opposite.


James Sinclair: How?


William Earl Rowe: Because you laughed it off. The only time you will take it seriously is when we see someone else saying the same thing overseas. Nothing has been done by you to bring about convertibility of exchange or encourage a conference. All you have now is the generalities of a conference. I notice that at the conference it has been stated that we must restore confidence in the competitive system. This is most encouraging, Mr. Speaker, to see economists and politicians in the world veering again a little to the right. It is most encouraging now that these signals are on the horizon to illustrate that, after all, the people realize that we have a system that has maintained this prosperity and has seen us through two wars. Do not let us get away from the fact that even now the burden of defence preparation must be carried by the industrial and business life of this country to a great extent.
If we are going to have immigration, as we should have; if we are going to have the 75 million people that we will have if we maintain our present rate of increase for 25 years, then we must have something for them to do. You cannot find work for men to do if you cannot find money to risk in industry. There is no panacea yet. We have seen countries follow socialism and socialistic trends. We have seen them take all the tax money until there was only one cent out of the dollar left. We have seen those countries collapse. Canada now takes from corporations in taxes two dollars for every dollar that is left for the shareholders. Only eight cents is left now out of every dollar of income for new investment in Canada. We wish to have people come to Canada, and this country should have 75 million people. The late Sir John A. Macdonald, who was quoted this afternoon, and the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier-I understand from people who knew them personally- both privately believed that we would have 75 million people in Canada before 1960.
The Address-Mr. Rowe
We have not done very well. The Lord has been good to us. We have been given bountiful resources. If we had not had them we could not have withstood the type of government we have had in the last 25 years. A lot more could be done, but it cannot be done unless we sit around a table in a businesslike way. I am not saying, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to have a depression. I am only saying that this government has done nothing by way of economy, nothing by way of long-range policy for marketing our production; nothing by way of encouraging free enterprise in order to help stabilize a sound, normal prosperity in times of peace. The Liberals have talked about being the free enterprise party. As I said before, they have almost socialized the greatest industry in Canada, the wheat industry. They have state control of the gold industry. The government has asked the weekly wage earner to help pay the farmers for the losses they have incurred as a result of the government bacon policy which lost the British markets.
I have been in the house for some time, Mr. Speaker. It sounds to me very much like the same old story that I recall back in 1927 and 1928. You will find in Hansard for 1928 where I urged upon the government that they were losing the British market. In 1921 we were selling Britain 255 million pounds of bacon; but in 1930, when the party that sits to your right, Mr. Speaker, went out of power, we were selling Britain none.


Mr. Robertson:: What did you do about that?


William Earl Rowe: We were selling many millions of dollars worth.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Hogs were $3 a hundredweight.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend was not here in those years, and I am not sure he would have understood if he had been. We lost our British markets for cheese and bacon.


Frederick Greystock Robertson: And you lost it for wheat.


William Earl Rowe: You lost the wheat market before our party came into power. That is the oldest-fashioned political dogma that has been preached in this country for a quarter of a century, ft has been worn very thin. There is no one who knows what happened who does not know that every elevator in Canada was filled to capacity with unsold wheat and our markets in Britain were lost before the Bennett government came into power. Ask the bacon producer today; ask the dairy man today if there was anything during that five-year period that did as much to bring back our markets as the imperial conference of 1932. Those conferences, Mr. Speaker, were not encouraged by Australia
694	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rowe or New Zealand; they were encouraged by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. The opposition on the other side-


James Garfield Gardiner: That is why they are not selling any apples in Britain now.


William Earl Rowe: Your predecessor, Hon. Mr. Motherwell, was the only one of your party who supported it. Mr. Speaker, he restored the markets that were lost. George Drew, if elected-as I believe he will be-will restore the markets you have lost.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: He laughs best who laughs last. I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that this country knows that for three-quarters of a century the best market for agriculture, both east and west, has been in the old land. We know that we have often been cut off from the United States market. They are great friends and great markets when the market is high. You know what happened. The Minister of Agriculture knows-if some of the younger members have forgotten or never knew-that we were cut off overnight in 1921 and 1922 by the Fordney-McCumber tariff. Nobody knows that better than the Minister of Agriculture. We were cut off overnight in 1929 by the Hawley-Smoot tariff; and you are cut off now, and you may often be cut off, from a country which produces the same type of products we produce, whenever they have a surplus on their own markets.
But we should never have lost the British market. It is all very well to say they have not money enough. We must have policies that will find ways to convert this currency. Our leader, George Drew, has been mentioning them for two or three years.


An hon. Member:: What are they?


William Earl Rowe: He has told you but you would not listen.
Mr. Speaker, I believe my time is up.


Gordon Graydon: You've got them going; keep on. Even fisherman Sinclair is going.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about my time.


An hon. Member:: You have plenty more.


Gordon Graydon: Tell them a few more things.


Mr. Speaker:: I may inform the hon. member that I believe he has four minutes left.


William Earl Rowe: Within those four minutes, Mr. Speaker, I hope I can still amuse those who can only be amused, and can interest those who are concerned. I am convinced that these issues are important. There is no man worthy of a place in this house who cannot see the signs and signals after they have


been pointed out so often. I can only say if my experience in this house or any place else is of any use, if this country is going to be sound in itself and to restore those fundamental strengths that are necessary, we first must economize and cut out this ruthless extravagance. In the second place we must reduce taxation wherever it can be reduced, if we are going to have investment capital and what is necessary to create employment in this great country.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the government must hand this country back to the people rather than try to get control of everything. May I urge upon the government that their recent steps in government control or state management in television be reconsidered. Why, Mr. Speaker, it is neither public ownership nor private ownership. It is a mongrel concoction that is not worthy of either.


Mr. Harkness:: It is a mess.


William Earl Rowe: It is public ownership where you can make money and private ownership where you cannot make money. It is public ownership where the people do not need television and private ownership for the poor person on the back concessions who cannot get it. Mr. Speaker, I was never much of an apostle for public ownership, even in the party to which I belong-and they have done something in the way of public ownership in Ontario and other places-but I would be ashamed of a policy that was neither one nor the other. I would be ashamed of a policy that mocked one, imitated the other and was worse than either.
In the interests of free enterprise and in the interests of individual initiative and all that is concerned in the traditional principles of our development, I would urge the government to have another cabinet meeting. If they have not time to count the millions they have lost or spent, then I would urge them to have another cabinet meeting, revamp their television policy and make it look like Canada; make it look like the free-enterprise policy which Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier initiated and which has been scuffed around since then until it cannot be recognized even by them.
I would urge the Minister of Agriculture-[DOT] and he is not all to blame; in fact I think he is about the best, if that is any compliment to him-and the balance of the members of this government to take their hands off the farmers' business. Let me urge them to take their hands off this international trading and give the country back to the people. Take your hands off private enterprise. Give the people an opportunity. If you give the people of this country opportunity, you will find that you will not need to give so much relief.

You will find that if you pursue policies which give assurance of employment, you will not have to give so much insurance against unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the hon.
member that his time has now expired.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate and I would not have done so had it not been for certain incidents which happened earlier in the day and which I feel call for an immediate reply.
During the morning sitting we had tabled in the house the report of an investigation which had been carried out with regard to certain losses and thefts which occurred at Petawawa military camp. It will be recalled that earlier in the year the government had decided to appoint a commission headed by a well-known accountant from Montreal who was also thoroughly conversant with the administration and organization of the Department of National Defence because at one time, I understand, he had been a deputy minister of that department.
This report was submitted after a long and thorough investigation. It was early in the year that Mr. Currie was asked to carry out his investigation; and in his report he tabled the telegram which was sent confirming a previous telephone communication in which he was asked to investigate not only Petawawa but other military establishments where already there had been indications of loss and theft. That was many months ago, and it was only after continual insistence by the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition that this report was finally tabled.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on December 1, the leader of this party rose and asked if a report had been received or if Mr. Currie had submitted any report, and that an answer was given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). I am sorry that it is impossible for the minister to be here today. He is out of the country on important government business. The minister gave an answer which is to be found at page 203 of Hansard and which is as follows:
I have not been in touch with Mr. Currie myself for some time but I am informed by the deputy minister that he has been in touch with members of Mr. Currie's staff, and that it is expected that the report will be available within the next week or two.
Then the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said this:


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


Mr. Claxton:: No.
The Address-Mr. Pearkes
Again on December 4 the Leader of the Opposition renewed his request, asking for information as to when this report would be tabled, and he used these words, as recorded at page 321 of Hansard:
I ask whether, since Mr. Currie's appointment was announced on April 21, 1952, he has received any positive recommendations from Mr. Currie in regard to the subject matter of his inquiry, in writing or orally, and if so is the minister prepared to convey to the house some information as to the nature of the recommendations which have been made?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Currie's appointment I have seen him about this matter on one occasion only. That was when he was in national defence headquarters carrying on his inquiry. I asked him to see me and he did. I then asked him if he was getting all the information that he wanted and he said he was. I told him that if at any time he wanted further powers or more information such would be made available to him.
I have had no other communication of whatever kind with him.
These were the words used by the Minister of National Defence. Subsequent questions were asked on December 8 of the associate minister, and later of the parliamentary assistant. You will notice that a flat denial was given by the Minister of National Defence that there had been any interim report; that he had had no further communication other than that brief conversation, which is reported, with Mr. Currie. One cannot help expressing amazement, when one reads the first page of the report which was tabled today. At the bottom of that page appears these words:
It should be noted that Interim suggestions made by me during my investigation have been already seized on, and important reforms are already being carried out.


Mr. Dickey:: Hear, hear.


George Randolph Pearkes: We are glad these reforms are being carried out, but how does that fit in with the statement of the minister who says that he has had no reports, who says that neither written nor orallv had there been any recommendations made by Mr. Currie?


John Horace Dickey: He did not say that.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have just read that. You must have been asleep. You look up the page.


John Horace Dickey: Read it again.


George Randolph Pearkes: If the hon. member will look up the page he will see that I quoted exactly the words which were given by the Minister of National Defence. We are getting rather tired of these noes. Earlier this session I had occasion to call attention to another question, when I raised the point regarding certain censorship which was being carried out at an airport on the west coast. I was told no, there was no censorship, nothing of the kind,
696	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearkes nothing whatever, no form of censorship; yet the next day it appeared there was a censorship of a type. True it was not initiated from the minister's office, but one of the officers of his department did impose a censorship. It is too easy; they are too quick to say no. We are being told no all the time without any attempt to find out what is the correct information.
I said on that previous occasion that the minister obviously did not have the full information. I do not think the minister did have the full information at that time. This report is signed on the 26th day of November. The references I have mentioned start on the 1st day of December; and we are told no, there have been no recommendations. Yet in this report, which is signed on the 26th day of November, Mr. Currie calls attention to the fact that his interim suggestions have been seized upon, and that improvements have been already introduced.
All this is following just the same pattern which occurred when the Mainguy report was brought in. The Mainguy report was delayed for a long time; then the Minister of National Defence rose in his place and said he was pleased to be able to inform the house that the majority of the recommendations contained in the Mainguy report had already been implemented. I suppose somebody on the other side will rise in his place and say that the majority of the recommendations of the Currie report-and there are a great many recommendations in this volume-have already been implemented.
No doubt the lapse of time since the 26th day of November, and the lapse of time between these interim reports or the interim suggestions which obviously were submitted, and when this report was tabled gave plenty of opportunity to implement many of the recommendations which were made at that time.
The report goes on-and I am delighted as an old soldier to see that-in glowing terms to give credit to the rank and file of the army. Soldiers are not criminals. Soldiers do not thieve and pilfer naturally. Here and there there may be a case, as apparently there were a few limited cases at Petawawa. The door has been thrown wide open by this government by reducing the standard of education of the personnel who are enlisting so that it is below the standard which existed during world war II, a standard in which the educational requirements of officers are only those of junior matriculation. That is no standard to be required for an officer to hold the Queen's commission. It is a very definite lowering; and when you get that standard of education lowered, when you throw the doors wide open it is inevitable that


here and there you will find somebody not worthy of wearing the Queen's uniform will be enlisted. The general run of the men in the army today are just exactly the same as they have always been, good, honest, straightforward fellows; and you will find that in this report Mr. Currie emphasizes that. While he finds it necessary to call attention to lax controls, poor discipline and dishonest persons, he goes on to say that the opportunities existed in other places than at Petawawa, but they were not taken advantage of. These are his words, and I want to repeat them. I want to place them on Hansard because I think it pays a glowing tribute to the rank and file in the army.
It is mentioned in this context chiefly for the purpose of praising the personnel at other depots for not walking through the door which a fundamentally loose situation had opened before them.
There were the opportunities, owing to this fundamentally loose situation, owing to the lax system; owing to the faulty organization the door was wide open, but the soldiers in the majority of cases did not take advantage of that loose situation.
Then one is surprised to find that it was not at the request of the Department of National Defence that these investigations were carried out or, I should say, that these facts were first brought to the attention of the government. Although there was supposed to be an organization of supervision, of inspection and of general security in these camps, the first information, or the information which prompted action-and I correct that word because I will come to the matter in a moment-the information which prompted action was in an anonymous letter sent to the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Then it is very interesting to note on the next page that, after Mr. Currie has quoted that letter, he goes on to say that internal warnings have not been lacking in the Department of National Defence. The chief auditor of the department had performed his functions conscientiously. Time and again he had reported unsatisfactory conditions. Surely the administration of the defence forces, surely the deputy minister, surely the minister himself must have seen the reports of the chief auditor, who reported that conditions were unsatisfactory.
Then he goes on to refer to appendix B, a truly frightening document which gives a list of the numerous headings, setting out points which the chief auditor of the department has had to call to the department's attention, and pointing out instances not only at Petawawa but all across the board, in all

the different camps where irregularities had occurred. Then Mr. Currie goes on with these words:
Aside from reports being delayed for considerable periods of time the record shows the next audit revealing conditions similar to those previously reported, and in some cases worse. The process is then again repeated.
There has been no proper supervision- not supervision from the junior officers, because the junior officers do not see the chief auditor's report, but supervision from the government, supervision from the Department of National Defence, supervision from its headquarters right here in Ottawa.


An hon. Member:: What about the general staff; what do they do?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not the least bit concerned as to what branch of headquarters is responsible for checking the chief auditor's report. I should think the heads of all branches would be very much concerned with that. And the heads of those branches would undoubtedly have reported to the deputy and to the minister.
Then it goes on to describe some of the losses and thefts which occurred. I am not going to read all these various items which were removed from Petawawa camp. It is an amazing list. One is amazed, simply amazed, that it was not possible to have checked up on the removal of some of these articles. Metal, for instance. It consists of serviceable materials such as kitchen ranges, cannon heaters, shower stalls, sinks and the like. Some of that material was recovered; most of it was recovered. Then the report gives one striking example-and one cannot help noticing this-of a large quantity of rails belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway being removed. And, Mr. Speaker, this is not rumour; this is the report of Mr. Currie. A large quantity of rails of the Canadian Pacific Railway was removed. When this loss was noted by the C.P.R., and questions raised, a spur line of the Canadian National Railways running into the ordnance depot was taken up and the rails used to replace the missing C.P.R. tracks. Well, if it was not so serious, one could not help laughing at the thought of individuals going out and stealing the rails of one company and then, because questions were asked by this private company, saying, "Oh, it is quite easy to take the Canadian National siding, and put them back"-so that, no doubt, the C.P.R. then might be satisfied.


William Earl Rowe: They thought the government would not notice it.
The Address-Mr. Pearkes


George Randolph Pearkes: They thought the government would not notice it. Quite obviously the C.P.R. did notice it, because they started asking questions. One might assume that there was better supervision by the C.P.R. over its equipment than there was by the government railway over the equipment belonging to it.
Then we go on to the item which states that horses were hired by army personnel and placed on the payroll under the names of non-existent labourers. Well, I have heard labourers called some names, but I have never heard them called horses before.


Gordon Graydon: Did the horses file income tax returns?


George Randolph Pearkes: Then it goes on to refer to various other articles which were removed, and it says that their final destination cannot now be accurately traced. It then goes on to point out other irregularities, how various equipment was made for army personnel, including boats, desks, chests of drawers, coffee tables and, in one instance, a child's rocking horse, all of which were used for private purposes.
Then it points out that expenditures were made for the damming of Tucker creek, for which no authorization was provided. Another example is given in the unabridged edition of this report, but the paragraph has been removed from the revised edition which has been issued. Private and improper sales of gravel are pointed out, and a large number of other things such as contracts for laying sewer pipe, and so on.
It sums up the losses in this way:
These, then, represent the ascertained cases of irregularity at Petawawa. How many more there may have been will never be known. It was apparent from the beginning of the investigation that the accounting records were in a chaotic condition and would be of little use in determining the nature and extent of irregularities. It is impractical. and perhaps impossible, regardless of the time which might be spent on examining records, to try and determine by this means the amount and value of the deficiencies.
I do not think one could possibly find a report which could be more-well, I was going to use the word "damning", but that is not parliamentary-which could be more critical of the system of accounting and supervision than this report has been.
Again, he says:
No reliable estimate of the total loss can be prepared.
It does say that it is contemplated that the total was not a tremendous amount, but Mr. Currie says:
My view would be. however, that the generally lax administrative situation would give rise to waste and inefficiency far more costly in loss than that covered by actual dishonesty.
698	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearkes
There again is a most critical sentence. It may be that there has been great loss through theft and pilfering, but the loss which arises through waste and inefficiency is far greater than that caused by actual dishonesty. Yet we have been told over and over again by members on the other side of the house that there is no waste, that there is no extravagance, that there is no duplication. Here we have independent criticism. Here we have a report by a man who is recognized as having the highest possible character, which points out that the loss caused through inefficiency and waste may be far greater than the actual stealing which took place.
It is not entirely the fault of the regulations. On page 12 Mr. Currie says that the system, had it been enforced, was a satisfactory and good one. But it had not been enforced. Who is responsible for seeing that the regulations which are laid down are enforced? Surely it is the personnel who are at the top, at the head of this Department of National Defence. They are responsible for seeing that the orders they issue are properly enforced.
Then we come to a list of some 33 headings under which irregularities have been noted. I shall not read this long list, but I will make the observation that in the abridged edition of this report no mention is made of overexpenditure.
Then we find that there has been a failure in security. Certainly security is the duty of the general staff. The general staff are responsible for security. The report states that in addition to the serious collapse in security there was little to prevent or to detect organized plundering of military stores on a systematic scale, though apparently comparatively little of it took place. Then Mr. Currie goes on to say that he takes a serious view of this breakdown, that is the breakdown in security. Then these words are used by Mr. Currie:
If it is easy to pilfer military stores, then, by the same token, it is easy to sabotage military equipment.
What is the use of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on civil defence if right in our own military organization there is a breakdown of security which would permit or allow the sabotage of military equipment?
Then Mr. Currie goes on to try to explain some of the reasons which may have led to this breakdown of administration, this breakdown of accounting, this breakdown of supervision, this breakdown of security.	He attributes it to the tremendous and sudden expansion of the Department of National Defence and the army works services, and its activities brought


about by the Korean war and by the large-scale defence program involved in carrying out our NATO activity.
Time and time again I stood up in this house during the years from 1946 to 1949 and warned this government that they were reducing their military organization far below any standard which offered a reasonable degree of security or a reasonable degree of protection against the possibility of another war breaking out. I warned over and over again that there was a too-hasty demobilization of government stores, a too-hasty demobilization of key personnel, a too-hasty handing over to a new generation of soldiers who had had no experience in administration.
We demobilized our stores, we demobilized our key men, we got rid of our equipment so that when the threat of Korea came and it was necessary for us to expand our forces to meet our NATO obligations we had this unseemly rush, this frantic organization to find new camps, to build up equipment which had been sold ior a song, to provide stockpiles of that sort of thing. What was the result? The inevitable result was the breakdown in the administration of our forces.
As one goes on through the following pages he notes that Mr. Currie refers to the sudden rearmament and the lack of an attempt to reorganize for the tremendous expansion. The need for the tremendous expansion was brought about because in those days we had so hastily got rid of our essential services, our essential personnel and our essential equipment. On page 17 of the report we find a criticism which strikes right at the root of our defence organization. These are the words that Mr. Currie used; they are not mine:
The situation was complicated by still another factor. The Department of National Defence including the army works services was largely staffed and manned by men whose military training had been received in wartime. Its establishment and administrative practices reflected more clearly the urgent needs and exigencies of war, when speed is everything and costs count not at all. The carryforward of this war psychology must be coupled with inadequate training and resultant ignorance on the part of personnel of their administrative duties and responsibilities. There was, in addition, indifference and reluctance on the part of military personnel to concentrate on administration to the degree required. It was not perhaps unnatural that these latter needs were largely forgotten or deliberately overlooked as soldiers gazed forward into the unknown consequences of the Korean outbreak, and foresaw still greater wars not very far away. But, if this spirit permeated the lower echelons of the army, it is more difficult to condone the same attitudes higher up.
I understand that the unabridged edition of the report said at the top or thereabouts, or words to that effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "At or near the top".


George Randolph Pearkes: Thank you. The unabridged edition said "at or near the top". The top is the Minister of National Defence, and the responsibility rests with this government. It does not rest with the soldier. The slackness or inefficiency started at the top- inability of people at the top to realize their responsibilities to this nation in safeguarding and checking extravagant expenditures. They still had the war complex where money counted for nothing; where there was no need to check on expenditures.
To continue with Mr. Currie's report, he says:
But, if this spirit permeated the lower echelons of the army it is more difficult to condone the same attitude at or near the top. There, a higher degree both of intelligence and responsibility is essential. It was not present in the degree required.
Time and time again we on this side of the house have been urging the government to check these extravagant expenditures. We have been told time and time again that there is no extravagance, that there is no waste, that there is no duplication.
I commend the reading of this report to every member of this house. I have not the time at my disposal to go through all the other paragraphs. There are many, many recommendations some of which, because of these interim reports, have no doubt already been put into effect or are being put into effect at the present time. But there are still lots and lots of recommendations in this report which should receive, and I imagine will now receive, the serious attention of the heads of the Department of National Defence.
However, I do not think that is enough. It has been clearly demonstrated in this report that the heads, the higher-ups, have not shown that essential grasp of the need for administration, the need for putting into effect a proper organization which is capable of working smoothly both in peace and in war. If there has been such laxity in administration here, then one cannot help but think that if a similar examination were made of the other branches of the army you might find that there is the same lack of proper appreciation of what is required here in peacetime for the defence of Canada at this time, for our obligations as far as NATO commitments are concerned, and for our obligations as far as our Korean activities are concerned.
If one studies military history you will find that all through the course of the history of the United Kingdom armies, the history of the United States armies, and even the history of the Canadian army, there have been crises arise which have shaken those countries to the core-and they have realized that there has been gross inefficiency in the administration of their armed services. To give an
The Address-Mr. Gagnon example, one recalls the terrible waste and dishonesty which existed at the time of the Crimean war, when supplies were sent out to the Crimea. The hay was rotten, the boots were all for right feet or all for left feet, and there was hopeless administrative inefficiency. The same sort of complaints were made after the South African war. It was realized shortly before the first great war that the armed forces of the United Kingdom were not ready and prepared to wage a European war. What happened then? Under those circumstances an independent commission was appointed to investigate all branches of the armed forces. As a result of those great investigations which were carried out by Lord Esher and by Lord Haldane, a complete reorganization of the armed forces took place.
A few years ago I suggested in this house that a commission somewhat similar to the Esher commission or the Haldane commission should be appointed to see whether our armed forces were organized in the right way to meet commitments which might be expected. I repeat that request now, and I say that this report underwrites everything I said at that time. This report demands, not in the words of the report but in the sense of the report, that a thorough investigation be carried out; that an independent commission be set up for a full investigation into the organization and the entire administration- both as to types of units and equipment that we have, and the whole organization and administration of our army-to see whether it is organized on lines which will enable it to defend this country and meet this country's obligations.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to associate myself with my colleagues in congratulating the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
The year 1952 is coming to an end. Canadian taxpayers will have to inform Caesar of the income they have received during the past twelve months. Before proceeding with the main part of my speech, I would like to make a suggestion to the government in that connection. Although it is not a new one, it is of great interest to the electors of any constituency and to those of Canada at large, I am sure.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) might well consider, I think, granting a statutory exemption of 10 per cent in connection with charitable donations. At present, in order to benefit from the exemption granted under the act, the taxpayer
700	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gagnon must file receipts obtained from religious authorities, charitable societies or other such organizations recognized by the minister. It is quite a tedious procedure for everyone concerned. As a result, our parish priests lose precious time and are sometimes placed in an embarrassing situation which is very easy to understand. On the other hand, an individual who, having made charitable donations without asking for receipts, is forced to ask his parish priest for a receipt covering charitable donations which, having been made elsewhere, have not profited his parish church in the least; that individual is thus quite embarrassed when the time comes to present himself at the rectory.
Why should one ask religious authorities in particular to act as benevolent agents for the government? Why ask them to work without pay for the income tax collectors and impose upon them irritating and unpleasant tasks?
Things have reached the point where sworn certificates are being asked from those who submit, for income tax purposes, vouchers signed by priests. I say that it is going too far and that the zeal of certain members on the staff of the Department of National Revenue could be tempered without prejudice to anyone. It is already painful enough to pay this annual tribute to the central power, without adding the injury of having the members of the clergy share our financial troubles.
I am, moreover, of the opinion that statutory exemption should also be granted in the case of medical expenses.
The government would be wise to show more confidence in the population and spare them, as far as possible, the necessity of going through all that red tape. The unreasonable demands of a burdensome bureaucracy are not readily satisfied and I would ask the Minister of National Revenue to think it over while preparing the next budget.
I wish now to be allowed to offer a few remarks with respect to a political event which has taken place since the last session.
The federal government, acting in that spirit of centralization which moves all its present leaders, has, after a great deal of effort, managed to sign taxation agreements with all provinces save one. The policy of the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and of his colleagues has finally achieved its end. The province of Quebec is now alone and French Canadians form, more than ever before, a separate section in our Canadian confederation.
The line of cleavage drawn between the two great races of this country now appears in all its depth. On the one hand we have the English-speaking provinces in coalition 

with the central authorities and, on the other, the old province of Lower Canada once more facing the advocates of union. But no one can blame the authorities of my home province for this unfortunate situation. The aggressor here is not Quebec, it is Ottawa. It is Ottawa which has violated the spirit of the confederative pact by resorting to overbidding and blackmail to lay its hands on those rights given the provinces by the constitution.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Can you prove that? Can you? Go ahead and prove what you are saying.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Quebec's isolation is not of its own making-
-writes Mr. Charles Pelletier in L'Action Catholique.
In his last press conference, Premier Duplessis commented briefly, but categorically, on the new situation created in the field of federal-provincial relations as a result of Ontario having concluded in its turn a fiscal agreement with the Ottawa government. "We shall never sign the death warrant of the province of Quebec", he stated.
.. .This attitude is much too identical with the principles we have always defended here for us to fail to applaud it.
. . . That others may be inclined to see in the relations between the central government and the provinces a matter of dollars, solely, is more or less understandable; but the province of Quebec has the right and the duty to consider much more important factors. Freedom cannot be counted in dollars. ..
.. .Let us not say, above all, that in refusing to sign a separate agreement, Quebec is isolating itself from the rest of confederation. Such isolation is not of our making. We accept it through our abiding to the federative regime, to Canadian democracy. Quebec does not envy anybody's rights. It merely asks for the return of those sources of revenue which were granted to it by the constitution.
Of course, one should not consider Ottawa as a hostile government; but as far as fiscal matters are concerned, one must admit that the aggressor is Ottawa and not the province of Quebec.
Under the title "A Separating Policy" one can read in the Montreal Gazette of September 8 last, the following:
(Text):
Only one province now remains out of this type of negotiation. In his press conference last Friday, Premier Maurice Duplessis reaffirmed his declaration to preserve Quebec's independence, even at the cost of the money that must be declined and the hostages that he may be delivering into the hands of his political enemies. Quebec, of all provinces, can the least afford to sell or "rent" any part of its autonomy for the temptations of money. And the historic and present fact is that Quebec is just not one province in ten. It represents one of the two main races. The co-operation of these two races has been fundamental to the existence of the dominion. But that co-operation must rest, above all, upon the recognition that no part of Quebec's guarantees can be worn away with the years. It was obvious from the start tha+ the federal method of separate

negotiations with the provinces, using the pressure of temptation, must in the end leave Quebec alone. A higher statesmanship in Ottawa would have avoided any policy that was bound to have such an ending. For Quebec can never be tempted out of things it must cherish for its survival, and because it cannot be tempted, it must stand alone, until the day comes when the tax policies of Ottawa cease to be separate bargains under specially contrived pressures, and assume the status of an honourable nationality and a truly federal spirit.
(Translation):
Finally in an editorial published by the daily newspaper Le Devoir, on September 9 last, Mr. Andre Laurendeau says, among other things:
Even if we are alone, we shall not yield. Whatever else people may think of it, one can but approve the statement made by Mr. Duplessis last Friday to the press, and which appeared in next day's papers.
The prime minister did not refer to the fiscal agreements between the provinces and Ottawa. But everyone knows what he was talking about when he said: "Under the Union Nationale, the government will never sign the death warrant of the province".
. . .Ottawa has therefore succeeded in isolating Quebec. Mr. Abbott is happy about it and takes a patronizing attitude with the provincial government.
But his government has just won a dangerous victory.
For by isolating Quebec, he forces us to admit that it is the French Canadians who are alone.
A federal-provincial fight, in which Ottawa opposed an alliance between Ontario and Quebec, was primarily a political fight.
When the opposition concentrates upon Quebec, the national problem appears in all its magnitude. It may one day break out in all its violence.
Speaking of these agreements, the Montreal Gazette went on to say:
(Text):
Most of these deals have been signed by the provinces under constitutional protests. Alberta said that it was gun-at-the-head negotiation. Manitoba has said that it would be far better if only the province could have some fields it could call its own. Nova Scotia declared the deal would mean that "provincial governments would become annuitants of Ottawa and provincial public life would become debased and degraded". Even Ontario, the last province to sign such an agreement, describes it as unsatisfactory and as settling nothing.
(Translation):
On the other hand, the association of rural municipalities of New Brunswick had complained about not receiving an adequate portion of the federal subsidies collected by the provincial treasury, as compensation for the sources of revenue handed over to the dominion; at a convention held this year in Saint John, this association strongly protested against the present state of affairs.
From these contentions and these claims regarding the distribution of federal grants, one can gather what intricacies and what hagglings inevitably arise from a system where one government collects taxes, while
The Address-Mr. Gagnon another spends the money which has thus been raised.
This is then no longer democracy but sheer dictatorship.
For what is the true spirit of dictatorship but the strengthening of unity, a propensity towards centralization carried to totalitarianism, the ruthless quelling of all the tendencies which break loose from unification? Again, it is the progressive quashing of all diversities and all yearnings, the monopolizing of all the branches of power.
Interest, individual or party interest, is the motive that prompts our centralizers.
As far as we French Canadians are concerned, our patriotic duty is related, first and foremost, to our nationality; our country comes next.
The constitution does not assign all the powers to the federal government, but only a part of them. The other part is allotted directly to the provinces.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: A real Duplessis speech.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: The hon. member for Gaspe does not understand anything about that. He would have to be much more intelligent and know what I am talking about.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: These are Duplessis' sallies.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Maybe they are sallies to you; but they are not to those French Canadians who think of the future.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: In Duplessis' own style.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I was saying that the constitution does not assign all the powers to the federal government but only part of them. The other part has been granted directly to the provinces. Economic unitarianism is opposed to democratic ideals. Sooner or later, both the spiritual and cultural values are influenced by the economy. The financial aid offered to the universities is proof of this. One can afford to shower gifts and presents with money which has been taken away from the provinces. An implacable solidarity unites the different levels of human activity, so that when freedom is lost at one level, be it the lowest, coercions are soon felt on the others.
It seems that the authors of the Rowell-Sirois report in which our present Prime Minister took a close interest had foreseen this possibility when, in order to avoid overlappings, duplications of work and expenses, they suggested, for instance, that the federal government and the provinces be authorized to delegate their powers to each other. But such delegation of powers would be unilateral since the powers held by the federal govern-
702	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gagnon ment with regard to international and interprovincial matters cannot be transferred to a province.
The many millions of dollars which are being held out to us by the federal government are but a piece of bluff, a booby trap. They want in fact to take over our rights and privileges; they seek to decrease our powers and our sovereignty; they wish to see us in tutelage, in poverty and in bondage.


Mr. Boisvert:: Let the hon. member mention one single piece of legislation passed by this government which could deprive us of any of the rights we enjoy in the province of Quebec.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Again those are things unknown to my hon. friend. There are none so deaf as those who don't want to hear, like the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska.
The province of Quebec is still too young and her future too promising for her to be superannuated by the Ottawa government.
Had French Canadians refused to play their part in bringing about confederation, there would be no confederation. It is because those of my race were guaranteed by the fathers of confederation that their rights would never be violated that they did cooperate with them.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: That is still the case.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: It is because they believed that the terms of the contract would be respected that our fathers signed this contract. We demand absolute respect for the 1867 agreement; nothing more and nothing less.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: But that is the case.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: That may be the case for the member for Gaspe, but not for true French Canadians.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I am not afraid to compare my patriotism to yours.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: As long as my province is headed by men who really care for its future, for its past and future greatness, its autonomy will be defended with might and main.
Provincial autonomy, for the hon. member for Gaspe, as well as for all French Canadians, is a matter of life and death.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: But not the Union Nationale's autonomy.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: All the prime ministers of Quebec province, save one perhaps, have understood that. Every one, Liberals, Conservatives, Unionists, has refused to alienate the unimpeachable rights which were granted to us in 1867.
We do not want to see the same dishonest manoeuvre as in 1840. We find legislative
[DOT] 

union revolting, assimilation repulsive and encircling smothers us. We are only asking to remain as we are, to retain our rights, our prerogatives and our money.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Nobody is' taking them away from us.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I shall not repeat the arguments I stated previously in this house to defend provincial autonomy.
Let me say that the editor of La Terre de chez-nous gives me food for thought when he writes, in an article entitled: "An Invitation to Separatism'', that we might consider abandoning the policy that has brought us only disappointments, afflictions, injustice and ordeals in every province of Canada.
The latest example is what is currently happening at Maillardville in British Columbia. In his editorial Mr. Maurice Berube writes as follows:
"Ottawa's tactics, which consist in lowering the resistance of the provinces by picking at them one by one, are undoubtedly more successful than dealing with all of them at the same time on matters they must decide by common agreement. The government at Ottawa has deemed it more expedient to bargain and negotiate separately with each of them."
Some might say that it is a smart policy. It seems to us that this policy is much closer to the dictatorial ways which we have fought and are still fighting than to the ways of democracy, which we claim to defend as far as the China seas. It is, in short, the already very ancient policy of "dividing to rule". It was known in the days of the Romans.
Such procedure is highly unfair for those who refuse to be absorbed, just as it was at the time of the Romans or, not so long ago, at the time of the nazis and the soviets.
The chamber of commerce of the province of Quebec has submitted, in a remarkable brief to the provincial authorities, its views on federal-provincial relations in matters of taxation.
The chamber of commerce is not a political body. It cannot be accused of favouring one party to the detriment of another.
Representing the chambers of commerce of the various districts of the province of Quebec, its views are those of the best elements of the population, and its views are expressed in the best interests of the fatherland. Its denunciation of the centralizing procedure and the relentless efforts of the central power to take over provincial sources of revenue is a warning that must not go unheeded.


Mr. Lesage:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: When I am through.


Jean Lesage: It is only because-


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: No, when I am through. When it is stated that "never in the history of confederation has provincial autonomy been so imperilled" we should really lend a careful ear to such statements.
The government that spends-
This is in the official report of the house.
-must, as much as possible, be the government that taxes. Otherwise, since it does not bear the odium of taxation in the eyes of the electorate, it may be tempted to indulge in extravagance, if not in sheer waste.
This argument, as old as confederation itself, can only gain in validity with an increase in the amount of subsidies.
The fundamental objection to the present projected agreements nevertheless resides in its underlying philosophy. By centralizing control of the great modern forms of taxation, the agreements would seriously upset the balance which must be preserved in federal-provincial relations. They give to the federal government a great advantage which will inevitably lower the prestige and actual authority of the provinces, the importance of which for the French-Canadian group is beyond question.
If confederation is to survive, the pact, the sacred pact as Cartier liked to call it, the
sacred agreement signed in 1867 between the two great races of this country, will have to be respected, not only as far as the letter of the pact is concerned, but also the spirit which inspired it.
In defending their rights and their inheritance, French Canadians are working to protect the best interests of Canada at large. When the present premier of Quebec fights for provincial autonomy, he is defending his people and expressing the views of the majority of the citizens of our province. Federal authorities might do well to remember that fact once in a while.


Jean Lesage: Would the hon. member for Chicoutimi permit a question? May I ask him if he has ever read section 91 of the British North America Act?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I will say to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) that moreover I understood it very clearly.


Jean Lesage: Just for the benefit of my hon. friend, paragraph-


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I took lessons similar to those the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet wants to teach me when I attended primary school and I learned them all.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member did not understand this section. Otherwise, he would not have spoken as he did a moment ago. Under section 91 of the British North
The Address-Mr. Churchill America Act the federal parliament is empowered to collect revenue for federal purposes through any method or system of taxation. And, Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Where is the question?


Jean Lesage: I would like to say to the hon. member for Chicoutimi-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it a question or a speech?


Jean Lesage: Could you tell me what are the sources of revenue-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it a question?
(Text):


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I have a right to speak in this house. I have not yet spoken on this amendment.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have asked repeatedly this question and I never got an answer: Which fields of taxation were ever taken away from the province of Quebec by the federal government? Nobody has ever named even one.
(Text):


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think the situation that has developed from the presentation of the Currie report has naturally aroused apprehension in all circles with regard to the general matter of the administration of the Department of National Defence. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) has rightly pointed out that if there has been faulty administration in one area, perhaps other matters should be investigated.
The Department of National Defence is, as we all realize, one of the most important departments of government, and has at its disposal a great deal of the money which is provided annually for general purposes. When we pay half of our collection of taxes into defence preparation, naturally we are interested in knowing whether we are getting value for our money. From time to time we have had instances where we have wondered whether we were getting full value, and this report which has come before us naturally makes one wonder whether the investigations should not be carried further.
How far does this extend? Is it restricted only to this one small works engineering department within the Department of National Defence, or are other things also worthy of investigation?
We had a suggestion made to the house some time ago that a joint committee of the two houses of parliament might very well be set up to conduct an objective and impartial investigation that would satisfy not only parliament itself but the people of Canada. We
704	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Churchill have perhaps reached the stage where that suggestion should be given very careful consideration.
I spoke in the house some time ago about matters of defence in relation to our men serving overseas; and it seems to me that the presentation of this report makes even more urgent some of the matters I dealt with on that occasion. After all, we are engaged in what we are pleased to call a cold war. We have troops across both oceans. Unfortunately, in some circles we have been calling the war in Korea a police action, and it may be that we are taking rather too complacently the world responsibilities that we have naturally assumed as a member of the United Nations.
I have been reading the accounts of the recent visit to Korea of the president-elect of the United States and the comments various military commentators have made with regard to the situation there; and I wondered whether we should not seriously be considering some of those points and investigating to see whether our efforts here in Canada are directed along the right lines with regard to that conflict in Korea. Presidentelect Eisenhower is quoted in the Gazette of December 15 as saying:
Finally, we must all recognize-in all our thinking and our planning-that the Korean war is but the most dramatic and most painful phase, for us at this moment, in our world-wide struggle against communist aggression.	'
I was endeavouring to find out, Mr. Speaker, whether reports from Korea were accurate concerning ammunition supplies for our forces there, whether we were not overlooking the serious situation that prevailed with regard to casualties. The Minister of National Defence made a statement on December 5 in reply to some of the remarks I had made. I might point out to the house that he shifted his position with respect to the question of casualties, and has made it appear that they are not as heavy or as serious as I was endeavouring to point out.
In commenting upon Dieppe, which caught the eye of those who were reporting the proceedings of the house, I had pointed out that the force engaged at Dieppe was stripped down of all non-fighting personnel, and had engaged in that struggle only those who were equipped and trained to enter into combat with the enemy. I pointed out that if we examined our forces in Korea and determined only those who were equipped to enter into combat with the enemy, we had, as far as infantry were concerned, only about 600 men per battalion or 1,800 per brigade; and drawing the parallel with Dieppe, I showed that TMr. Churchill,]

had there been no replacement or reinforcement for the forces in Korea the rate of casualties suffered was similar to that at Dieppe. Obviously if you at Dieppe had been able to rotate the battalions every two hours, why, in the course of the eight-hour conflict, totalling up all the numbers, the casualty rate would have been much less than it was. That was the whole purpose in that comparison, but I notice that the minister in his reply to me has suggested that the casualty rate in Korea was only 16 per cent. I quote from page 365 of Hansard, where the minister said:
In Korea the 25th Canadian infantry brigade have been there a total of 7,900 man years. The total number of casualties suffered numbers 1,248 or 16 per cent as opposed to the 68 per cent in eight hours at Dieppe.
This is a new way to estimate casualties in action. I was careful to suggest that the only reasonable way to estimate casualties was to take the fighting strength of a brigade and see what the casualties were in relation to that fighting strength. General Eisenhower, in his book "Crusade in Europe", mentions that 80 per cent of the casualties of an army in the field are borne by 20 per cent of the men, the 20 per cent who are actually in contact with the enemy. I think a mistake has been made in Canada in overlooking the fact that the casualties occur in that small percentage of the total force.
It is no reflection upon those who served elsewhere in an army that they are not called upon to engage actively with the enemy. You must have a certain percentage of men behind the fighting fringe in order to keep the fighting fringe operative. It is quite obvious that you must have lorry drivers; you must have mechanics to keep vehicles in repair; you must have men to supply food, ammunition, petrol and things of that nature. In actual practice it takes four or five men working behind the line to keep one man actively in the line with his rifle, mortar, machine gun or whatever it may be. The men who serve in the rear areas suffer from the long hours of hardship and endurance they must go through to keep in shape the vehicles, weapons and equipment used by the men actually in the line. In my experience I have seen men, in the second world war, working from daylight until midnight, unceasingly, day after day including Sundays, throughout an entire month. Their contribution was essential and effective.
Nevertheless, they suffered no casualties. If you axe going to consider casualties at all, then you must look at the portion of your troops in action, and estimate the casualties on that basis. With our brigade in Korea we maintain in the front line approximately 1,800 infantrymen. On them falls the brunt of the

action. They suffer the casualties. And when we have suffered, as the figures now indicate, something like 1,250 casualties, it is clear that those casualties have fallen mostly upon the 1,800 who occupy the positions against the enemy. Of course if you rotate the battalions several times in the course of two years, and then estimate the percentage on the basis of the total number engaged, it becomes very small. It would be just as reasonable-and just as useless for the purpose, in my estimation-to take the total number of men in uniform in Korea, in Europe and in Canada and say, "Well, our casualties are 1,250, and our total number in uniform is 100,000; therefore our casualty rate is only 1-25 per cent". That does not give the true picture at all.
Consequently I think it is time we in this country learned the lesson of estimating our casualties properly, having regard to the number of men actually engaged in action. That was my reason for drawing the parallel when I spoke the other day with regard to that particular situation, and mentioned not only Dieppe but also the first world war.
The minister replied, as reported at page 365 of Hansard:
It must be remembered and emphasized that the 25th Canadian infantry brigade is practically all in the active theatre of operations in front of brigade headquarters.
That may indicate to some people that the entire brigade is in constant danger. I think it is unwise to suggest to the relatives of people in the brigade that everybody in it is in constant danger. That is not normally the situation, and people's minds should be set at rest on that point. Not every man who serves overseas in an army is in constant danger. Often he is in no danger at all, and relatives should realize that fact. I think it is not advisable to make statements to the effect that the infantry brigade is practically all in the active theatre of operations in front of brigade headquarters. Normally, when in action, brigade headquarters is split into two parts, tactical headquarters being forward- well forward

and rear headquarters, which is well back. And it should be well back, because the people who are there are those who are concerned with the supply services of the brigade, and it is not wise to endanger their lives.
But I would say this, that the serving soldier in the line, if asked whether he would like to go back to tactical brigade headquarters, would welcome the opportunity. To him it would be about the same as returning to Canada; he would feel he was just about as safe. I have been in too many brigade 68108-45
The Address-Mr. Churchill headquarters not to realize that that is the situation, although they are in exposed positions.
So I do not think for one moment that the 25th brigade is all in front of brigade headquarters, unless the minister means the rear headquarters of the brigade. And of course the same is true of the smaller formations. Regimental headquarters, to a man who actually has to move right up to the enemy's lines, seems to be a relatively safe position. Those who have served overseas will realize that.
Perhaps I was more interested in the question of ammunition than in any other aspect of the situation in Korea. My question was: Is there a shortage of ammunition in Korea? Again, as reported at page 365 of Hansard, the minister gave this assurance:
So far as ammunition is concerned, the position in Korea is precisely as I outlined it the other day. Canadian troops have never been subjected to unnecessary casualties by any shortage of ammunition, nor are they in the least likely to be exposed in such a manner. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the amount of ammunition used in Korea far exceeds that ever used before in any campaign in the history of mankind for any force of a comparable size.
I had hoped that the minister would bring forward facts and figures as evidence upon which that statement was founded. I think the statement that more ammunition has been used in Korea than in any other campaign in the history of mankind, without any evidence as to the actual number of shells expended and small arms ammunition fired, is rather open to question. If it has been used in such great quantities there is surely no reason why we cannot be informed about it. However, my question concerned our own 25th Canadian infantry brigade, and not the total amount of ammunition expended by the United Nations forces in Korea, which perhaps would include the number of bombs dropped and rockets fired by our aircraft.
The situation as I see it is simply this, that we are suffering heavy casualties in Korea. We have had disturbing reports from other sections of the Korean front with regard to restrictions on the use of ammunition; and our own Canadian forces, through the press, have reported to us that there is a restriction on their use of ammunition. I wonder why there should be a restriction. One of my reasons for wondering is found in the report in the Gazette of December 15, which makes reference to General Eisenhower's visit to Korea. Quoting from that paper I find he said that he had three definite observations to
706	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. ChurcYdll make concerning his trip, the second of which is as follows:
Second-In the strictly military sphere, certain problems of supply have reached serious proportions and require early correction.
To those who are familiar with military matters in the field, that is a very serious statement. It will be noted that he says certain problems of supply have reached serious proportions, and that they require early correction. He restricts it to the strictly military sphere. Does that mean that we are short of clothing for the troops, or food or gasoline? Are we short of lorries? Are we short of ammunition? When it comes down to the point of saying that it has reached serious proportions which require early correction, and you tie that in with these other reports about the restrictions on the use of ammunition, I cannot help but wonder whether it is not ammunition that is included in that particular statement.
Then a question that arises in my mind is this. Is the government of Canada as fully informed with regard to these matters as the president-elect of the United States? Is the government aware that the problem of supply in Korea has reached serious proportions and requires early correction? If the government is aware of that, what is being done about it? Are the lives of our troops in danger?
That is the type of information I think we should have in view of the situation there. That is the type of information I had hoped would be provided by the minister in his reply the other day. But that is not the type of information we received. We received some general statements reassuring us. But we want more than reassurance by way of general statements. We want reassurance with regard to our troops. We want reassurance with regard to the conduct of the entire war in Korea.
As I said earlier, all this seems to tie in with the reports that we are now receiving with regard to the situation in the Department of National Defence. Has an attempt been made to look into all these matters? Have the minister and his officials had the opportunity to keep in close touch with the situation in Korea?
Similarly one would like to ask questions about the 27th brigade over in Europe. What is the state of its supplies with regard to arms and ammunition? Are there ammunition dumps available? In case of sudden attack or the need of using that brigade in Europe have they the necessary means to carry on? Has there been anything lacking in the supply line or in the manufacture of munitions of war?
IMr. Churchill.]

These are all most serious problems, and they become more serious when you consider the mounting toll of casualties in Korea. A report in the papers today coming from United Nations sources indicates that in the last three months, that is September, October and November, Canadian casualties were 300, or at the rate of 100 per month. That is much higher than they were in the earlier part of this year and in 1951.
I have been looking into all the reports I could find in magazines and newspapers with regard to Korea, and I have become very much disturbed. We are assured that this is static warfare as in the first world war. For some reason it seems advisable to the higher command to send out active patrols all the time to patrol the enemy's lines. Casualties are suffered in these active patrols. I wonder about the usefulness of this patrolling action on the Korean front.
This was tried out in the first world war. It is supposed to maintain the morale of the troops, to make them fighting fit and to keep them alert and active. As some of these reports from Korea say, it is supposed also to keep the enemy constantly alarmed and disturbed and shifting from one position to another. I wonder whether it is worth while conducting that type of patrol action at the cost of precious lives.
What is accomplished? Is our intelligence service such that we have to obtain prisoners in order to find out what forces are fighting against us. I notice that the intelligence arrangements of the enemy were so good that when the first battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry arrived at the front they were greeted by a placard exhibited by the Chinese extending a welcome to them. They had that information without sending patrols into our lines to seize prisoners.
I believe that the proper procedure to adopt in Korea at this stage would be to remain on the defensive, which is the recommendation of General Van Fleet himself. When you are on the defensive surely you do not have to be sacrificing lives every day with these patrol actions. If you are going to launch an offensive these patrol actions might be necessary, but I do not think they are when you are on the defensive. Many men who served in both world wars were never in a patrol action. Many of them were most effective in destroying the enemy without leaving their positions. A comrade of mine in the first great war virtually annihilated a German battalion with one machine gun, and he was never on a patrol action in his life. The German defenders of Dieppe had no necessity to go on patrol action in order to fire effectively from their strongholds against our

forces on the beachhead. I question very-much that method of conducting war in Korea.
I was saying that I have been reading all the reports I could find in magazines and newspapers concerning this war. I wonder, as I wondered the other day, to what extent Canadian military experience is playing a part at the higher levels. What are we going to do? The suggestion is made that the war cannot be ended except by attempting to destroy the Chinese army and the North Koreans. That would cost the lives of a great many of our soldiers and of the United Nations forces. It would require reinforcements, because the Chinese army is much larger than the United Nations forces. If it were driven back or partially destroyed there are reinforcements across the Yalu river who could come forward.
Another suggestion is that there should be a withdrawal in Korea. That suggestion is rejected because the conflict is one of principle, trying to stem the attack of an aggressor against a peaceful and virtually, in 1950, defenceless country.
The suggestion is made by some commentators that the United Nations forces should be withdrawn gradually and replaced by South Koreans. That seems to make a great deal of sense. There are now five South Korean divisions actively engaged against the army, with five divisions in reserve. They are holding approximately 60 per cent of the front and in the course of time could take over a larger proportion. But to train and equip more South Koreans would take time. It would mean the provision of ammunition and arms from the North American continent. Are we prepared in this country to assist in that way? Are we producing munitions of war in sufficient quantities to assist in building up the South Korean army, thereby releasing Canadian forces?
Another proposal is that we simply go on the defensive-this is the one that makes the greatest appeal to me-and become strongly entrenched, holding the line for years if necessary. What difference does it make? We are engaged in a world-wide struggle against the imperialistic ambitions of Russia. It happens, as General Eisenhower pointed out, that the most dramatic phase is Korea, but the same type of thing is going on in Indo-China and Malaya; and we have had to build up defensive forces in Europe against any surprise attack. There is no immediate hope of release from that obligation.
I suggest that we must take the longdistance view and be prepared to remain on the defensive in Korea for a number of years if necessary. To end the war quickly and withdraw from Korea can only be done at a 68108-451
The Address

Mr. Churchill very great cost of life, and even if we did end the war there and withdrew from Korea we would not be at all sure that the same method might not be followed a year or two later and we would again find ourselves engaged in that country. In any case, if we do end the war in Korea, what about the situation in Indo-China and in Malaya, and in other parts where the communist powers might strike? The realistic approach seems to be to take the long-distance view; to decide that we are engaged in a cold war that is going to last for years; to make adequate preparation to meet any surprise attack, doing that by effectively providing the arms and munitions. That would be precisely the investigation that I for one would like to have conducted here in Canada, to see that we are providing arms and munitions against these possibilities. If we are not doing so, then surely we are failing to maintain our strength as a country. Are we right in simply laying the foundation for a general mobilization? Maybe that is not what is required. Perhaps a general war is not in the immediate future, and let us hope it is not.
If it is not necessary to provide for general mobilization in the course of a few weeks or months, is it not better then to take the longterm view of providing effective fighting forces and of providing munitions for our allies so that throughout the world we can make an effective stand against the communist aggressors? I think that could be done, and lives could be saved by providing the munitions of war and not sacrificing infantry forces as it seems to me we are sacrificing them unnecessarily in Korea now. I believe that expenditure of ammunition in unlimited quantities, rather than these probing attacks by infantry forces, is the answer to that situation. Therefore I hope we may be able to discover that in this country we are well prepared to provide the required munitions in unlimited quantities.
I mentioned General Eisenhower's report a little while ago and his statement that certain problems of supply have reached serious proportions and require correction. I hope that does not apply to munitions; and if it does apply to munitions, something should be done about them at least.
All this ties in with the world picture as we see it; a world struggle against Russian imperialism, or communism if you like to use the term. We have to resign ourselves to a rather long struggle, but it is better to spend money and effort on arms, armour and ammunition than to simply raise infantry forces and pit them against shells, mortar and machine gun bullets fired by the Chinese.
708	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Leduc
That is the situation as I see it, and I hope the investigation of our defence requirements in this country, and the general interest of parliament and the people in our defence matters, will bring to us before very long all the information we need with regard to the defence situation in our country and the contributions we are making with our allies elsewhere in the world to build up this bulwark against communism. Only by facing these facts and not glossing over them can we expect to get an effective contribution from our Canadian people. That is why I object to calling a war, which is resulting in heavy casualties to our troops in Korea, a police action. That is why I object to our failure to recognize the problem as it exists in Europe. Our failure there, as I have pointed out in this house on other occasions, is to provide armoured forces so that our men will be protected. It has been proven in both wars that armour, the use of tanks and armoured vehicles, saves lives. If we place emphasis on these matters then perhaps we will not only be doing our duty to our own country and performing our part in the affairs of the United Nations, but we will also be protecting the lives of those men who so willingly volunteered for service overseas. (Translation):


Mr. Edgar Leduc (Jacques Cartier):: could then be directed in such a way as to prevent a relaxation in the business of the country. It seems to me to be the government's policy.
In this connection, I am inclined to believe that a cut in the income tax would be in order and welcomed by the taxpayer. It is true that national defence expenditures are considerable, but they may be measured, I think, with the economy of the country, since the intensive production which takes place will bring about in the course of this year, or of the next, a surplus of goods which we shall have to store away.
That is the reason which brings us to consider, together with this reduction in expenditures, a fairly noticeable reduction in the income tax.
In acting thus, the government will satisfy the taxpayer and will be thus encouraged to pursue its defence preparations and fulfil the nation's commitments as party to the North Atlantic treaty which will inevitably assure us peace remote though it may be.
Another question of interest which has given rise to a few speeches in this house last year is that of immigration.
Far be it from me to oppose the coming of immigrants to Canada for immigration lessens the burden of less fortunate countries while Canada profits by it in that she gets people qualified in various fields of activity who contribute to increase her revenues.
The government endeavours to accept only the immigrants that can increase the skilled labour force so necessary to our economy.
I congratulate the government for keeping to that policy which will gain us appreciable advantages. I feel however that the immigration department should keep on working closely with the Department of Labour in order to protect the interests of our working class so as not to deprive our own people of their daily livelihood.
I wanted to bring to the attention of this house these two questions about which the taxpayers are worried. If a little relief can be given as far as taxes are concerned-I agree that those taxes are necessary on account of our defence preparations and the assistance we have to provide to the weak 

it will be a wise administrative move which will be generally appreciated.
Tax reductions would not only give confidence to the public and free it from that terrible feeling of discouragement but would create, in the taxpayer, the will to pursue his effort to the utmost.
During the last war, the taxpayer realized that he had to do his utmost; that is why he was willing to make sacrifices. Today, how-

ever, while understanding what is expected of him, the taxpayer cannot submit as freely to the sacrifices he made during the war period of 1939 to 1944.
As far as health insurance is concerned, a matter which is very much discussed and highly controversial when it comes to the ways and means of applying it, there is no doubt that one group of society, the white-collar workers and small owners, find themselves in an unfortunate situation when visited by sickness; they have to do without required care or to run into debt to such an extent as to pledge their salary for a long period. In the near future, some means of assistance should be found to provide all the necessary and urgent care to that group.
The infirm, who are quite a burden for some families, also present quite a problem.
We will have to help them soon, but the time to do so will be when the taxpayer has been reasonably freed from the fiscal burden which has been thrust upon his shoulders in these confused and difficult days.
The last time I spoke in this house, in 1951, I dealt with the problem of inflation and controls. I gave my opinion on both subjects. I am now pleased to observe that the measures advocated, which were adopted by the government in order to curb inflation, have had the expected results and that we are recovering in an appreciable manner.
Now about controls. Many learned economists have recognized the fact that the government has been well advised not to resort to them and to rely instead on the law of supply and demand.
During the past few years, Canadian trade and the gigantic development which we have witnessed have made our economy the most solid in the world and brought about a commercial expansion previously unheard of in our country.
One has but to read an article published in the November 5 issue of the New York Times to realize this. Several American magazines have only praise for the wise and enlightened administration of the government of this country. Our hon. friends opposite would do likewise if they would only say the truth and forget their thirst for power. That would be asking too much of them. But the people, who are the judge, will soon make their decision and grant the government of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent a well-deserved renewal of its mandate.
For some time much has been said about taxation powers to give the impression that the government at Ottawa is taking over all taxation fields, to the detriment of the provinces and municipalities.
The Address-Mr. Leduc
Let us examine together the situation of the provinces as well as of the municipalities. In a speech he made in the house last week, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) dealt with this matter in a masterly [DOT] way. He stated that the government at Ottawa was not taking anything away from the provinces. Now, the province of Quebec, which ten years ago had a revenue of approximately $58 million, and, seven years ago, of $96 million, had last year a revenue of $275 million. Can we say that her taxing power has been curtailed? Is it not true that the province of Quebec has authorized certain municipalities, and even certain school boards, to levy sales taxes? Is it not true that the province of Quebec has, in certain cases, levied a sales tax of 5 per cent? Is it not true that the province of Quebec taxes fuel oil and coal used for heating houses? Is it not true that the province of Quebec levies a tax on the electricity used for lighting purposes? Is it not true that a meal tax is in force in the province of Quebec, a tax which does not exist in Ontario or elsewhere? Is it not true that there is a tax on cigarettes? Is not the cost of driving licences higher in Quebec than in Ontario? Is not gasoline taxed also?
Now, the revenue of the province of Quebec is five times what it was ten years ago and three times what it was seven years ago. Is the province of Quebec feeling guilty for these higher taxes? Contracts are awarded without tenders. Does that not indicate that there is money aplenty in the province of Quebec?
Now, as far as the federal government is concerned, it is one of the few governments who, in the past few years, have actually reduced taxes.
In 1945 the Canadian government collected, in revenue, $2,687 million; in 1946, $3,013 million; in 1947, $3,007 million; in 1948, $2,871 million; in 1949, $2,771 million and, in 1950, $2,580 million.
If the government was forced to increase taxes, it is because of the defence effort we have had to accept for the security of our country and for the repression of aggression. The government is always willing to decrease taxes when there is no necessity for the country to have as much money as is now the case.
Where do these amounts which we are now spending go to?-that is these $4 billion and more. For each dollar the breakdown is as follows: 3 cents to the provinces, 14-5 cents for social security, 5-5 cents for the various veterans allowances, 13-5 cents

The Address-Mr, Leduc for interest charges and 6 cents for debt reduction, that is the surplus that can be applied to tax reduction.
Have the municipalities lost their means of taxation? In my own community in 1944, revenues were $800,000 and we were enabled to reduce taxes. In 1952 this figure had gone up to $1,800,000, that is $1 million more in a period of some six years. Can it be inferred from that that the taxation powers of the municipalities have diminished? I could point out the case of several other municipalities of the province of Quebec which are in the same position.
When a municipality imposes a tax in order to meet the cost of certain municipal services, does it eliminate such tax, once the debt has been paid off? Quite the contrary; it keeps on using this means of taxation and even tries to find others in order to raise taxes even more. It is the sense of thrift that has vanished; our provincial and municipal leaders everywhere have lost all sense of thrift.
Is it possible that the increase in salaries and cost of materials might absorb these increases of revenue?
Mr. Speaker, I gave you a moment ago an idea of certain newspaper articles which lauded the administration of the Ottawa government. In this regard, may I quote an article by Robertson & Morgan, Montreal brokers, which reads as follows:
(Text):
Why Canada Freed Its Dollar.
The reason why all dollar-barriers have been swept away and the movement of Canada's trade set completely free for the first time since the
country went to war in 1939, is the Canadian government's realization that the nation's economy has attained a strength and stability which make it unassailable. There is, in fact, no stronger economy in the world . . .
Canada is the only major nation of the western world which writes its budgets in black ink (It could, for example, pay for completion of the St. Lawrence seaway's navigation facilities out of the current fiscal year's surplus). Canada was the only member of the Grand Alliance of world war II which refused to accept lend-lease. In addition to paying all its own bills, it actually gave away more ordnance and food, in dollar terms per capita, than the United States did. It is now the only member of NATO which is paying cash on the barrelhead for its military purchases in the United States, and in addition, is sending equipment overseas to its allies as gifts . . .
Because of its abundance of natural resources in timber, minerals, fish, farm products and cheap hydro-electric power to drive its greatly expanding industry, the Canadian economy in 1952 is the healthiest in the world. That its industrial life proceeds in a climate of stable labour-management relations is not without important bearing on the state of the national health.
The jettisoning of its exchange restrictions has been made possible by the strength of the Canadian dollar, which in turn reflects the health of the national economy. . .
Mr. Speaker, I have other things to say. Therefore, if you do not mind, I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Leduc the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

National Defence-Currie Report



APPENDIX I

[Stage Direction]
Page
714
715 715

[Stage Direction]
Part I The Irregularities at Pet aw aw a and their Causes
The discovery of the irregularities and their nature..
The attempts to estimate losses	
Break-down of the accounting system	
Failure in security	
Strains of the Korean war	
Part II Proposed Re-organization op the Army Works Services
Role of the army works services	 716
Handling of expenditures	 716
Limiting factors	 717
Objective	 717
Need for managerial skills	 717
Need for re-organization	 717
Proposed re-organization	 718
Part III Problems in regard to Re-organization of the Army Works Services and Recommendations for their solution
Organization	 719
Personnel	 721
Control	 722
Accounting	 724
Stores	 725
Security	 726
Part IV Conclusion and Recommendations
Organization and control	 728
Personnel	 729
Accounting	 729
Stores	 729
Security	 730
[Stage Direction]
National Defence-Currie Report

[Stage Direction]
November 26, 1952
The Honourable Brooke Claxton, D.C.M., Q.C., M.P.,
Minister of National Defence,
Ottawa, Canada
Dear Sir,
In accordance with your request of April 21, 1952, I have conducted an investigation into the deficiencies and other irregularities of the engineering detachment of the army works services at Petawawa and elsewhere. My terms of reference were contained in your telegram of that date as follows:
Confirming telephone please undertake immediate investigation and report earliest possible date into deficiencies and other irregularities engineering detachment at Petawawa and related matters there, or elsewhere both to determine cause and make recommendations regarding security and accounting for stores equipment and services so as to prevent recurrence with any additional powers or terms of reference which are necessary to make complete and thorough investigation and report.
I accepted this task. May I express my thanks to you and to all departments of government, including of course the Department of National Defence, for the ready and full co-operation afforded me. I found the terms of reference suggested by you ample and complete for the purposes of the inquiry. It should be noted that interim suggestions made by me during my investigations have been already seized on, and important reforms are already being carried out.
My investigations have taken me not only to Petawawa, but also to Toronto, London, Borden, Barriefield, Vancouver, Regina, Quebec and Halifax. At all these points comprehensive general examinations were made of works companies and detachments.

[Stage Direction]
The conclusion I have come to is that, while there has been a general breakdown in the system of administration, supervision and accounting, it was only at Petawawa that extensive irregularities over a prolonged period of time took place. The contents of this chapter are chiefly based upon my studies there, because of the existence there of a combination of factors: lax control, poor
discipline and the presence of dishonest personnel. The combination proved disastrous.
It is mentioned in this context chiefly for the purpose of praising the personnel at other depots for not walking through the door which a fundamentally loose situation had opened before them. It does not fit the facts to indict or to smear the whole army works services personnel because of the sins of a handful of crooks.
The Discovery of the Irregularities and their Nature
At Petawawa, however, the crooks were present and took advantage of the situation, and it is an unhappy circumstance that the beginning of this investigation lies not inside the Department of National Defence and its full complement of regulations and supervising personnel, but with the receipt of an [DOT] anonymous letter couched in the following terms:
The Commissioner,
Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,
There is reason to believe that an illegal transaction of army goods has taken place between army personnel of No. 3 works coy., R.C.E., and	company within the past few days.
This transaction involves the selling of several railway car loads of cook stoves and heaters without proper army authority. The C.P.R. station agent at Petawawa village could give you the destination of these cars.
No signature can be attached to this letter, but a good number of taxpayers have seen this deal and think that something should be done about it. If it is not an illegal deal, no harm will be done if enquiries are made, but yet if it is an illegal deal a number of other such transactions might be revealed.
Before reciting the irregularities and their circumstances uncovered by the R.C.M.P.- with the assistance later of the provincial police and the army provost corps-it must be said that internal warnings had not been lacking in the Department of National Defence. The chief auditor of the department had performed his functions conscientiously. Time and again he had reported unsatisfactory conditions. This is clear from Appendix "B" which summarizes his findings over a period of years. The deputy minister in each case had directed the quartermaster general to investigate and report. Lack of

adequate action at this point had, however, caused a progressive deterioration in the situation. Aside from reports being delayed for considerable periods of time, the record shows the next audit revealing conditions similar to those previously reported and, in some cases, worse. The process is then again repeated.
The actual irregularities uncovered at Peta-wawa are difficult to deal with in this report. The reasons for this, and for my dependence in large measure on police reports, are set forth later. The difficulties are enhanced by the fact that in various instances court proceedings have been instituted or are under contemplation. It is important, at this time, not to jeopardize these proceedings either from the point of view of the crown or of the accused. At the same time, it seems to me the public interest demands that this report should include a more or less detailed description of the nature of the irregularities which took place. I have therefore attempted to summarize them.
You will remember that, in each case, army personnel were involved; and that, in most cases, whether proceedings are taken or not, or whether these issue successfully for the crown, army goods have been recovered by the police which is fairly successful proof that army goods were widely spread in places where, under the regulations, they had no business to be. In a substantial number of cases, army personnel have signed statements admitting the correctness of the facts stated.
A series of transactions concerned the disposal of scrap metal. In one case, a proper contract was let for the disposal of 30 tons, in another, of 15 tons. It seems that some 550 tons were shipped out of the camp area, and that the proceeds from the bulk of the sale were pocketed by army personnel. Some of the metal thus shipped was not scrap at all. It consisted of serviceable material such as kitchen ranges, cannon heaters, shower-stalls, sinks and the like. Most of this material was recovered. In one striking instance, a large quantity of rails belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway was removed. When this loss was noted by the C.P.R. and questions raised, a spur line of the Canadian National running into the ordnance depot was taken up and the rails used to replace the missing C.P.R. track. Another case involved the collection of lead from rifle butts and its private sale.
A contract was awarded for the clearing of the camp "X" area. It covered the clearing of 206 acres, though only 166 acres were cleared and that not satisfactorily. In this, as in the scrap metal cases cited and, indeed, in others, 68108-46
National Defence-Currie Report army equipment was used although the contract called for the company to use its own equipment. During the clearing of this area horses were hired by army personnel and placed on the payroll under the names of non-existent labourers. In another instance, a civilian employee of the detachment got a contract for cutting and hauling cedar poles. Permission was given to use an army bulldozer and other equipment on the job. Lumber was apparently cut from the area to be trucked to Camp Petawawa. Its final destination cannot now be accurately traced.
An electric refrigerator was obtained from a local hardware store, and billed to the works department as other material. When electric refrigerators became available, the steel ice-boxes previously used were not returned to stores but turned into a hardware store and traded for other merchandise chosen by army personnel. A boat and several washing machines were obtained by putting through a false order for 1,000 bags of cement. The boat has been traced at Petawawa and one of the washing machines was located in the men's quarters. Rolls of linoleum were stolen, some of which was recovered later. Two freight carloads of pulpwood appear to have been stolen during the cutting of a power line.
In various instances it has been ascertained that army personnel were employed to construct such articles as boats, desks, beds, chests of drawers, coffee tables, chairs and, in one instance, a child's rocking horse, all for private use and not for government service. The material used was army material, and though some of it, the latter at least, was subsequently paid for by the personnel concerned, the wages of the workmen employed were not.
A dam was built on Tucker creek at a cost estimated at some $3,000 or $4,000. Its utility is not clear to me, and it was, in any event, not authorized by army headquarters.
In certain cases, persons buying army material were asked not to make cheques in payment (in whole or in part) to the receiver general but to individual army personnel. The amounts thus paid did not reach the public treasury.
In another case, a member of the detachment was hired by a private company and paid for 13 weeks at the rate of $100 a week. The company claimed its temporary employee told it that accumulated leave would permit him to fulfil his obligations which involved the setting out and detailing of houses in the camp townsite. The man in question denies this, stating he performed these private duties in his spare time. He also denies that there
714	HOUSE OF
National Defence-Currie Report was any secret and improper element in the transaction which was, nevertheless, clearly improper under the regulations.
Private and improper sales of gravel were made by responsible personnel in charge of a gravel pit leased under strict terms by the Department of National Defence.
It was the practice at Petawawa to lend cement and other materials from army stores to private contractors in the district. No record was kept of these loans, and the materials were usually not returned until the army asked for them. The explanation given was that the private work being done was of an urgent nature, that materials were scarce, and that only the government had the priorities with which to obtain them. It was also stated that personnel were not available to keep the proper records.
A contractor received payment in full on a $32,000 contract for laying sewer pipe and manholes, although some $4,000 of the work had been completed by the army before the private contractor began work. The explanation in this case was that a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation inspector erroneously accepted verbal progress reports from an assistant. The company also claims that the payment asked for was the result of an office employee being unfamiliar with procedures in such cases.
The Attempts to Estimate Losses
These, then, represent the ascertained cases of irregularity at Petawawa. How many more there may have been will never be known. It was apparent from the beginning of the investigation that the accounting records were in a chaotic condition and would be of little use in determining the nature and extent of irregularities. It is impractical, and perhaps impossible, regardless of the time which might be spent on examining records, to try and determine by this means the amount and value of the deficiencies.
This conclusion is based upon the results of a single, determined effort to ascertain by accounting methods the extent of the shortage existing in the case of a single item of stores. Cement was chosen as a test case, largely because the number of suppliers of that commodity were few in number and easy to find. Six weeks were spent in the effort. The suppliers produced their record of cement supplied to Petawawa. All army records were examined and audited. The contractors in the area to whom supplies of cement might have been given, sold or loaned, readily opened their books. As a result of the inquiry, it appeared that one loan of 3,400 bags of cement had not been returned. The
[Stage Direction]
over-all shortage appeared to be some 18,000 bags, much of which may have gone into unauthorized projects of one kind or another, or wasted or pilfered in small quantities. It was impossible to ascertain exactly what had happened. But my test cement investigation convinced me that to attempt a similar study of all the 5,000 items of stores held would be endless and probably fruitless.
In such circumstances, when rigid accounting methods fail, police examination is the only available recourse left. This has been carried out with painstaking thoroughness, and leads me to the belief that most, if not all, the important irregularities have been uncovered. The police too, have been able to recover by far the greater quantity of the missing goods, and these have been returned to stores.
No reliable estimate of the total loss can be prepared. It does, however, appear probable that the total loss resulting from misappropriations and irregularities by military personnel at Petawawa was not large. The advantages gained by civilians dealing with corrupt military personnel are not clearly ascertainable. My view would be, however, that the generally lax administrative situation would give rise to waste and inefficiency far more costly in loss than that covered by actual dishonesty. The evidence examined does not disclose irregularities involving relatively large sums of money, but, rather, an impressive array of petty irregularities on an extensive scale.
Breakdown of the Accounting System
The fault did not lie in the accounting system, which was a good one had it been operated properly. It was a new system, based on American and British as well as Canadian experience, and embodied features which, theoretically, would have quickly checked irregularities as they appeared. Under the regulations, had they been enforced, it would have been possible to determine from the perpetual inventory records the quantities and values of engineers' stores which should have been on hand at any given time. Then, by means of a comparison with a physical count of stores, the shortages could have been ascertained. The regulations of the army works services require that a 10% inventory of stores be made every month. The accounting system, however, was not properly operated, nor were the regulation inventories methodically carried out.
My investigations show that at least 33 regulations have been in the past honoured more in the breach than in the observance with the result that many of the control features of

the accounting system were rendered ineffective. They had to do with:
(1)	Authorization of projects.
(2)	Approval of works orders.
(3)	Presentation of work orders as the only basis for issuance of stores.
(4)	Preparation of accounting cost estimates.
(5)	Follow-up by works company officers on efficient use of labour and material.
(6)	Return of excess materials issued to jobs.
(7)	Excess materials from one job being used on another.
(8)	Unauthorized projects and services.
(9)	Wasteful expenditures.
(10)	Segregation of stores and warehousing generally.
(11)	Physical inventory counts.
(12)	Disposal of stores.
(13)	Loans to individuals.
(14)	Splitting of projects to come within local authority.
(15)	Accounting for forms CAB's 83 and 83A by serial numbers.
(16)	Unauthorized forms.
(17)	Distribution of work orders.
(18)	Cross-charging practices.
(19)	Payments to military personnel rather than to the receiver general.
(20)	Padding payrolls.
(21)	Obtaining materials and commencing work prior to authorization of projects.
(22)	Unauthorized accumulation of materials from completed works and a failure to take on charge surplus materials.
(23)	Failure to record non-expendable stores issued to buildings.
(24)	Failure to record the change in location of installed equipment.
(25)	Errors in recording values on stock record cards.
(26)	Adjustment of discrepancies revealed at stock taking without reference to higher authority.
(27)	Irregular delegation of authority to sign work orders.
(28)	Estimated costs being exceeded by substantial amounts without reference to higher authority.
(29)	Labour and materials charged to approved works but delivered to other jobs.
(30)	Condition of real property records.
(31)	Inaccurate distribution in cost records.
(32)	Certain removable equipment was not listed accurately in property records and stores.
(33)	Improper loans of materials and rental of equipment to civilian contractors.
6S108-46J
National Defence-Currie Report Failure in Security
There was in addition a serious collapse in security. There was little to prevent or to detect the organized plundering of military stores on a systematic scale, though apparently comparatively little of it took place. If there is excuse for inefficient accounting, there is none for the failure of security which is, after all, a prime military consideration. I take a serious view of this breakdown. If it is easy to pilfer military stores, then, by the same token, it is easy to sabotage military equipment. My recommendations in this respect are fully outlined later.
Strains of the Korean War
My investigations of the problems, difficulties and shortcomings of the army works services outlined above suggest that they have been caused for the most part-but by no means altogether-by the tremendous and sudden expansion of its activities brought about by the Korean war and by the large-scale defence program involved in carrying out our NATO activities.
The establishment approved for the army works services after the second world war did not envisage the sudden expansion which was to take place in 1950. It was designed to carry out a purely peacetime role of planning, development and construction on an annual expenditure of approximately $20,000,000. This establishment became quickly burdened under the impact of the big-scale rearmament. In September, 1950, the program was increased to about $80,000,000. In the following April, it was increased to about $200,000,000. The program envisaged in the 1952-53 fiscal year aggregates about $250,000,000. The magnitude of this responsibility is reflected in an investment in plant and buildings which now amounts to $750,000,000 and is still rising.
During the 1952-53 period, the Petawawa detachment will expend something in excess of $1,000,000 on its own account, as well as having administrative responsibility for supervising some $20,000,000 of new construction performed by outside parties. It will readily be seen that the detachment's job is by no means a small one, but comparable perhaps to a medium-sized commercial construction company.
In the circumstances of sudden re-armament, the army works services of necessity was not permitted time to re-organize itself for this tremendous expansion, particularly since, it will be recalled, no one knew then whether the communist aggression in Korea was not the beginning of concerted Sino-Russian attacks in all available theatres of
716	HOUSE OF
National Defence-Currie Report war. Many sections of the services became completely overwhelmed with work.
The situation was complicated by still another factor. The Department of National Defence (including the army works services) was largely staffed and manned by men whose military training had been received in wartime. Its establishment and administrative practices reflected more clearly the urgent needs and exigencies of war, when speed is everything and costs count not at all. The carry-forward of this war psychology must be coupled with inadequate training and resultant ignorance on the part of personnel of their administrative duties and responsibilities. There was, in addition, indifference and reluctance on the part of military personnel to concentrate on administration to the degree required. It was not perhaps unnatural that these latter needs were largely forgotten or deliberately overlooked as soldiers gazed forward into the unknown consequences of the Korean outbreak, and foresaw still greater wars not very far away. But, if this spirit permeated the lower echelons of the army, it is more difficult to condone the same attitudes higher up. There, a higher degree both of intelligence and responsibility is essential. It was not always present in the degree required.


[Stage Direction]
Role of ihe Army Works Services
The army works services is not necessarily a distinct and separate unit within an army. It is, in Canada, an ad hoc organization, drawn from various units and groupings, chiefly the Royal Canadian Engineers, and including a number of civilians. Its function is to provide and care for accommodation of all kinds for the maintenance of the active and reserve forces of the Canadian army in Canada, and to provide land and structures, and care for them, in order to permit these forces to carry out their tasks. Thus it provides for defence and special works, provides and distributes engineer stores, creates Are fighting services and plans accommodation and other works requirements for mobilization and war.
It is included in the composition of the army for the sole purpose of providing necessary facilities for the rest of the army. It maintains the most direct contact with the civil engineering profession in Canada and its military components are thus kept abreast of current engineering practice in all phases of civil and related engineering.
[Stage Direction]
Handling of Expenditures
Expenditures of the army works services are estimated each year in advance, screened carefully at all levels by the service, the staff and finally by the general officers commanding and the chief of the general staff. These are presented to the minister. The usual annual program of the army works services comprises the following main tasks:
(1)	The requisite maintenance program-a fixed commitment.
(2)	That proportion of the planned new
construction program approved by the government for the year.
(3)	The planning of further new construction and maintenance requirements.
The voting of funds in bulk allotments by parliament represents the direct control exercised by the people of Canada on the country's military activity. Funds so voted are controlled to varying degrees depending on the amount and nature of the expenditure. In all cases, the treasury officer, who is appointed by the Department of Finance to work within the Department of National Defence, must certify that the necessary money is available and that the expenditure is in fact in accordance with the purpose for which the funds were voted.
In addition, an "administrative" approval of the expenditure is necessary to ensure that the expenditure is in accordance with current government and National Defence policies, is economical, and is made in accordance with sound and fair business practices. With the department, such approvals can only be given by the minister and by the deputy and his staff, together with senior army officers who have been specifically delegated by the minister. The expenditure of public funds for construction purposes is further controlled by regulations requiring that large projects be screened by the Department of Defence Production and the treasury board to ascertain their effect on the current labour and material situation in the locality in Canada in which they are required. This special review is intended to prevent avoidable interference with the general economy of the country.
It is the policy at all levels to avoid using "direct to trade" purchasing powers, except where essential, to maintain the excellent relations which have been established with the Department of Defence Production and to use that agency as the normal purchasing channel. It is a further policy to use the contract method for construction and maintenance wherever possible and consistent with true economy and efficiency. In the normal course of events, all major new construction

[Stage Direction]
projects are let by contract. Exceptions are made to the policy only in particular circumstances such as exist in northern Canada where it is desired to make use of the training value of large day-labour projects.
Limiting Factors
The capacity of the army works services to perform its tasks is hampered by-
(1)	Inability to obtain staff (civilian as well as military).
(2)	Delays in obtaining approval and in
the release of funds.
(3)	Effect of government restriction in the
use of day-labour and other restrictions in the method of purchasing and letting of contracts.
The administrative procedures involved in the above, to a varying degree, of necessity effect a reduction in the efficiency and the capacity of the army works services.
Objective
What is needed now is the creation of a system designed to fit the economic and efficient administration of a large and long-sustained preparedness program inside a national economy operating at full blast. This involves the abandonment, by all administrators of the program, of the war psychology with its emphasis on speed with resultant wastefulness and extravagance, and the substitution of an alert, economic and efficient operation, flexibly designed, to be sure, to meet emergencies, but designed also to become a more or less permanent part of Canadian life and government.
Need for Managerial Skills
The foregoing study and analysis of the situation at Petawawa have led me to certain general and specific conclusions regarding the future of the army works services, and the problems which confront it. These involve the recruitment and training of personnel on a basis quite different from that of the past. Changes in administrative methods and responsibilities are also needed. These involve organization and control.
Certain principles may be stated in this connection. The first of these is to have good men about. This is complicated in the army works services because:
1.	At army headquarters level it is basically a military organization and it is not free to pay the prices necessary to acquire top-flight administrators in key posts.
2.	Personnel in the R.C.E. and the army generally are sometimes promoted for reasons other than administrative
National Defence-Currie Report ability, e.g., in the army works services, engineering ability. Accordingly, an officer may find in his rise up the ladder that he is faced with successively greater administrative jobs for which he is ill-suited.
This situation has a parallel in civilian life in that the most important ablity of the head of a small business is technical ability. As the size of the business increases, the importance of managerial ability increases and that of technical ability declines. In medium-sized businesses, the two tend to be of equal importance. The most important quality in the heads of a large organization is managerial ability, and, the larger the concern, the more important this becomes.
Need for Reorganization
The emphasis in the army works services organization at one time was quite properly placed on technical skills, but, in its present size, emphasis should be shifted to managerial and administrative ability in key posts. The drive in civilian life is for efficiency and control, and these are major requrements of the army works services in its present state of expansion. Any deficiency in filling these posts will result in overloading the next in charge, and will throw the organization out of balance. Thus, a major problem confronts the army works services in filling its establishment at defence headquarters.
A problem of the army works services relates to organization since-
(1)	Its organization has been neither good nor adequate at all levels,
(2)	Organization changes which have been made are a result of some segment being overwhelmed.
(3)	Reorganizations approved by the civil service commission and establishment committees have not been realistic and reflect a lack of understanding of army works services problems.
To make an organization effective it is important to develop personnel. Plans in this respect normally include:
1.	Selection of candidates for training.
2.	Training to meet job requirements.
3.	Systematic and gradual development
through selected positions of responsibility.	[DOT]
4.	Control over appointments to key positions.
5.	Clear-cut assignment of responsibility for carrying out the program.
The army works services appear to have fallen down badly in this respect. Certain key positions have not been provided for. Key positions have not been adequately filled,
[Stage Direction]
National Defence-Currie Report and training and control over promotion of personnel have not been conducive to maximum efficiency.
A well managed organization requires a fair wage structure properly administered. This requires a suitable agency sometimes referred to as a personnel manager. At present in the army works services this factor is not co-ordinated and well planned and has contributed in a serious degree to personnel problems in respect of civilians employed by the service. Changes usually occur on a piece-meal basis and normally involve fruitless disputes with the civil service commission and establishment committees. In many cases, unsatisfactory arrangements result. The functions of a personnel manager normally involve-
1.	Assisting in job analyses.
2.	Assessing relative job values.
3.	Comparisons with outside rates.
4.	Maintenance of records to show-
(a)	How wage rates compare with outside scales;
(b)	Recommended changes to maintain wage policies.
5.	Reviewing changes in job classifications and rates.
6.	In general to co-ordinate and initiate steps necessary to create and maintain a sound and fair wage structure.
Difficulties have arisen in the army works services organization arising from the employment of civilian personnel working alongside enlisted men in the same organization. It has been difficult to attract suitable and competent civilians to work for the army works services due to-lack of career possibilities-inadequate salaries-insecurity of employment.
In any reorganization, the establishment need not necessarily have the proposed military element, and, because of the relatively frequent changes in postings of military personnel, it might perhaps be better organized with more permanent civilians. This problem has, in all probability, appeared in other lands. In both the United Kingdom and the United States, civilians are used in the army works services in relatively larger numbers than in Canada. This has resulted in a marked saving in military manpower, and may also have the advantage of placing civilian-trained, rather than military-trained, men in many posts which are, after all, essentially civilian in character.
The Proposed Reorganization
I have drawn up four alternative plans for the needed reorganization.
Alternative No. 1
The first is to improve and further develop the existing organization by-
1.	Reorganizing the service at A.H.Q. and other levels so that it is more appropriate for its vast managerial responsibilities.
2.	Improving the calibre of civilian personnel (at least in key positions) by revising salary scales and more efficient selection methods.
3.	Creating suitable training courses in administration.
4.	Creating a suitable inspection and service division to keep top personnel fully informed on conditions and to act as an instrument to clear bottlenecks and train personnel on the job.
5.	Placing proper emphasis on administrative efficiency.
6.	Freeing top personnel from detailed administrative duties to enable them to make uninhibited inspections down the line so that they can initiate remedial action through the machinery created in 4 above.
7.	Generally implementing the various measures suggested by this report.
Alternative No. 2
The second alternative is to create a civilian organization running parallel to a military organization up through commands to army headquarters. This alternative would-
1.	Relieve military personnel of most of the administrative function and enable them to concentrate on planning and on executive direction of works.
2.	Open up career possibilities to civilians and thus attract high calibre permanent personnel and provide stability to administration now difficult to achieve.
The advantage of this course of action would appear to be the combining of greater administrative stability and efficiency with a valuable training element for R.C.E. personnel.
Alternative No. 3
The third alternative envisages the creation of a completely civilian army works services under the Q.M.G. but operating outside command channels and tied in directly to army headquarters. Such an organization as this would avoid considerable duplication in administrative work and delay in getting things done which are involved in the operation of the army works services through command channels. That is, something along the lines of a holding company with operating subsidiaries. Liaison at various levels whereby requests for work would flow into

the service would necessitate certain military-personnel attached to the organization. Also the broad planning function would continue under the chief of the general staff. Execution of such plans would then flow through the quartermaster general to the army works services.
The main advantages here would appear to be savings in administrative and technical manpower, and those generally applicable to, say, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The objections are that the army works services would, for the most part, cease to be a training ground for military engineers.
Alternative No. 4
The fourth alternative is that the Department of Public Works take over army works services. This might effect a certain saving in technical manpower not attained by the first and second alternatives but perhaps accomplished to a degree by the third alternative.
The objections are:
1.	A department which becomes too big tends to become unwieldy and inefficient.
2.	Non-utilization of R.C.E. engineers who do compensate to a degree for the shortage of civilian engineers.
3.	Too slow and cumbersome to meet army needs.
In assessing the possibilities of these various alternatives, short-term considerations and long-term considerations play a part. Precedent exists for alternative number 2 in the United Kingdom and the United States where army works services are largely civilian in structure. Alternatives 3 and 4 represent radically different structures and their introduction at this stage of expansion might create harmful confusion. It would, therefore, appear advisable to adopt alternative No. 1 at the moment and gradually develop *the organization along lines suggested under alternative No. 2. The introduction of civilian administrative and technical stores officers, *chief foremen of works and estimators would constitute a major step in this direction. Once this has been accomplished further development along the lines suggested by alternative No. 3 would be relatively easy. As long as the army works services exists in its present size, alternative No. 4 would appear to be unwise.
National Defence-Currie Report

[Stage Direction]
The six major problems of the army works services appear to be:
1.	Organization
2.	Personnel
3.	Control
4.	Accounting
5.	Stores
6.	Security

[Stage Direction]
During the fiscal periods following the Korean crisis the Department of National Defence has been physically unable to carry out its budgeted program of expenditures. In the case of the army works services the major obstacles have been poor organization, lack of control and of sufficient technical personnel.
Army Headquarters
For example, at army headquarters some fourteen different functions were the direct responsibility of one man. These functions were represented by the following:
1.	Finance
2.	Stores
3.	Real property
4.	Administration (H.Q.)
5.	Publication
6.	Inspection
7.	Fire marshal	.
8.	Design
9.	Construction
10.	Maintenance
11.	Construction inspection
12.	Accommodation planning
13.	Accommodation standards
14.	Architect standards
The control of these functions involving expenditure of $20,000,000 was a big job. A program of $250,000,000 has made the task impossible. To correct this situation the department has recently developed a new organization for the army works services at army headquarters.
Under this new organization, the post of deputy quartermaster general (works) has been created. Directly responsible to him are two directors, namely, works and quartering, and responsibility is broken down under these two directors in a clear-cut manner.
Good organization in a large undertaking requires that not more than seven and preferably five functions report directly to
720	HOUSE OF
National Defence-Currie Report one man. The following summary shows how this has been taken into consideration-
Number of Persons Reporting Direct
Deputy quartermaster general (works)...	2
(a) Director of works	 4
(i) Assistant director works procurement	 5
Officer in charge	finance	division	3Officer in charge	stores division..	4Officer in charge real property division	
3Officer in charge publication division	Officer in charge inspection division	(11) Assistant director works engineering	
4Officer in charge design division	8
Officer in charge construction
division	 5
Officer in charge maintenance
division	 5
Officer in charge construction inspection	 -
(iii)	Officer in charge administration
division	 2
(iv)	Fire marshal and assistant		3
(b) Director of quartering	 3
Accommodation planning division	..	-
Accommodation standards division	-
Architect standards division	 -
Works Companies
Turning now to the question of organization of works companies and detachments, I feel the officer commanding works company, if properly trained, can control his company's operations and personnel most effectively by adherence to certain principles of management well recognized in civilian corporations:
1.	He must have personnel qualified to do
the job. His key personnel are essential to him.
2.	He -must delegate effectively. It must
be clear-cut. Each man must know his own duties, must have precisely defined authority, must know to whom he is responsible and his correct relations with those on his own level. When he delegates, he must back up, interfering only to avert catastrophe. He should teach by guiding them to know and follow his policy and thoughts, not by interference.
3.	His contacts with personnel, for the
purpose of information, should be uninhibited, but he should remember the clear lines of authority and give no orders during his explorations.
4.	The different sections of the company
should be as autonomous as the capacities of those in charge of them permit. No decision should ever go
[Stage Direction]
above the level at which there is a competent man to settle it.
5.	Line and staff functions must be separate
and clear-cut.
6.	His office should be simple, containing
no function which should be placed elsewhere. He must have enough freedom from detail, thus leaving him free to concentrate on important matters. He should spend a minimum amount of time in his office and be out effecting over-all supervision of company activities.
7.	He must realize that officer personnel
are subjected to spotlight analysis by other ranks, who do not miss much. Any softness in enforcing regulations, looseness such as pilfering stores, misappropriations or misuse of funds is quickly noted, and destroys discipline.
On September 15, 1952, a revised and improved establishment for Petawawa was approved. An organization chart is attached as Appendix "A". It will be noted that personnel considered to be "key" employees have been indicated. Its organization includes the following key positions not provided for under the old establishment:
1.	Administration officer (civ.)
(administration section)
2.	Military foreman of works warrant
officer I (works section)
3.	Engineer accountant warrant officer II
(finance section)
4.	Technical officer (civ.) (stores section).
A fault of the new establishment is that it does not include a skilled estimator, which I consider vital to the efficient operation of a company.
The key personnel here noted, if of the right calibre and suitably trained, will largely stabilize the administration and operation of works companies, and should compensate to some extent for the rather chaotic conditions which flow from the relatively frequent posting of military personnel.
Up to now the absence of an administration officer, a technical stores officer and a 2nd in command has resulted in the works lieutenant supervising -these functions to the detriment of his proper function. The function of the military foreman of works is being carried out by a W.O. II, who, in addition to his normal responsibilities, has been preparing plans, specifications and estimates as well as supervising projects and jobs. This has created a bottleneck.

The following division of duties and functions appears to be appropriate:
Works Section
The works lieutenant should be responsible for the plans, designs and over-all supervision of works. The military foreman should be charged with the direct conduct of the work and administration inherent therein. An estimator should be provided to prepare and control all estimating and be responsible for the accuracy of same thus providing an element of internal check on performance by the foreman of works. Following an analysis of completed work orders and on the site observations and inspection, the works lieutenant can then compare actual costs with estimated costs and place responsibility for variance where it belongs.
A monthly summary of these records covering the projects and jobs which have been completed during the period will afford to the commanding officer information which will enable him to appraise and control the efficiency of the works company. He must, however, have the benefit of skilled estimating and accurately prepared work orders to provide him with suitable standards of performance.
Adminisiration Section
The O.C. works company can control the administrative efficiency of the unit through his administration officer. He must have sufficient administrative training himself to know what he is trying to control and have a good working knowledge of administrative matters. The administration officer, in turn, must have the key personnel as shown under him suitably trained and effective in order to carry out his responsibilities properly. The technical stores officer and the two accountants for finance and costs are most important personnel to him.
Transport Section
The transport personnel appear to form a fairly comprehensive group and accordingly require someone delegated to take charge with appropriate rank.
Fire Section
The functions of this section require careful supervision and attention. Many of the buildings are reaching an age when they present extreme fire hazards and unless constant vigilance is maintained the possibility exists of rather serious destruction of property by fire. The person directly responsible for this function must not only know how to
National Defence-Currie Report combat fire but the measures necessary to avoid fires. Any slackness in this respect will sooner or later lead to unfortunate results.
Miscellaneous Subseciions
"Projects" and "Permanent married quarters" are suitably taken care of in the new establishment. Major maintenance tasks such as house painting which are required periodically should continue to be done by the maintenance section thus utilizing manpower effectively.
To make an organization effective, it is important to develop personnel, and I turn now to point No. 2 of the army works services major problems.

[Stage Direction]
In regard to calibre of personnel, it seems appropriate to point out that in work of this nature good men can save their salaries many times Poor calibre personnel in key posts -burden others in the organization and generally unbalance its operation, lead to waste of time, bottlenecks and so forth.
Contributing Factors
The acquisition of suitable personnel has been hampered by slowness on the part of establishment committees in revising establishments, and the slowness on the part of the civil service commission in supplying personnel. Usually this latter delay is aggravated by unrealistic salary scales.
The lack of preparatory training of personnel has contributed to the conditions found at Petawawa and elsewhere. In the works companies and detachments investigated it was apparent that the key personnel had not received adequate preliminary instruction through having taken suitable training courses before posting. Training courses now operating should be re-examined to ensure that adequate courses are provided to cover the duties of all key personnel in the army works services.
Pilot Plant
In view of the urgent need to apply immediate remedial measures, it is suggested that consideration be given to the setting-up of one of the army works companies as an example of the ideal to be attained. In choosing this special company, care should be taken to select one in a suitable area and with as nearly a perfect layout, equipment and facilities as is possible. The administrative arrangements, as well as the operational organization, should be most carefully set up to provide a model company. Such a company would be in the nature of a "pilot plant" to which officers and other ranks from other companies could be temporarily posted
722	HOUSE OF
National Defence-Currie Report to obtain rapid and concentrated instruction as to how a works company should be organized and operated.
Manuals of Organization and Operation
As referred to previously the O.C. works company must delegate effectively, and to do this his organization must be well defined. For this purpose, manuals of organization and operation are essential. Each of the main sections of the works company should have its own special manual outlining in clear, concise and readable form the organization and operation of the section. Sufficient copies should be available to enable personnel to become familiar with their responsibilities. The context, form and presentation of these manuals must be such as to impress personnel with the importance of the instruction contained therein and with the necessity of following them meticulously.
It is suggested that manuals be in loose-leaf form and that amendments be made by way of reprinted pages. One of the duties of the chief auditor and the administrative service team of the inspection division should be to inspect these manuals and report as to whether they are being kept up-to-date. All regulations affecting the organization and the operation of these works companies should be contained in the manuals. There should not be several sources of authority.
A manual should be prepared for the O.C. works company which, with those for each section of the company, would form the master manual for the company. The appropriate additions should be added for each level of command up to army headquarters. Such manuals would be invaluable to the
O.C. works company in training his staff and also at engineer schools in training the specialists required by army works service.
Conferences
Periodic meetings of officers commanding army works companies and detachments within commands should be held so that they can discuss and help each other with the solution of problems and difficulties. Such an exchange of ideas can sometimes be most fruitful, and lead in many cases to sound suggestions for improvement of the whole system. These meetings could be instigated and controlled at the command level with an army headquarters representative to co-ordinate the results.
Conclusions with respect to training are that the training programs in effect have been inadequate and that a considerable improvement is possible and advisable. The suggestions made above have been tried and proven in civilian organizations and consider-
[Stage Direction]
able benefit should result from their adoption by army works services.

[Stage Direction]
The third major problem of the army works services relates to control. Apart from controls regarding calibre, acquisition and training of personnel, what is covered here is control over-
1.	Policies
2.	Organization
3.	Costs
4.	Methods and manpower
5.	Expenditures
6.	Demands upon time of senior officers and executive
7.	Over-all performance.
This problem goes to the heart of the matter. The conditions examined reveal a substantial loss of control. Army files which have been examined reveal in many instances unsatisfactory conditions existing over a period of years and little if any effective action taken. The causes seem to have been a combination of the following:
1.	Obsolete organization
2.	Administrative laxity
3.	Inability on the part of senior officers to cope with the situation due to lack of knowledge and experience
4.	Lack of effective control agencies.
Control over Policies
Policies must be clearly defined so that personnel will understand under what conditions and to what extent they apply. It is apparent that personnel have not been imbued with the letter and spirit of army works services regulations. They are not in a form which can be readily applied.
Control over Organization
The maintenance of an effective organization requires continuous study, development, adjustment and review to ensure that the plan is working effectively. This is normally done through-
Organization planning;
Organization charts;
Job specifications;
Control specifications;
Organization manual;
Initiation and approval of organization changes;
Review of organization practice.
At present this task is the job of the deputy assistant director of works. It is to his credit that, without staff, he has been able to accomplish the progress that has been made. However, the function is simply too great for one man.

Control over Costs
Control over costs is a most important factor in the army works services since there is not the same direct pressure for economy in its operations as exists in a commercial enterprise. Systems of cost accounting have been designed to control costs. Such systems normally disclose extravagance, waste and unreasonable expense trends. The army works services has a cost system and, if operated efficiently it would accomplish the purpose for which it was designed. However, it has not been operated properly nor have the results been analysed and made use of by army headquarters. The supervision and control of the cost system should be delegated to a staff officer at army headquarters.
Conirol over Quality of Key Personnel
A co-ordinating authority at army headquarters in the nature of a personnel manager should head up the control over the selection of key personnel through the army works services.
Control over Expenditures
Control over expenditures in the army works services is exercised through the enforcement of a series of regulations. The regulations are adequate but adherence to them leaves a great deal to be desired as is shown elsewhere in this report.
Conirol over Demands upon Time of Senior
Officers and Executives
The most economic and effective employment of the time of senior officers and executives must also be organized and controlled. To do this, careful planning should be undertaken along the following lines:
1.	Use of time studies of each executive's working day to guide assignment of duties.
2.	Use of high calibre personal assistants to handle much of the detail.
3.	Effective use of a capable staff organization to analyse and digest information and make recommendations.
4.	Limitation of the number of persons reporting directly to senior personnel.
5.	Separation of the offices of senior officers from subordinates and restriction of contacts to those made by appointment.
6.	Insistence that all but emergency matters be submitted in writing.
7.	Realistic allotment of duties so that senior officers may have adequate and appropriate time to attend to personal inspection in the field, constructive thinking and administrative routine.
National Defence-Currie Report
8.	Reduction of time and attention of senior officers by eliminating the deluge of literature, correspondence, requests for information, surveys and similar demands originating from higher commands.
Control of Over-all Performance
One of the principal reasons for freeing senior personnel of detail is to permit them to concentrate on the performance of the organization as a whole. Investigation reveals that this has been lacking in the army works services. The fundamental reasons have been outlined above. The auditor general, the treasury board, the chief auditor of the department and the inspectorate of quartermaster services all assist in providing information useful for control. At first glance it might seem an impressive array of auditors and inspectors. However, their efforts are to a great extent diluted by responsibilities in other services and departments. It is for this reason that a staff control agency is suggested and also a full development of the inspection division.
Staff Control Agency
Such specific factors of control in the army-works services require the use of a staff agency specially designed for the purpose. Since the directorate of works is by far the larger, and directly concerned in this respect, it is suggested that such an agency be headed by an assistant director of management services located at the same level as the assistant director works procurement and the assistant director works engineering. It is conceivable that all "Q" services could do with this sort of control agency.
Adminisfraiive Service Teams
The inspection division which will be controlled by the "Staff Control Agency" should include administrative service teams whose functions would be:
1.	To inspect the administration of works companies and detachments at least semi-annually.
2.	To determine causes of administrative failures.
3.	To assist works companies and detachments in correcting such failures. *
4.	To provide information to enable the staff control agency to formulate improvements in administration.
Such teams would be made available to general officers commanding to assist them in correcting conditions which demand remedy.
724	HOUSE OF
National Defence-Currie Report

[Stage Direction]
The fourth major problem of the army-works services has to do with the operation of the accounting system and related regulations.
Operation of the System
The system was installed in 1949 and was still not working satisfactorily in the early part of 1952. Examinations made show that there is still a great deal to be desired but that personnel are gradually overcoming the chaotic situation previously in existence.
Appendix "B" classifies the various accounting irregularities found by the chief auditor of the Department of National Defence. Examination of the accounts at Petawawa and elsewhere confirmed these findings. It is obvious from this appendix that the system has not been effective and that conditions existing prior to 1949 were still in existence.
The following general comments are made with respect to the present operation of the system-
Real Property Records
These are not up to date at Petawawa nor generally across Canada. Since the army works services is concerned with an investment of some $750,000,000 in buildings and plant, the task is a large one. It is fundamental to the proper functioning of the system that no time should be lost in bringing these records to a satisfactory state.
Works Procedure
The regulations in this respect appear to be sound. Estimating, however, is not efficient. Again, this is a fundamental factor in the system. The cure would seem to be to have a qualified estimator in each works company or major detachment. At present foremen of works are doing estimating which does not leave them free to properly supervise works. The works officer through his chief foremen of works and chief estimator should be able to co-ordinate the activities of each and bring into existence a valuable element of internal check. This factor is his "administrative key" to efficiency in his unit. If he becomes unduly involved in either supervision of works or estimating, over-all efficiency, his prime responsibility, suffers. Therefore he must have adequate assistants in these posts.
There is a general complaint that the rush of work makes accurate estimating and follow-up difficult to achieve. It would seem that estimates on projects in the first instance should be approximate until the project or job is approved in principle. Then if so approved, it should be re-submitted together
[Stage Direction]
with a detailed and carefully prepared estimate for final approval. It is important that for each approved project there be a reliable estimate of cost before a work order is issued. If this is not done a great deal of the value of the system is lost. This is not an unreasonable requirement-the success of civilian construction companies depends on efficient estimating.
Another important point relates to the work order which in effect constitutes an order from the officer commanding works company, based on an approval from higher authority, to his assistant to proceed with the job. This constitutes an authority for the foreman to draw a specified amount in value and the quantity of materials and stores to complete a specified job or project. As mentioned above, any carelessness in the preparation of the order leaves a wide open opportunity to foremen. Accordingly, the following recommendations are made with respect to work orders:
A.	They should be made out in such a
manner that they cannot be easily altered without detection.
B.	Where the officer commanding delegates
the signature of work orders, the storekeeper should be advised in writing of the names of the designated signing officers.
C.	Work orders should be made out in
quadruplicate and distributed as follows-
(i)	One copy retained in engineer's
office.
(ii)	Two copies to be issued to foreman of works.
(iii)	One copy to be sent direct to stores to advise them of pending issue.
D.	Work order forms should be issued in pre-numbered pads and their consumption controlled as with CAB's 83 and 83A. They are virtually blank cheques on stores and they must be controlled to forestall irregularities.
E.	The predetermined material requirements should be entered on the form, signed by the works company officer and cross-referenced to the work order so as to prevent substitutions.
F.	No stores should be issued by the storekeeper unless a proper work order is presented.
G.	No over-issues to be permitted on work orders unless written authorization given by the officer commanding works company who should be restricted to a specified variance from the original estimate. Otherwise the matter must be referred to higher command for appropriate approval.

H.	All materials to be passed through stores records and charges "direct to works" to be completely eliminated.
I.	Cross-charging practices to be absolutely forbidden.
J.	On completion of the project or job and the turning in of completed work orders, these should be compared in works company office with originals and any unusual variances investigated immediately by the works company officer. By inspection on site the officer commanding works company must check to ensure that excess materials are being returned to stores and taken on charge.
The recent army order with respect to approval for work has been reviewed. It would seem that maintenance scales are reasonable. However, in the case of new projects, the regulations require a project no matter how small-for example, $10-to pass through normal channels right up to army headquarters. This involves administrative work on the part of many persons and is of doubtful value. It would seem more reasonable at present to delegate such approvals to more appropriate levels and, if necessary, set aside special funds at these various levels to restrict the total amount of such projects. For example, in respect of a specific project the following delegation of authority might be appropriate-
G.O.C. Command . .	$2,000
Area commander ..	300
O.C. works company 150
However, in respect of delegation of authority and discretion generally, this should await a proven responsibility on the part of officers together with a general stepping-up of inspection and auditing, combined with a clear-cut policy of sanctions in the case of irresponsibility.
Cost Accounting
The operation of the cost accounting system cannot be considered satisfactory until irregularities such as those outlined in Appendix "B" are stopped. We are informed that cost reports are now being received from all works companies and detachments. Needless to say, this is an initial step but until the quality of cost reports is improved results are of restricted value.
The cost accounting system is sound and workable and will if properly used assist in increasing the pressure for efficiency such as is normally experienced in civilian establishments by financial factors.
National Defence-Currie Report
[Stage Direction]
The fifth major problem concerns the physical handling and accounting for stores.
A recent examination of the physical handling of engineer stores at Petawawa revealed a relatively favourable situation. Specifically speaking, satisfactory attention was being paid to the following factors:
1.	Maximum utilization of existing space by way of warehousing layout.
2.	Arrangement of stores in a manner permitting conservation of time and manpower.
3.	Conservation of supplies by avoiding re-order of material in stock when it cannot be located when required.
4.	Segregation of surplus and "stockpiled" stores into separate warehouses thereby simplifying stores arrangement and speeding up of supply operations.
As a result of a physical inventory taken during the spring, stock record cards were brought into agreement with a physical stocktaking. The surpluses and		deficiencies
revealed were as follows:		
	Surpluses	Deficiencies
Electrical 	.. $11,511.74	$5,624.75Hardware 	.. 4,505.65	3,523.61Plumbing galvanized ..	,.. 892.33	351.77Plumbing black 	,.. 330.75	510.85Plumbing drainage ....	,.. 547.61	1,127.73Plumbing parts 	,.. 4,602.62	1,678.92Stove and stove parts ..	.. 658.54	1,496.69Kitchen equipment ...,	,1,191.96	624.00Lumber 	,3,150.95	5,218.75Paints 	, .. 2,036.78	1,717.88Building material 	,.. 6,038.12	1,037.69Miscellaneous 	,.. 1,511.02	28,195.33$36,978.07	$51,107.97
The largest deficiency related to the miscellaneous classification. A subsequent investigation revealed the cause to be a deficiency of some 377 circular floor tents. As a result of a special stocktaking these tents were located in ordnance for which they had been purchased.
A clear understanding of how surpluses and deficiencies arise is essential. A considerable number of surpluses and offsetting deficiencies arise out of misidentification of stores, that is to say, where two similar types of stores are on charge, one type is issued but the other is written off charge in the stock record cards. This type of error can be eliminated to a great extent by giving each type of store an item number corresponding to a similar item number on the stock record card.
[Stage Direction]
National Defence-Currie Report Uniform Stores Catalogue
I recommend the compilation of a uniform stores catalogue and the handling of stores in accordance with it as the remedy for this situation. This will alleviate complications now being encountered by stores personnel in attempting to handle stores in accordance with trade names which in many cases vary according to the supplier.
It must not be assumed that irregularities are measured by the difference between the amount of surpluses and the amount of deficiencies. Such a conclusion would only be valid if the accounting system had been operated in a satisfactory manner.
Also, deficiencies can arise by straight pilfering of stores and no corresponding adjustment in stock record cards. Surpluses can arise through materials being returned to stores and, for one reason or another, not being taken on charge. Such stores might represent excessive issues on a given project or materials salvaged from demolitions.
Inventory Counts
Regulations of the army works services require that monthly inventory counts be made in such a manner as to ensure a complete check of stores annually. This has not been done in the past. The importance of adherence to regulations in this respect cannot be stressed too greatly. The reasons are, first, that it will bring to light many irregularities if such are being committed; and, second, periodic stocktaking and analysis of differences arising out of them should result in more accurate accounting for stores and a general speed-up in their handling.
There is one valuable element of internal check not being fully utilized. This is general ledger control over stores. It is recommended that the stores control account in the general ledger be broken down into the several sections corresponding to stores segregation. Then, as a physical count of stores is taken and quantities so obtained priced, the total value of a section of stores can be compared with the total of stock card balances relating to this section. Both amounts can then be compared with the amount reflected by the general ledger control account. Aside from revealing any dabbling with stock record cards, this measure would act as an over-all check on arithmetical accuracy which has been found in a number of locations to be lacking. In this respect the employment of a comptometer operator in large camps would greatly facilitate such operations and lessen the work-load on clerical personnel. Adjustment would have to be made in respect of receipts of stores for which there were no corresponding invoices, due to a time lag
[Stage Direction]
occasioned by suppliers. The handling of receipt and issue vouchers in stores would also have to be slightly different; receipts or issues involving stores from several sections would require separate vouchers for each section. These, however, are minor matters and no particular difficulty should be experienced in this respect.
Stock Control and Surplus Stores
The regulations governing stock control and the handling of surplus stores are well designed and suitable if followed meticulously. To be operated satisfactorily the services of a skilled and experienced technical stores officer are necessary. Lack of adherence to the regulations in regard to surplus stores contributed in large measure to excess inventories and duplications. This aggravated the problems of stocktaking and contributed to wasteful purchasing.
Army works companies do not possess the facilities to "stockpile" stores and equipment. Policy in this respect should be carefully reviewed in order to determine whether or not a more suitable alternative exists. In any event it would certainly seem preferable if such surpluses as already exist were segregated in centralized depots, and work companies thus relieved of this problem.
It is now necessary to refer to the physical handling of stores as distinct from accounting for them. The facilities provided and the methods followed in the handling of stores vary greatly in different companies and localities. Uniform standards for the warehousing of stores, as laid down in the regulations, have not been enforced and applied but this has been due largely, first, to the lack of suitable buildings and the necessary layouts; and, second, to unsuitable and/or untrained personnel.
Inventory teams have been organized within each command to tidy up the conditions of the inventories and the accounting thereof. Their work has been progressing rapidly.

[Stage Direction]
As mentioned earlier, I consider the security measures in force at Petawawa and elsewhere inadequate. It represents the sixth and last of the army works services' major problems. The situation was such that personnel could with relative ease move stores out of camps. The accounting system designed to control stores was not, as I have outlined, operating in such a way as to ensure the detection of resulting shortages. Accordingly, the opportunity was great to steal, or to misuse military stores and equipment. Had security measures been adequate, the

problem would have been confined to those of misuse, inefficiency and waste. A special investigation staff scrutinizing the various areas would have stopped a good deal of misuse and perhaps of waste also. This fact, together with various other findings uncovered during my investigation has led me to a thorough study of security needs at Petawawa and, indeed, at other similar camps throughout Canada.
Provost Personnel
The functions of the provost corps in central command have been as follows:
1.	Apprehension of absentees and deserters
2.	Train patrols
3.	Investigation of break-ins and thefts
4.	Traffic control and escorts for distinguished visitors, parades, etc.
5.	Discipline of troops when away from units
6.	Security checks and patrols on camps and in buildings
The lack of men and the wide area to be covered from Ottawa to Windsor and from Toronto to Sault Ste. Marie has made it impossible to carry out all their duties satisfactorily. Provost corps personnel for the most part have been employed on 1, 2, 4 and 5 above and accordingly 3 and 6 have been neglected. The numbers of personnel now available for duty are entirely inadequate and even if the present establishment were filled it would not provide sufficient supervision.
In January of 1951 the establishment of central command provost company was 38 all ranks. Two officers and 31 men were posted to the company at that time. These
were distributed as follows:
Camp Borden	1 Officer	16 menLondon	3	menToronto	4	menKingston	1 Officer	3 menPetawawa	5	men
In May of 1951 a new establishment was approved authorizing a strength of 4 officers and 79 men. The breakdown of this establishment within the command was as follows: Establishment Posted Strength
Camp Borden	1 officer	13	men	1 officer	9 menLondon	1 "	12	1 "	10 "Toronto	17	13 "Kingston	1 "	14	1 "	5 "Ottawa	8	6 "Petawawa	13	5 "Coy H.Q. Toronto	1 "	2	1 man
4 officers 79 men 3 officers 49 men
The uneven distribution of personnel to detachments was due in part to the present
National Defence-Currie Report policy of posting men returning from Korea to the detachment nearest their homes.
Since the Korean situation arose a new problem has been presented, namely providing security for the vast quantities of valuable and attractive stores which have been accumulated.
After consultation, a proposal for another new establishment was drawn up by the provost corps and submitted to the secretary of the war establishment committee of central command, dated August 14, 1952. A summary of this proposed new establishment is attached as Appendix "C".
Camp Patrols
All provost personnel posted to a camp or area are available to assist the commanding officer in the exercise of his responsibility for the security of that camp or area. A most effective way of improving camp security would be to provide sufficient provost personnel to enable mobile patrols to operate through a camp on a 24-hour basis. They should be thoroughly conversant with camp activities.
Gate Guards
The employment of commissionaires serves a useful purpose in replacing trained military personnel. In camps, corps of commissionaires personnel are often employed at the camp barriers. These men can be quite effective if they are carefully supervised and if a proper checking procedure is set up for them to use at the barrier.
The Guarding of Back Roads in Camps
Camp security cannot be complete as long as back exits remain open without guards or barriers. In large camps such as Petawawa and Borden it is not possible to fence the entire area but much can be done by building suitable gates on back roads and erecting wire or other obstacles to prevent vehicles leaving the roads in the vicinity of the gates. These gates or barriers should also be guarded by the corps of commissionaires.
Relationship of Townsites and Camps
Security can be improved by segregating townsites from the camps proper. At present at Petawawa there is no restriction to the movement of personnel in and out of the camp from the townsite. Fences should be constructed segregating the townsite from camps. Visitors, taxis, tradesmen and so forth entering the townsite would not then have to pass through military gates. Otherwise an easy means of access to camps is available and this should not be so.
728	HOUSE OF
National Defence-Currie Report Use of R.C.M.P. Personnel
It is recommended that a constable of the R.C.M.P be posted for duty in each major camp to represent the civilian authority. In almost every camp there are large numbers of civilians employed and these are in addition to those living in married quarters. It has not been found acceptable or satisfactory for members of the provost corps to take care of situations involving civilians. It is of great importance, however, that there be a clear definition and understanding of the authority of the provost corps, the R.C.M.P. and the provincial and municipal police.
Special Investigation Staff
It is recommended that a special investigation unit be organized as part of the Canadian provost corps for employment in checking up on security measures generally and, in particular, to be available at short notice to carry out special investigations when situations arise such as did at Petawawa. The members of this unit should be trained as experts in making this type of enquiry and in collecting evidence.
It is important that the provost corps be brought in at the early stages of known irregularities or major losses. There has been evidence that this has not been done in all cases.
Burglar Alarm Systems
Burglar alarm systems would not appear appropriate for the engineer compound at Petawawa but there are other locations in the camp where they would be useful, e.g. ordnance stores. Also, medical stores at certain locations would appear to warrant installation of such systems.
Gate Passes
All military stores and equipment being moved out of the camp area should be accompanied by a document of identification authorizing the removal thereof. This document will be collected by the guard at the gate for subsequent scrutiny by the provost corps.
Provision should be made for the examination of all civilian vehicles leaving the camp to ensure that government property is not being removed.
Use of Police Radio Equipment
Modem two-way police radio equipment has been in operation in the Toronto detachment of central command provost company for a number of months. This equipment has proved very useful and has done much to overcome the shortage of personnel. Similar equipment should be made available to all
[Stage Direction]
the larger provost detachments. In most cases it is preferable for equipment to be tied in on the civil police net.
The present practice of posting provost personnel to units would appear to be inadvisable since supervision and control over such personnel by provost corps is to a large extent lost. In view of the difficulties in acquiring sufficient personnel for the functions outlined above, it would appear more appropriate to use these personnel to fill the establishment.


[Stage Direction]
My report, I fully recognize, contains many discouraging features. The over-all situation is, however, by no means discouraging because of the fact that the cure for what has gone wrong in the past can be and, in fact, is being applied.
As an example of what can be and actually has been done to remedy conditions quickly, it is interesting to follow the action which was taken at Halifax immediately following my inspection early in September. I reported verbally to national defence headquarters that conditions at Halifax were not satisfactory. As had been found at other establishments, stores, accounting and administrative procedures had broken down seriously. Senior officers were immediately dispatched from Ottawa to look into the situation. They took remedial action at once. Certain key personnel were replaced; others were put on notice; temporary stores and clerical staff together with a labour force were engaged to clean up the situation and bring the accounting records up-to-date.
In November, I was invited to return to Halifax to examine the results of the vigorous action which had been taken. I found that remarkable changes had been made. The company had been completely re-organized. The stores had been re-catalogued and rearranged. Accounting records and stores procedure had been revised and corrected. As a result of what had been done the unit had been placed in a position to function properly and to carry on with normal efficiency.
In conclusion, I am giving you hereunder my recommendations covering the operations of the army works services. Some of these have been already explained; others of a more technical character will be self-explanatory.
RECOMMENDATIONS Organization and Control
1. The new organization set up for the service at army headquarters should be filled

as quickly as possible and selection of personnel for key posts should reflect the paramount importance of its managerial function.
2.	Creation of a staff agency is needed at army headquarters to supervise the enforcement of established policies; to control organization; costs; methods and man-power and over-all performance. Publication and inspection divisions of the organization should be under its direct control.
3.	Creation of administration service teams in the inspection division is required.
4.	Effective action on the reports of the chief auditor is essential.
5.	More frequent inspections and audits are necessary.
6.	Evidence of wasteful and unauthorized expenditures should be promptly and thoroughly investigated and sanctions applied against offending personnel as warranted.
7.	Top personnel must free themselves of as much detail as possible to supervise more effectively the enforcement of established policies. They should lay greater stress on their administrative functions and ensure by personal visits to lower echelons that prompt action is taken to rectify unsatisfactory conditions.
8.	Periodic meetings of officers commanding works companies and detachments should be held at command headquarters.
9.	Basic principles of management must be adhered to by all officers commanding works companies and detachments.
10.	Each works company or large detachment requires the following key civilian personnel:
(a)	An administrative officer
(b)	A chief foreman of works
(c)	A technical stores officer
(d)	A skilled chief estimator.
Personnel
11.	The establishments and wage scales of the army works services have been neither realistic nor adequate, and need revision.
12.	Manuals of organization and operation should be revised and co-ordinated with training programs.
13.	Selection and development of one company along the lines of a "pilot plant" is desirable. Officers and other ranks could be temporarily posted to it for training.
14.	Posting of military personnel for longer periods is needed so that they will have sufficient time to attain efficiency in their jobs.
15.	The circumstances under which military personnel may accept outside temporary employment require precise definition.
National Defence-Currie Report
16.	All payments owing to the crown must be made to the receiver general. All ranks should be prohibited from accepting either cash or cheques or money orders made payable to themselves or to their office.
Accounting
17.	The quality of cost estimating needs improvement to make the system effective.
18.	Emphasis is required on the need for accurate distribution of costs. Otherwise data become meaningless and control over unauthorized expenditures difficult.
19.	Work order forms and related procedures require revision.
20.	A system of work approvals incorporating tentative or preliminary estimates should be installed.
21.	Rigid enforcement of the procedures covering approval of projects is needed. Disciplinary action should follow where deliberate intent to circumvent regulations is evident.
22.	The existing regulations relating to the approval of projects require modification to provide more delegation of authority with respect to minor new construction projects.
23.	Rental of equipment to civilians requires control, and rates and procedure defined.
24.	Real property records must be brought up-to-date as quickly as possible as these records are fundamental to the effective use of the accounting system.
Stores
25.	A uniform stores catalogue is highly desirable.
26.	Monthly inventory counts, as required by regulations, must not be neglected.
27.	Suitable stores controlling accounts should be incorporated into the general ledger.
28.	Stockpiled and surplus stores should be taken away from work companies and detachments and administered separately.
29.	Rigid control, in accordance with regulations, is required of all loans of stores to military personnel and employed civilians.
30.	Prohibition of loans of materials, stores and equipment to civilain contractors is desirable.
31.	Orders with respect to the return of materials to stores require clarification. The importance of these must be emphasized to personnel.
32.	Strict control of the handling of scrap is needed.
33.	Materials of necessity left in the open should be protected and secured.
730	HOUSE OF
National Defence-Currie Report Security
34.	Added strength of -provost establishments is required.
35.	Increased camp patrols are desirable.
36.	The corps of commissionaires should continue to be employed on gate duties but with more adequate supervision.
37.	Barriers or gates on back roads in camps are needed.
38.	Townsites should be segregated from camps proper.
39.	An R.C.M.P. constable should be stationed in camps.
40.	A special investigation staff working under the provost marshal (army) is required.
[Stage Direction]
41.	Burglar alarm systems should be installed in larger warehouses where valuable and attractive stores are kept.
42.	Suitable forms of gate passes deserve study.
43.	Modern radio equipment would help the provost corps.
44.	The provost corps should be brought in at the early stages of investigation into irregularities or major losses so that complete evidence will be obtained for the purposes of courts of enquiry and prosecution.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
(Signed) G. S. Currie.
25 WORKS COMPANY RCE
(Formerly Petawawa Detachment)

[Stage Direction]
Administration
*OC, Major
(1) 1
21C, Captain
(1) 1
Stenographer (Civ.)	 (1) 1
Fire Protection
Works
Transport
'Administration Officer (Civ.)...	(0) 1	*Fire Captain (Civ.)	a)	1	""Lieutenant.Engineer Accountant WO 1	(0) 1	Fire Lieutenant (Civ.)..	. a)	1	*MFW	Firefighters (Civ.)	. 06)	18	(1)	1 Driver (Wh) Cpl....Driver (Wh) Spr	(0)	1 Driver Mech. Spr________Fitter RCE, Spr	
Mechanic RCE, Cpl. Mechanic RCE, Spr. Operator SEE, Spr. . Veh Mech. (Wh) Spr
Clerk (Civ.)	
Driver (Civ.)	
Motor Mech. (Civ.). Operator Hvy Eqpt.
(0) 1 (2) 2 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1
(0)	3 (2) 2
(1)	0
(0) 1 (0) 12 (0)	4
(0) 2
o
[Stage Direction]
w
pi
w
* Key Personnel.
() Old Establishment.
co
National Defence-Currie Report
[Stage Direction]
to
SCHEDULE "A" (Cont'd)
25 WORKS COMPANY RCE (Formerly Petawawa Detachment)

[Stage Direction]
Administration and Files
Finance
Stores
Clerk Adra, Sgt	(0)	IClerk Adm, Cpl	(0)	1Cook (RCASC), Pte (1)	1Clerk (Civ.)	(0)	1Clerk W/T (Civ.)	(0)	2Typist (Civ.)	(1) 0'Engineer Accountant WO 2	(0) 1Clerk (Civ.)	(0) 1
'Technical Officer (Civ.) Clerk (Civ.)
Labourer (Civ.)
Packer & Help (Civ.) Storeman (Civ.)
Engr Acct (Sgt)
Engr Acct (Cpl)
Engr Acct (Spr)
(0) 1 (0) 5 (0) 2
(0)	5
(1)	8 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0
Purchase
Clerk (Civ.)	(1)
* Key Personnel ( ) Old Establishment
Clerk (Civ.)	Finance	(1) 2	C03T 'Engineer Accountant S/Sgt (1)
			Clerk (Civ.) (0)
[Stage Direction]


o
o
3
o
2!
[Stage Direction]
National Defence-Currie Report
SCHEDULE "A" (Cont'd'
25 WORKS COMPANY RCE (Formerly Petawawa Detachment)

[Stage Direction]
PMQs
Maintenance
Projects
Design
Utilities and Plant
Clerk of Works (Civ.).	. (0)	1	MFW WO 2	..(1)	l	MFW WO 2... (0)	1	Draftsman (A&E) Sgt..(0)	1Carpenter (Civ.)	.(0)	2	MFW Sgt	.'.(I)	2	MFW S/Sgt. .(0)	1	Draftsman (A&E) Cpl... (1)	2Electrician (Civ.)	.(0)	1	Bricklayer, Spr	..(1)	1	Clerk (Civ.).. (0)	1	Tech. Offr (Civ.)	(1)	iElec. Helper (Civ.)...	[DOT] (0)	2	Carpenter, Spr	..(2)	2	Clerk (Civ.).. (0)	1	Clerk (Civ.)	(0)	iPlumber (Civ.)	. (0)	2	Electrician, Spr	..(1)	1	Painter, Spr	..(1)	1	Plumber, Spr	..(1)	1	Sheet Metal Wkr, Spr	..(1)	1	Blacksmith (Civ.)	..(1)	0	Bricklayer (Civ.)	1	Carpenter (Civ.)	..(2)	8	Carpenter Help (Civ.)	..(())	2	Carp Foreman (Civ.)	..(1)	1	Clerk (Civ.)	..«*	1	Electrician (Civ.)	,.<D	5	Elec. Helper (Civ.)	..(0)	2	Elec. Foreman (Civ.)	..(1)	i	Labourer (Civ.)	10	Labourer Foreman	..(1)	1	Painter (Civ.)	.. (3)	5	Painter Foreman	..(0)	1	Plumber (Civ.)	..m	2	Plumber Help (Civ.)	..in)	1	Plumber Foreman	,.(i)	1	Sheet Metal Wkr (Civ.)	..(01	2	Sheet Metal Wkr Help (Civ.).	..(0)	1	Welder (Civ.)	..(0)	1	Technician (Civ.)..(0)	2Caretaker (Civ.)...(1)	2Cleaner & Help	(0)	2Fireman (Civ.)....(84)	0Fireman Labrs	(0)	84Groundsman (Civ.)... (0)	1Stat. Engr (Civ.)..(8)	SWatchmen	(10)	8
s
w
( ) Old Establishment.
[Stage Direction]
co
[Stage Direction]
National Defence-Currie Report
LOCATION 1951 1 Works Company London	 1950	2 " " Toronto	 1951	2 " " Borden	 1950	3 " " Picton	 1951	3 " " Petawawa	 1951	3 " " Kingston	 1952	3 " " Ottawa	 1950 4 " " Montreal	 1952 4 " " Montreal	 1950	5 " " Quebec	 1951	6 " " Halifax	 1951 7 " " Fredericton	 1951 10 " " Winnipeg	 1951 10 " " Shilo	 1950	11 " " Victoria	 1951	11 " " Victoria	 1950	11 " " Chilliwack	 1952	11 " " Chilliwack	 1951	11 " " Vancouver	 1952	11 " " Vancouver	 1952 12 " " Regina	 1951	13 " " Edmonton	 1952	13 " " Calgary		IRREGULARITY
XX X XXX	Materials obtained and/or work started prior to authorization of project.
XX X X XXX	Materials purchased prior to receipt of an A of T form D.D.P. or the raising of an L.P.O.
XX X XX	Requisitions on D.D.P. and/or L.P.O's split to keep within financial limits.
rSrSrS rSrSrvr^ nn n	Accumulations of materials from completed works and/or materials removed from buildings not B.O.C. in stock records.
XX XX X X XXX	Installed fixture cards set up without reference to or adjustment with former records.
UUU kX V kX kX kX k/l	Non-expendable stores issued to buildings without recording on installed fixture cards.
k>
U k>
kJ uuu kxkJ k>kx k*i >*< rsrSrS XN n K*N XN	Unauthorized issues of stores and materials.
X X X X X X	Installed equipment removed from buildings and/or location changed without amendment to installed equipment card.
u uu kjkjkjkj kx 1 Failure to carry out stocktaking as Ps>*i P<iPn1 required by the instructions.	
kj \ Adjustment of discrepancies made ^ | without reference to higher authority.	
X X X X X X	Req's and/or work orders not signed as approved.
XXXXX X X XX XX	Requisitions and work orders not completed in detail as to estimated and/or actual costs.
XXX X XXXX XX XXX	Estimated costs exceeded without review.
XX X XXX	Cost of labour and/or materials charged against approved W/O's not used on other jobs.
X X X X	A.P's approved in excess of authority or split to come within financial limits.
XXXX XXXX X	Real property records incomplete or not current.
X X XX X	Cost records not balanced or cost reports not made and submitted.
X X X X	Cost records not up to date or sufficiently advanced to be checked or have been allowed to lapse.
X X X X X	Shortage of staff claimed by unit.
X X X X X X X	Tradesmen and labourers doing accounting or stores work.
o
t-1
>
co
[Stage Direction]
d
>
a>
wE!
gx
h5
►H
2§
[Stage Direction]
gW
£3
[Stage Direction]
Hm
[Stage Direction]


za
ox
[Stage Direction]
fcd
[Stage Direction]

>
d
o
[Stage Direction]

>
d
d
[Stage Direction]

tt
^JOtJajJ 3UJ,nQ

33U3f3Q lVUOpV^[
sxonwoo jo asnoH
m

[Stage Direction]
Company H.Q.	Toronto	Camp Borden	Kingston	Petawawa	London	Ottawa	Sudbury	Hamilton	Windsor	Total	Ranks	A	B	A	B	A	B	A	B	A	B	A	B	A	B	A	B	A	B	A	B	A	BCaptain	1	1	1	1Lieutenant	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	3	4Warrant	Officer I	-	1	1Warrant	Officer II	1	1	Staff Sergeant...	-	1	-	1	-	1	-	1	-	1	1	1	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	7Sergeant (SP)...	-	-	2	2	1	3	1	2	2	3	1	2	1	2	-	1	-	1	-	1	8	17Corporal (SP)...	-	-	3	3	3	4	3	4	2	4	3	3	2	2	-	2	-	2	-	2	16	26Private (SP)....	11	15	8	22	9	18	9	22	7	10	5	10	-	6	-	6	-	6	49	115Sergeant	i(Clerk)	-	1	Corporal	1	1	i	1	1	(Clerk)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3Private	(Clerk)	-	-	1	-	-	i	-	-	-	i	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	2Corporal	(RCEME)	1	1	1	1Craftsman	(RCEME)....	-	-	-	-	-	-	i	i	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1Total	3	6	17	21	14	32	15	28	13	32	13	18	8	15	9	9	9	83	179
a
[Stage Direction]
o
[Stage Direction]
s
w
[Stage Direction]
sa
Note: A-Present B-Proposed
[Stage Direction]
cn
National Defence-Currie Report
[Stage Direction]
Form of Royal Titles


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, December 12, 1952
The prime ministers and other representatives of commonwealth countries assembled in London for the commonwealth economic *conference have considered the form of the royal titles.
They recognized that the present titles are not in accord with current constitutional relations within the commonwealth, and that there is need for a new form of title which will, in particular, reflect the special position of the sovereign as head of the commonwealth. They concluded, after full consideration, that in the present stage of development of the commonwealth relationship, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position that each member country should use for its own purposes a form of title which suits its own particular circumstances but retains a substantial element which is common to all. They agreed that the various forms of the titles should, in addition to an appropriate territorial designation, have as their common element the description of the sovereign as queen of her other realms and territories and head of the commonwealth.
The representatives of all the commonwealth countries concerned have agreed to take, at the earliest convenient opportunity, such action as is necessary in each country to secure the appropriate constitutional approval for the changes now envisaged. Her Majesty will then be advised to exercise her prerogative power by the issue of proclamations giving effect to such changes in the title as may be recommended. It is contemplated that the proclamations will be
issued simultaneously in all the countries concerned.
The form of titles that will be recommended for use in Canada is:
"Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."
The titles to be recommended in the various countries of the commonwealth are as follows:
United Kingdom-Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
Canada-Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
Australia-Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
New Zealand-Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
South Africa-Elizabeth the Second, Queen of South Africa and of her other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
Pakistan-Elizabeth the Second, Queen of *the United Kingdom and of her other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
Ceylon-Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Ceylon and of her other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

Commonwealth Conference


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, December 15, 1952
Following is the text of the communique issued at the end of the commonwealth economic conference:
The commonwealth economic conference which ended today was convened with the aim of concerting measures for increasing the economic strength of the commonwealth countries, including the colonial territories and creating conditions in which their peoples can play their part in securing prosperity and contentment for themselves and for the world.
2.	In recent years the sterling area has been faced with recurrent economic crises which have forced its members to take emergency measures of trade and exchange restriction. These measures were necessary but they have inevitably tended to frustrate the long-term economic expansion on which our hopes and opportunities for the future are founded. This was recognized at the January meeting of commonwealth finance ministers. The measures taken in accordance with the conclusions of that meeting have, however, enabled the present conference to decide that a more positive policy can now be adopted both by the commonwealth countries themselves, and in concert with other friendly countries, to promote the expansion of world production and trade.
3.	The conference agreed that commonwealth countries would work together to achieve certain broad common objectives. They have no intention of seeking the crea-tion'of a discriminatory economic bloc rather their object is by strengthening themselves to benefit the world economy generally. Accordingly, the following principles were agreed upon as governing the approach to the whole range of subjects under discussion:
(a)	internal economic policies designed to curb inflation and rises in the cost of living should be steadily followed;
(b)	sound economic development should be encouraged with the object of increasing productive strength and competitive power, providing employment and raising the standards of life;
(c)	a multilateral trade and payment system should be extended over the widest possible area.
4.	The application of these principles will require individual action by commonwealth
governments, co-operation among them and international action with other trading nations and existing international organizations.

[Stage Direction]
5.	All commonwealth governments have agreed to persevere in their efforts to curb inflation. Inflationary conditions frustrate the progress of sound development both by increasing its cost and by destroying the savings necessary to finance it; moreover they damage the external balance by stimulating excessive imports and by diverting to internal use goods which would otherwise be available for export.
6.	An adequate and stable external balance must be a first objective for all governments. Failure to achieve this means repeated crises, a continuously rising cost of living, a constant threat to employment and failure to develop resources effectively. The conference welcomed the improvement which had taken place in the balance of payments, both of the individual sterling area countries and of the sterling area as a whole, following upon the conclusions reached by commonwealth finance ministers at their meeting in January 1952. It noted with satisfaction that the sterling area would achieve balance with the rest of the world in the second half of this year. It was agreed, however, that this achievement, while reassuring, was only the first step towards a stable balance for the sterling area. Policies were agreed upon for 1953 which, it is hoped, will lead to further improvement in the reserves during that year. Nevertheless, while there has been steady improvement, the level of the reserves is as yet too low to warrant any substantial relaxation of the restrictions on imports from outside the sterling area.
7.	The conference considered the extensive restrictions which some countries of the sterling commonwealth have needed to impose upon imports from the United Kingdom and other commonwealth sources. There was agreement that restrictions imposed because of balance of payments problems should be relaxed as the external financial position of countries improved. In considering the whole problem the governments concerned would have clearly in mind the difficulties which the restrictions have raised for the export industries affected.
8.	The economic and social objectives of the commonwealth countries, individually and in association, depend upon their ability to
738	HOUSE OF
Commonwealth Conference produce and supply under competitive conditions an expanding flow of exports. There was, therefore, general agreement in the conference on the vital need to expand the earning power of all sterling countries.

[Stage Direction]
9.	Throughout the commonwealth there is wide scope for expanding the production of the essential supplies which the whole world needs-food and agricultural products, minerals and engineering products, and improving the means for transporting them. This development of the basic essentials has on occasion been impeded by other development of a less sound and permanent kind which has overtaxed the countries' resources and has failed to contribute to the building of economic strength. The conference agreed that, in sterling area countries, development should be concentrated on projects which directly or indirectly contribute to the improvement of the areas' balance of payments with the rest of the world. Such projects should strengthen the economy of the countries concerned and increase their competitive power in world markets and so, by improving their balance of payments, bring increasing prosperity to their peoples. In some countries of the area, however, development plans have been, or are being, made to provide for some basic improvement in the standards of living which is a necessary foundation for further economic development. Some social investment is also urgently needed in the more developed countries certain of which have rapidly increasing populations. The conference recognized the need in such cases for these types of investment.
10.	To enable development to go forward a sufficient flow of savings must be provided in the countries undertaking the development and also in other countries which are ready to invest their savings there. The amount of savings which will be available from external sources will, at best, be small in relation to the size of the development programs of countries of the sterling commonwealth and it is therefore essential that these countries should, themselves, adopt policies which increase the flow of savings. Although this is inevitably a slow process for countries with low incomes and little margin above the basic needs for existence, the process of development will, itself, increase income and increase the flow of savings.
11.	The United Kingdom is the traditional source of external capital for commonwealth investment and has special responsibilities in the colonial territories. The United Kingdom government are determined that the flow of capital from London for sound develop-
[Stage Direction]
ment throughout the commonwealth shall be maintained and increased. This will only be possible if the United Kingdom can sustain the necessary level of internal savings and can achieve a surplus on overseas account additional to that required to meet its heavy existing commitments.
12.	The United Kingdom government have, however, undertaken to make a special effort to provide additional capital for commonwealth development by facilitating the financing of schemes in other commonwealth countries which will contribute to the improvement of the sterling areas' balance payments. The conference took note that the United Kingdom government would wish, before making any of this additional finance available for commonwealth development, to be sure that the country concerned was, itself, devoting an adequate part of its resources to investment designed to improve the sterling areas' balance of payments and was ready to make a sufficient contribution towards the particular scheme in question to ensure that both countries had an interest in seeing that it was carried through as efficiently and economically as possible.
13.	The conference welcomed the proposal by a group of important financial, industrial and commercial concerns in the United Kingdom to form a company to further development in other countries of the commonwealth and the colonial empire. It was pleased to note that an announcement by this group is being issued today. The conference also welcome a statement by the United Kingdom representatives that the United Kingdom government intend to discuss with the international bank for reconstruction and development arrangements to give effect to their decision to make sterling available for lending by the bank for projects designed to improve the sterling area's balance of payments. t
14.	The conference recognized the important contribution which investors outside the sterling area, particularly in the United States, can make to economic development in the sterling area and agreed that every effort should be made to create conditions which would encourage such investment. It further agreed that all sterling area governments should strive to attain this by reducing such obstacles as controls over the movements of capital across the exchanges. The United Kingdom government have reviewed the right which is now enjoyed by residents outside the sterling area, who have invested capital in approved projects in the United Kingdom and colonial empire since 1st January, 1950, to transfer their capital across the exchanges. At present this right only extends

to the sterling equivalent of the initial investment. The United Kingdom government informed the conference that they have decided that, henceforth, it shall extend also to capital profits.

[Stage Direction]
15.	The conference recognized that there was no one universal remedy for the problem of instability of prices for primary commodities. Each commodity must be considered on its merits in the light of the conditions prevailing at the time and the circumstances must determine what form of arrangements would be appropriate. The conference agreed that violent fluctuations and an uneconomic level of prices for primary commodities were against the interests of consumers as well as producers. All commonwealth governments are, therefore, ready to co-operate in considering commodity by commodity international schemes designed to ensure stability of demand and prices at an economic level. They also recognize the need for an agreed procedure for calling together the governments concerned to consider emergency action in the event of rapidly developing conditions of surplus or shortage of commodities entering into international trade.

[Stage Direction]
16.	There was general recognition at the conference of the value of existing preferences. On the initiative of the United Kingdom a discussion took place on a proposal that all commonwealth countries should join in seeking release from the "no new preference" rule in the general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) and this United Kingdom proposal was supported by the representatives of some countries. The representatives of other countries felt that such an approach would not advance the agreed objective of restoring multilateral world trade and the conference was, therefore, unable to support it. All commonwealth governments agreed, however, to co-operate with the United Kingdom government in an approach to the other contracting parties to the GATT to meet particular difficulties arising on the United Kingdom tariff. The object would be to enable the United Kingdom, consistently with the basic provisions of the GATT, to continue the duty free entry of commonwealth goods notwithstanding any increases that might from time to time become necessary in duties designed to protect domestic industry and agriculture in the United Kingdom. The commonwealth governments also agreed to consider sympathetically certain special tariff problems affecting the colonies.
68108-47£
Commonwealth Conference

[Stage Direction]
17.	Resolute action, in accordance with the conclusions recorded above will, in itself, do much to strengthen the economies of the sterling commonwealth countries but this is not enough. Action in a wider sphere is also necessary. The conference therefore agreed to seek the co-operation of other countries in a plan to create the conditions for expanding world production and trade. The aim is to secure international agreement on the adoption of policies by creditor and debtor countries which will restore balance in the world economy on the lines of "trade not aid" and. will, by progressive stages and within reasonable time, create and effective multilateral trade and payments system covering the widest possible area.
[Stage Direction]
18.	The plan envisages positive international action, for the progressive removal, as circumstances permit, of import restrictions imposed for the purpose of bringing a country's external accounts into balance. Action will be required by both creditor and debtor countries. The rate of progress in removing discrimination will depend upon the advance towards equilibrium between the United States and the rest of the world.
19.	The sterling commonwealth countries will not all be able to remove restrictions at the same time. In particular, the representatives of some countries have emphasized that they must continue to use their exchange resources in the manner which enables them to carry out their planned development programs most effectively and that they are likely to continue to need import restrictions for this purpose.

[Stage Direction]
20.	The conference agreed that it is important, not only for the United Kingdom and the sterling area but also for the world, that sterling should resume its full role as a medium of world trade and exchange. An integral part of any effective multilateral system is the restoration of the convertibility of sterling but it can only be reached by progressive stages. The achievement of convertibility will depend fundamentally upon three conditions:
(a)	the continuing success of the action by sterling commonwealth countries themselves as outlined above;
(b)	the prospect that trading nations will adopt trade policies which are conducive to the expansion of world trade;
(c)	the availability of adequate financial support through the international monetary fund or otherwise.
[Stage Direction]
Commonwealth Conference

[Stage Direction]
21.	It is proposed to seek acceptance of this plan by the governments of the United States and of European countries whose cooperation is essential and to work, as far as possible, through existing international institutions dealing with finance and trade.
22.	The timing of the successive stages of this plan cannot be decided at present. This can only be judged as the necessary conditions are satisfactorily fulfilled.

[Stage Direction]
23.	The conference is happy to be able to present this account of the confident under-
[Stage Direction]
standing which exists between members of the commonwealth and the wide measure of agreement which they have been able to achieve over the whole range of economic policy. The aims of their co-operation are entirely consistent with their close ties with the United States and the members of the organization for European economic cooperation. The commonwealth countries look outward to similar co-operation with other countries, not inward to a closed association. It is their common purpose, by their own efforts and together with others, to increase world trade for the mutual benefit of all peoples.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 16, 1952