1952-03-13

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Before motions are proceeded with, Mr. Speaker, there was a question on the order paper yesterday which I was unable to answer. It is question No. 2 today. I think it would be important in the public interest that the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton) should have the answer to that question. I ask the consent of the house to table it now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question is:
1.	Is vesicular stomatitis a reportable disease under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act?
2.	Did Saskatchewan officials of the health of animals branch put the farm of Leonard Waas, McLean, Saskatchewan, under any form of isolation or quarantine? If so, on what date?
3.	Were there any test animals injected in the Regina area? If so, what animals were used?
4.	If horses were used, were there any positive reactions? If so, on what date, and to whom was it reported?
5.	Did any officers of the health of animals branch in Saskatchewan refuse to accept specimens of infected material from private veterinarians? If so, on what date, and for what reason?
6.	Have any suspicious clinical symptoms been reported by health of animals branch inspectors at either of the Regina abattoirs? If so, what was the report, and on what date was it received?
The answer is as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Yes. The federal health of animals branch at Regina put the Waas farm under quarantine on December 3, 1951.
3.	Yes:	2 horses on December 3, 1951; 2 cattle,
2 swine, February 18, 1952; 2 horses, 1 steer, February 24, 1952.
4.	Yes. In the case of December 3 test, positive to vesicular stomatitis indicating that the disease was not foot-and-mouth.
In the case of February 24 test, negative to stomatitis indicating the possibility of foot-and-mouth disease. Reported to Ottawa.
5.	Not to the knowledge of either the Regina or Ottawa offices of health of animals division.
6.	Yes. On December 31, 1951, stomatitis was reported in Burns abattoir, Regina.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Jean Lesage (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: On behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I table herewith copies, in English and in French, of the report on Canada's activities in connection with the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations during 1951.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs able to give the house the result of his investigation into the question I raised a week ago today, with regard to Canadians who were held at the Buffalo airport surrounded by a cordon of police?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: A report on that matter came in yesterday afternoon, and I hope to be able to make a statement on it tomorrow.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I ask
the Minister of National Defence whether any British-made Centurion tanks have been acquired by Canada, and, if so, how many have reached this country by now?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: We have been trying to get all the Centurions we can, and so far have received enough to meet the requirements of the 27th brigade in Germany. In addition we have received a limited number, five, for training purposes in Canada. More are expected.


Mr. Harkness:: Are these Centurion tanks that are coming to Canada to be used entirely for training purposes, or, as reported, are they also to be used as models for their production in Canada?
382	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the, Ministry


Brooke Claxton: No. No consideration is at present being given to the production of tanks in Canada.



PROCUREMENT OP WEAPONS BY CIVILIANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direot a question to the Minister of National Defence. Are this morning's press reports true that the submachine gun used by Jackson, the bank robber, was stolen from the defence forces? Has he checked into that matter? What steps are taken to see that guns of that kind are not used for that purpose?


Brooke Claxton: I had not heard of this before the hon. member brought it to my attention. I have seen pictures of the guns, and they do not look like military types. Of course, a careful check is made of military types, but a large number were disposed of by War Assets subsequent to the war.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When War Assets sold those guns, they were not sold to individuals, were they?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How would they get into the hands of individuals?



EMPLOYMENT OF CIVILIANS AT AIRPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Will the Minister of National Defence make a statement with respect to the employment of civilians at the permanent air stations across Canada?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member's question does not give me sufficient indication of the kind of statement he wants. I have not heard of anything of any such employment as he refers to.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I understand that this morning the Minister of Resources and Development made an announcement of a new subsidized housing project for the city of St. John's. Would the minister indicate the location, and any other details he has available?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: As I recall them, Mr. Speaker, the details are that the
[Mr. Harkness.l

project is for 152 units under section 35 of the National Housing Act, under which the federal government pays seventy-five per cent of the costs of construction and operation, and the provincial government pays the remaining twenty-five per cent. The development is taking place on land which was already assembled under the same section of the act by the two participating parties.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What is the location?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not have the precise location before me at the moment, but I can give it to the hon. member.



FAILURE OF BUILDERS TO COMPLY WITH STANDARDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworfhy (York South):: Has
the government or the Minister of Resources and Development received protests from individuals or groups of purchasers of houses built under the terms of the National Housing Act, to the effect that builders are failing to comply with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation building standards? If so, what action is being taken?


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Monette) brought to my attention one alleged instance in which it was said that the houses did not conform to the specifications laid down by the National Housing Act. I should make it clear that, as in other cases, the purchaser of a house has a responsibility to satisfy himself that the house meets the specifications, and, as I recall, in all these instances the purchasers did satisfy themselves in that respect. Any recourse, therefore, must be to the contractor.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. E. W. George for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fair, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Bryce.
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: In the few
minutes I have at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I can only summarize briefly the serious circumstances under which some of our fishermen are endeavouring to survive. I should like to suggest to the house a course which I believe this government should follow in order to relieve the situation and at the same time demonstrate a policy of equality to all primary producers.

At this point I again wish to make one or two comparisons. The first item I have noted is the $65 million payment that was made to the wheat producers of western Canada. During the past few years the province of New Brunswick has made great progress in the way of better roads, better schools, social services and the like. This has greatly increased our public debt. The amount of $65 million would pay nearly two-thirds of the provincial debt of New Brunswick. For comparison again, I may say that the subsidy payment made by the federal government to the province of New Brunswick under the tax agreement would be about one-fifth of the amount I have mentioned. In other words, the $65 million payment that was made to the wheat producers would be five times the annual amount which is paid to the province of New Brunswick under this subsidy agreement. I point this out to indicate that enormous amounts of money have been used for one purpose, namely, to assist the agriculture industry.
In reply to a question asked by the member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk) on Tuesday last, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) stated that Newfoundland was the only province from which provincial representations had been made for assistance in connection with the disastrous storms we have had during the past winter. The statement may have been meant to indicate that when assistance is required the federal department usually works through the provincial governments. On the last page of a publication entitled "Agricultural Assistance", I notice the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) speaks of assistance given to the berry industry in British Columbia. The last paragraph reads as follows:
They came to the government-
That is, the British Columbia berry producers.
-and asked us to guarantee their accounts at the bank to an extent which would permit them to get fertilizer-


Mr. Cruickshank:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, much as I disagree with the hon. member, I should like to have a little order so that I can hear him. He does not know what he is talking about, but I should like to hear him.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: For the benefit of the hon. member, I shall repeat what I said.
They came to the government and asked us to guarantee their accounts at the bank to an extent which would permit them to get fertilizer, which is the same thing the apple growers were concerned with; then to get baskets or boxes in which the berries are placed when picked, and then to secure barrels in which the berries would be finally placed to be shipped. They said that unless they could
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart get this advance, under the conditions then existing they would not be in a position to deal with the situtation which would develop. So we gave them that guarantee.
There is no suggestion there that any cabinet minister from the government of British Columbia approached the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa. There is little doubt in my mind that some of the details may have been ironed out afterwards by provincial and federal representatives. I make this point to indicate again that in case of an emergency some people can get assistance within a very short time, while it would seem to take others a considerable length of time.
Another point I should like to make is that the Minister of Fisheries has stated that a representative of the government of Newfoundland will be in Ottawa to discuss the problem of storm damage. I fail to understand why with seven federal members from Newfoundland, it is necessary for provincial representatives to come to Ottawa to place these facts before the department. I can only speak for myself, and I am not patting myself on the back, but I feel I am as well qualified to state the facts as they really exist as any provincial member in my county. The members of the provincial legislatures have problems of their own, and the members of provincial cabinets are also busy men. I must say that I fail to understand why it is necessary for provincial representatives to appear in Ottawa to place these facts before the department concerned.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Will the member wait until I finish?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A question cannot be asked except when a member yields the floor.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: As I stated in my remarks last night, certain branches of the fishing industry are today greatly in need of financial assistance. I am not suggesting an outright gift by the government such as has been applied in many other instances, except in cases of an extreme nature. I do strongly suggest, however, that long-term loans be made available to those engaged in the fishing industry at moderate rates of interest, and with as little red tape and inconvenience as possible. This I believe to be a reasonable request under the circumstances I have outlined-and I might add that the circumstances have not been in any way exaggerated.
I trust that the government and the cabinet will investigate this matter that I have brought to their attention, because in the county from which I come the situation is

The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart extremely serious. There are hundreds of fishermen there this spring who were unable to make a living last year; in fact, there are hundreds of them who went into debt. After a very stormy winter, with their credit exhausted, it will be utterly impossible for them to build their structures this year in order to carry on the fishing industry. Without financial assistance of some kind, many of these men will be obliged to leave their homes, which they have built "the hard way" over the years, and to seek employment in some other part of Canada. It will be utterly impossible for them to carry on with conditions as they are at the present time.
I have just this remark to make in closing. Going back through ancient history, I find that nearly two thousand years ago the humble fishermen were the chosen people. I regret that I must acknowledge, however, that in Canada, at the present time at least, they have failed to maintain that enviable status.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member consent?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Having regard to what he said as reported at page 378 of Hansard, in his attack on agriculture, may I ask him in what province they fish for twelve months out of the year?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I shall be pleased to answer that question. The question that the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) asked me was, I suppose, in connection with the importation of edible oils.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, no.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: What was it?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Perhaps I had better quote what the hon. member said.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Quote it, if you
please.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member has probably forgotten what he was attempting to say, incorrectly. This is what he said:
I did not go out on the water for six or eight months, and then take my family south for the winter.
This is at page 378 of Hansard of yesterday. Then a few lines farther down he said:
I was on the water twelve months of the year . . .
I should like to know in what county or province they fish 365 days out of the year.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is a simple question to answer, and I am pleased that the hon. member brought this matter to my attention. In the county that I represent,


fishermen are fishermen; they are not farmer fishermen. They are fishermen and they go on the water, in various branches of the industry, twelve months of the year. During this past winter, when the weather has been terribly blowy and cold, and they have had extremely severe weather conditions to face, they have produced thousands and thousands of hogsheads of sardines.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Would you like to know the amount in dollars?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Well, I do not have that figure.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I can tell you.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: No; I do not believe you can, because I do not believe they have any records yet of the catch of sardines down in that county.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: In that county we produce fishermen, and they continue producing for twelve months of the year.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. member a question? He suggested that as a result of the storm damage the government of Newfoundland proposed to send a minister to Ottawa, and he wondered why that was being done-I presume in view of their having five Liberal members here, including a cabinet minister. Is that the suggestion?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, my suggestion was that if the same problem had occurred in connection with the Department of Agriculture, I do not believe it would be necessary for provincial representatives to come here in order to get assistance. With seven members here from Newfoundland I would feel quite sure that they would be in a position to place the facts before the interested department just as well as could any provincial representative that might come from Newfoundland. That is exactly what I meant.


Gordon Francis Higgins: No liaison.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just an attack upon the farmer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to apologize to the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) for my attempt to intervene in his interesting speech after what I can only describe as a false start. I should also like to explain to the house that I had not intended to participate in this

debate, because I thought it was understood that there would be an opportunity shortly for a discussion of external affairs and at that time I would be in a position to make a general statement. I still hope to do that, and to do it in the near future.
I rise today, however, Mr. Speaker, because of a speech made in this house yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F. The terms of that speech, I thought, left me no alternative but to take part in this debate in an attempt to answer some of the specific statements which he made yesterday and which it would not be possible for me to deal with in that same specific way if I were intervening in another debate later in this session.
Yesterday the hon. member challenged- and that was the word he used-me, or indeed anyone else, I think he said, to prove that the statements which he had made were inaccurate, unfair or misleading. He also challenged me-although I do not think he used that word in this connection-to prove that certain statements which I had made, not in this house but over the air the night before, were, as he termed them, or some of them, "gross inaccuracies". It is with those statements of his, and with nothing else, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to deal today.
I may say that I found it somewhat difficult to understand the hon. gentleman's indignation and his use, in reference to what I said over the radio in the address to which I have referred and to myself personally, of such words as "deliberate smears"; I also found it somewhat difficult to understand the statement that I and others were attempting to silence him and that he and his party had been accused in this broadcast of supporting communism-indeed, that my style in this talk was that of a senator from Wisconsin known as Mr. McCarthy, in the sense that I was attempting to prevent anybody-by this broadcast, presumably-from expressing an honest opinion by labelling him, and I quote, "subversive, communist, enemy of the state or what you will." As I said, I found it a little bit difficult to understand the vigour of this language in respect of a statement which I made about a report of the council of the C.C.F. party-a report about which, I may say, I felt at least as strongly as the hon. gentleman felt in his remarks yesterday. I think I had more justification for my feeling, as I shall do my best to show. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. gentleman spoke previously in this debate he said this, and I 55704-25
The Address-Mr. Pearson quote from page 177 of Hansard of March 6:
The Canadian government itself should be criticized for agreeing to policies which if carried through to a logical conclusion will we believe endanger the economic and social welfare of the world.
Then he went on to say that he believed that is exactly what the Kremlin wants and what the Kremlin is banking on. In other words the hon. gentleman stated that we, this government, were following policies that the Kremlin was banking on. Now, if I so desired I could, I suppose, characterize an inference of that kind by some fairly strong words, but I do not think it is necessary. Nor do I get unduly excited about the use of such terms in a debate of this kind.
As for attempting to frighten the hon. gentleman into silence in this house, which he suggested, and which I think is at least unfair to himself, the broadcast to which he had objected had nothing to do with his own statement in this house. Indeed, as it happened, the broadcast was recorded before he made that statement. As a matter of fact, his speech in this house-apart from his reference, which I admit he certainly made, to his strong support for that statement-was one thing, and not one about which I was prepared to get too excited; but the C.C.F. council's statement was something else again, as I will try to show; and I think, Mr. Speaker, that it justified the words I said about it in the broadcast.
Of course, in using these words I was not accusing him or his party of being communist; nor does he have to defend himself, as he dramatically stated yesterday, against the charge of communism. Nobody that I know of is accusing him of that, and that kind of counter-attack is really not good enough. It merely, I believe, throws a smoke screen around the real issue in this matter. The real danger as I see it, and as I pointed out in my broadcast on Tuesday night, is that the policy of his party, as it was stated in that council declaration, will play straight into the hands of communist propaganda. We have known all along, of course, that a stage would come in our defence build-up when the danger from the Soviet union might appear to be slackening, and when the burden of taxation for defence expenditure would weigh heavily upon us. That was certainly bound to be a difficult moment for the alliance we are trying to build up, and at that time there would be a very real temptation to let down our efforts. I suggest that that temptation may be more difficult to resist in this country after the statement of the C.C.F. party.

The Address-Mr. Pearson
Then, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman made another statement yesterday which, if it had been accurate, would, I think, have been very dangerous to our continuing effort under NATO. He talked about-he did it in a very few words, and did not make any great point of it in his statement-German rearmament and what we had decided on that subject at Lisbon. What he said, Mr. Speaker, and may I say it quite bluntly, was entirely without foundation. Indeed, the decision taken at Lisbon on this subject was precisely the opposite of that which he stated it to have been in his speech yesterday; and I quote from his words at page 368 of Hansard:
And yet the NATO people at Lisbon were preparing to rearm Germany before any agreement regarding integration had been reached.
That was one of the most difficult and delicate discussions we had at Lisbon-the relationship of German rearmament to western defence and to NATO generally; and the decision we took in. the matter, Mr. Speaker, was exactly the opposite to that which was suggested by the hon. gentleman. We decided that participation of Germany in the defence of the west will not take place until after political arrangements for the federal republic's association with the European defence community have been concluded and the European army formed which, in its turn, would be a part of the NATO forces under General Eisenhower. Until that stage has been reached-and it has not yet been reached-there is no NATO decision approving any kind of German rearmament in the sense of recruiting a single German for service under the NATO plan. I think it is important to put the record straight on that matter at once.
May I return, sir, to the C.C.F.'s statement? Here is what it had to say in its first paragraph:
While continuing to support Canada's participation in NATO.-
And I gladly acknowledge that assertion.
-the C.C.F. is opposed to certain recent developments in this organization.
Then it went on:
NATO policies seem to have fallen completely under the control of the military to the exclusion of necessary social and economic considerations in the building of western collective security.
I repeat: "completely under the control of the military." That, Mr. Speaker, is not an accurate statement, and I think I am in a position to speak on this matter with some authority, because I attended the meeting at Lisbon at which this result is supposed to have ensued. I assure the house that that result did not ensue, and NATO has not

fallen completely under the control of the military. If it had fallen completely under the control of the military I doubt very much whether Canada would be very anxious to participate in its activities.
But what was meant in this statement by the "military"? Another paragraph in the C.C.F. council's statement throws some light on this matter of what is meant by the "military". A later paragraph in the statement reads as follows:
A halt must be called, before it Is too late, to the control of NATO by the military and by certain American influences which jeopardize the peaceful and defensive objectives which brought the organization into being.
That paragraph does not say that we should be on our guard against any tendency in this direction, any tendency to be too aggressive, to be too bellicose, to be too provocative. It says: We must stop the control of NATO by the military. If this were merely a cautionary statement against these tendencies I would most heartily support it. Indeed, in the broadcast to which the hon. gentleman referred and to which he took such strong exception, I said-and I quote from this broadcast:
I know-and you know-that if NATO ever showed signs of becoming aggressive, or militaristic, not only Canada but other members would strongly oppose such tendencies. I would go further and say that if the policy of the United States, or of any other country with which we are associated were in our opinion unwise or wrong or too provocative, it would be the duty of a Canadian to express his opposition to that policy in friendly but frank language, always remembering, of course, the tremendous burden of responsibility for the defence of the free nations which the United States is bearing and' that the communists gloat over and exploit every sign of division and disagreement inside our coalition.
Now, to return to the C.C.F. statement, it goes on to say in its second paragraph, and I quote:
This development-
Presumably military control and, by reasonable inference, United States military control.
This development culminated recently in the decisions taken at Lisbon to provide approximately 50 divisions in western Europe by the end of the year and 90 to 100 divisions by the end of 1954, the program to cost a reported $300 billion.
I do not know where the C.C.F. got that figure of $300 billion. However, that is something else. Then the paragraph goes on:
These decisions are irresponsible and disastrous. They are irresponsible because the military objectives set, both for armaments and personnel, are incapable of being reached. They are disastrous because the very attempt to reach the impossible objectives would break the economies of every European nation, member of NATO.
That is, they are irresponsible because the objective, according to the C.C.F., is incapable

of being reached. In fact, the governments represented at Lisbon, including the governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France, did not agree that these objectives were incapable of being reached. We all admitted there in our discussions that it might be difficult to reach them-and indeed that economic and financial factors might intervene to prevent it-but we believed that they were not incapable of being reached. We agreed that we would make every effort to reach them. That was the decision of the governments represented there, the decision which the C.C.F. party claim to be irresponsible.
And then these decisions are disastrous, so the C.C.F. say, because even if we attempt to reach the goal set we would break up every European member of NATO-even if we make an attempt to reach the goals which the fourteen governments set at Lisbon as the minimum necessary for the defence of peace. They say if we attempt to reach those objectives we will break almost all the European states who are members of NATO.
Because they take that position in regard to these objectives, the persons who wrote this statement argue that we should oppose those decisions.


Mr. Coldwell:: Will the minister read the next sentence?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to do it. The next sentence, I think, after the one in which it is said that the attempt to reach this objective would be disastrous, reads:
As the London Times has stated', the Lisbon program "contains the maximum amount of provocation with the minimum of deterrent effect."
That is the viewpoint of the London Times, on the press release issued from Lisbon. We heard about it yesterday, and the hon. member is entitled to his opinion, as indeed the London Times is entitled to its opinion. But the C.C.F. statement does say that the Canadian government, and presumably the Canadian people, should oppose these objectives which we consider to be the minimum necessary for the defence of peace.
Now, in the light of that statement in the broadcast I gave the other night I said the following-and I should like to put it on record:
The communists, however, claim that there is no possible danger of aggression from Soviet Russia, because the communist bear is really a dove of peace, and therefore the fact that we are trying to build up our collective strength in NATO is proof that NATO is an aggressive military alliance.
55704-25J
The Address-Mr. Pearson
Then I went on to say-and this is the sentence to which the hon. member took the most violent objection:
It is sad to see that the C.C.F. seem to be moving towards this position.
I based that statement on their council's, release of a few days before. In the next sentence I went on to say:
The statement issued on Wednesday last by their national council charged that, and I quote, "NATO policies seem to have fallen completely under the-control of the military." They found proof for this strange assertion in the fact that at Lisbon we decided on a program of 50 divisions for western Europe by the end of 1952, and 90 to 100 divisions, including Germany, by the end of 1954. These decisions the C.C.F. council described as "irresponsible and disastrous." That is exactly how the Kremlin would describe them. The C.C.F. then urges Canada to oppose vigorously the armaments goals set at Lisbon which they claim represent increases in the military program.
Then later in my broadcast I added this:
The members of NATO at our recent meeting were very conscious, I can assure you, of the necessity of stressing the defensive character of their military plans, of the economic and social implications of their defence policies, and of the longer term social and economic purposes of NATO in building up the Atlantic community.
We knew that to do too much too soon in defence preparation would cause distress and perhaps domestic disturbances which would play into the hands of those who threaten the peace. But we knew also that if there is an easing of tension in Europe at. the present time, it is mainly due to the growing military strength of the NATO countries and their demonstrated determination to stand together in defence of peace. Surely, then, this is no time to sabotage the policies that have brought this improvement.
To designate the growing strength of our North Atlantic coalition, as it is expressed1 in present NATO military programs, which even when they are completed will, in the face of Russian might, be barely adequate for defence; to designate this defence build-up as "irresponsible and1 disastrous," as the C.C.F. have now done, is I think itself irresponsible.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I ought to say a few words about this program.


Major James William Coldwell: Should not the hon. member read the next paragraph from our statement, which does modify the position which he says is the C.C.F. position? I think he wishes to be fair.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You made your speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Which "next paragraph"?


Major James William Coldwell: The one which says:
The C.C.F. urges that Canada should vigorously oppose the armaments goals set at Lisbon. The increases in the military program must be dropped and a substantial proportion of the total sums involved should be diverted from crippling-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I will do that.


Major James William Coldwell: -and excessive military preparedness to necessary economic rebuilding in Europe and elsewhere.

The Address-Mr. Pearson


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was going to quote it later; I was referring to a previous paragraph, but I shall put it on the record1 now. The third paragraph reads:
The C.C.F. urges that Canada should vigorously oppose the armaments goals set at Lisbon. The increases in the military program must be dropped and a substantial proportion of the total sums involved should be diverted from crippling and excessive military preparedness to necessary economic rebuilding in Europe and elsewhere. Only in this way can there be any real achievement in respect of article II of the NATO agreement.
The validity of that paragraph and the validity of the position taken in it depends, I suppose, to some extent upon whether the military program we are now talking about in NATO is an increase, and whether the expenditures under that program will -be crippling.
I would refer first to the nature and extent of the program upon which we agreed at Lisbon, but before doing so I would1 like to add just one word about what we members of NATO, we countries in the NATO coalition, are up against. The only potential enemy we would have to face, of course, is the U.S.S.R. The power of the U.S.S.R. on land, as expressed in terms of divisions, is probably anywhere from 175 to 225. No one knows the exact number. That is what we are up against.
According to NATO plans, to meet this threat we are trying to build up in 1952 a program of approximately 50 divisions for all of western Europe-and, to quote the words of the Lisbon resolution on the subject, as they were quoted yesterday by the hon. member, "in appropriate conditions of combat readiness by the end of 1952." According to the C.C.F. statement and, indeed, according to the statement of the hon. member yesterday that is an increase over previous NATO military programs. I have already stated, and I repeat, that it does not represent an increase. On the contrary, it represents a decrease from our previous plans. I shall do my best to prove that I am accurate in saying that. I realize that in making that statement I have sources of information available to me which may not be available to the hon. gentleman.
Referring to the previous program and the way in which it was changed at Lisbon, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said:
First of all, let me say that I have never heard any mention of the number of divisions in this house or any support requested for any number of divisions.
The hon. member is quite accurate in that statement. The number of divisions in the previous program was never made public. Considerations of secrecy made it impossible

for us to disclose this fact in the house. But if that had not been disclosed, if the hon. gentleman says that he did not know what the previous program was, that he never heard any mention of the number of divisions, how can he at the same time say that the program which we have declared represents something that he did not know anything about?


Major James William Coldwell: That was based on the communique itself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suggest that when you are in the dark you should be very careful about taking steps of that kind. However, to be fair to the hon. gentleman I must say that he did produce in his statement yesterday some information on which no doubt he based his assertion, although I think his information was wrong and therefore his assertion was misleading. He said that on November 25 last the New York Times had given figures which showed that the Lisbon program must be an increase because the figures they quoted there and the figures we gave at Lisbon were different. He referred also to a distinguished reporter of the New York Times, Mr. James Reston, who had made a certain statement on December 5.
The hon. gentleman is entitled to rely on those figures if he wishes, but I tell him that those figures do not represent the NATO official program as we agreed to it over a year ago and as we altered it at Lisbon. The NATO military program to which we were working before Lisbon was, I assure the hon. gentleman and I assure the house, a bigger one than that which we agreed on at Lisbon. I wish I could give the house exact figures of the military plans of a year ago in terms of divisions and aircraft, but I have made inquiry to see whether that is possible and I find that those figures still cannot be disclosed at this time without the consent of the governments concerned. But I give my hon. friend my assurance that these figures represent a greater military program than that at Lisbon.
I could have shown those figures confidentially to the hon. gentleman, as indeed I should be glad to show them to any hon. gentleman in the house, if he had asked me about them. If he had waited or if his party had waited before issuing this release until I had made my own statement on the results arrived at at Lisbon, I would have given the same information in regard to the program that I am giving now.


Major James William Coldwell: We got in touch with your
office, I may say, before that statement was put out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman also
tried to argue that our program was greater

at Lisbon by quoting from our press communique. He has already murmured about this this afternoon. He quoted words which indicated that we admitted, according to that communique, an increase of defensive power. Of course we admitted in that communique that what we had worked for at Lisbon was an increase of defensive power, but that is something very different, although the hon. gentleman did not seem to be much impressed by the argument which I tried to make on it briefly yesterday, from saying that our program at Lisbon was increased over the previous program.
Let me say now, not speaking in diplomatic language which the hon. gentleman has some difficulty in understanding, as I have-I try to avoid it-let me put it in simple language. If you decide on a military program to increase from five to ten, and later you alter your target from five to nine, there is still an increase over the five but there is a decrease from the ten which you had previously agreed to try to reach. That is exactly what happened at Lisbon. Of course we are increasing our forces, but that is something very different from increasing our program. I put it in that plain form so that the hon. gentleman will understand what I am trying to say.


Major James William Coldwell: I might be able to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What are those NATO plans, and how were they reached? I am talking now about the Lisbon program. They were reached after discussion between the temporary council committee, the defence ministers and the military committee representatives. The temporary council committee which dealt with this matter for the council consisted, not of generals, not of militarists, but of Mr. Averell Harriman, Mr. Jean Monnet and Sir Edwin Plowden.
Our present program is the result of the discussions between the temporary council committee and the military people, as submitted to and approved by the council. I can give the house, if it needs it, assurance that in those discussions the military did not dominate the situation. The program that eventually resulted from those discussions was probably lower than that which the military would have liked to have.
Hon. members will recall that at the NATO meeting in Ottawa it was agreed to set up this temporary council committee for the purposes of reconciling military goals with political and economic capabilities of the member nations. It was recognized at that time, and indeed it was recognized at Lisbon, that there was real danger that in meeting our military goals we might overstrain the
The Address-Mr. Pearson economies of the NATO nations, particularly of some of our European partners who are still suffering from severe economic strains and stresses brought about by what they have gone through in the last ten or fifteen years. It was recognized by the North Atlantic council that military considerations alone should not prevail, that the military did not have control of this organization, but that we should attempt to maintain a balance between defensive military preparedness and the economic and financial stability of the member states. That remains our purpose, and it remains a continuing problem.
I submit that it is not fair to the NATO organization, and the work being done by the temporary council committee and other agencies of that organization to reconcile economic and military considerations, to suggest that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is now under the control of the military. As a result of the discussions at Lisbon the temporary council committee issued a press statement, and I quote a sentence or two as follows:
By its resolution on the T.C.C. report, the North Atlantic council agreed on specific policies and plans for building NATO defensive strength during the present year. NATO nations agreed to provide approximately fifty divisions in appropriate conditions of combat readiness and four thousand operational aircraft in western Europe, as well as strong naval forces. It further provided a definite program for taking measures this year necessary to increase the defensive power of NATO in following years.
The language in that paragraph has been referred to by the hon. gentleman, by the London Times, by the London Economist, by the London Spectator, by the London New Statesman and Nation and by lots of other people. I take no great pride in that language. Indeed I think it justifies some of the criticism levelled at it. I am rather sorry it got out through the press section in that somewhat ambiguous form. It was written, I might say, not by diplomats but by press officers.
That was the first time in the history of NATO that the council had ever disclosed such figures, in terms of numbers of divisions and aircraft, even approximately. The house will understand that I have to be pretty careful about what I say in interpreting figures, because we do not want to give any information unnecessarily to those who can benefit by it; but of course those sentences do not mean that by the end of 1952 there will necessarily be fifty divisions ready for immediate action. What we have done in this decision is to lay down firm goals for that number, which at the end of the year will be in various stages of readiness, and to the accomplishment of which every member state involved will do its best.

The Address-Mr. Pearson
That had been already explained. It the hon. gentleman has been fortunate enough to read Mr. Truman's statement in Washington the other day and Mr. Eden's statement in the British House of Commons, he would have found that they explained quite clearly what those statements about fifty divisions actually meant, at least as far as they could go in explaining it without giving information which should not be given out. In his statement in Washington on March 6 Mr. Truman said:
By the end of this calendar year, General Eisenhower's command is expected' to have at its disposal a formidable force-including some fifty army divisions, about half of them on active duty, and some 4,000 military planes-and a sound base for further build-up in 1953 and 1954, These forces, joined by those of Greece and Turkey, will bring within measurable distance the time when even the most foolhardy man in the Kremlin will not dare risk open attack.
Mr. Eden spoke in the House of Commons on February 28 last, and also dealt with this point. If the hon. gentleman had been fortunate enough to read his statement it might have cleared up some of his doubts on this subject. Mr. Eden was being asked questions in the house, and he said:
The third question was about the number of divisions. I think that this is a matter we may well go into during the debate. Possibly the contradiction is due to the fact that of those fifty divisions mentioned, only a certain proportion are or were said to be active divisions at present in the line in Germany. A number of others are reserve divisions at various stages of notice.
In the light of this explanation of what the program of fifty divisions means, I hope the hon. gentleman will not think an attempt to reach that objective will cripple the economies of the European countries. I hope that after further consideration he may even approve this objective, now that he knows more about it, as something which the members of NATO should do their best to achieve as the minimum necessary for defence.
Just a few words more, Mr. Speaker, and I am finished. I am trying to find out, trying to clear my own mind, as to what the policy of the C.C.F. party is in the light of this statement. The first paragraph of that statement said the party approves and will support NATO, but then it lays down certain conditions for that support; and I think the hon. gentleman will agree when I say they are conditions. One is that the armaments goals I have been talking about, which all the governments at Lisbon agreed were necessary for defence in the present situation, should be reduced and we in Canada should vigorously oppose them. Another condition, and I quote from their statement, was "a substantial proportion of the total sums involved should be diverted from crippling and excessive military preparedness to neces-

sary economic rebuilding in Europe and elsewhere;" and finally "a halt must be called, before it is too late, to the control of NATO by the military and by certain American influences."
Well, I ask myself the question: will qualified support, conditional support of that kind strengthen NATO at a time when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is our strongest bulwark for peace, and when defence weakness is the greatest provocation to aggression? If that aggression should occur, then what chance shall we have in NATO, in the United Nations or anywhere else to promote that economic and social progress about which we have all spoken so many times, and as to the importance of which we all sincerely agree? What chance will any of us have to promote that economic and social progress which remains an objective of NATO second only-but still second-to acquisition of that minimum strength necessary to prevent war?
The NATO coalition is going to have difficult days ahead, as I have already indicated. It is going to be a tough problem to balance economic and military considerations, especially as the sense of urgency, the immediate danger of attack, the sense of crisis has, I think, lifted somewhat. If that is so; if there is an easing of the tension, I suggest, as I have suggested earlier in this statement, that it is due to the political solidarity and the growing defensive strength of our only political organization based on military plans which are now, I reiterate, somewhat reduced as compared with what they were a year ago. If we halt or slacken in that defensive effort, the very making of which has brought about the easing of the situation that we have seen; if the sacrifices which are necessary become more difficult or even impossible because people are told that our goals are incapable of achievement or unnecessary, then indeed we shall have something to worry about and this whole inspiring concept of a coalition for peace may come tumbling to the ground.
If that happens, then very shortly we shall have again the atmosphere of crisis and fear, almost of agony, from which I think we are slowly but steadily emerging. It will descend upon us again; and if that occurs, no one in this house or outside, no one even in the party the leader of which spoke yesterday, will be referring to a military program of the kind we are now planning as either irresponsible or disastrous.


Frederick Davis Shaw: After having listened to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) yesterday, and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MARCH 13, 1952
Pearson) today, it has become quite apparent that in a political sense at least our local cold war has concluded. Hostilities are underway. It is not my intention this afternoon to become involved in that discussion. I do say, however, that to me it underlines the importance of trying to organize and arrange a debate on external affairs; yes, an orderly debate. In the course of the debate on the speech from the throne one member will discuss external affairs, others will discuss a multitude of other subjects, and then someone else will come back to external affairs, making the discussion anything but orderly. I repeat that I think in future we should try to arrange an orderly debate on this subject.
Before proceeding may I, as others have done, extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. George) and seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Each carried out his assignment in commendable fashion, I thought; and I use the word "assignment" advisedly since the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) recently took strong exception to the word "task". We expected that the mover and the seconder would recount the many admirable qualities of their own constituencies, the virtues of the people who reside therein, the state of the industrial life, and would also portray the many beauties of the scenery. It was more or less expected also that they would commend the government for what has been done to date, and would express unwavering conviction that what it will do in the future is bound to be of the highest order. In that we were not disappointed. While we can agree with what they said about their own constituencies, we find it slightly more difficult, if not impossible, to agree with all of the references that were made to government policy. While I am able to sympathize with the mover and seconder in the sense that they made rather dramatic efforts to make their constituencies appear to be the best in Canada, in view of the many attributes of my own constituency I could not but feel extremely sorry for them.
I could not help recalling those great Rocky mountains which are found in the western section of my constituency; could not but recall the grand rivers, the resorts, the lakes, the foothills of those rockies with their splendid soil; the mills, the mines, the fine beef and dairy herds and the rolling wheat fields. I could not but say to myself, if either of the hon members had the opportunity of visiting the Red Deer constituency, probably they would be quite dissatisfied with their own.
The Address-Mr. Shaw
I do not intend to make more than passing reference to my own constituency, but it would be rather unfair if I were not also to mention our progressive and industrious people of many racial origins who have come from many places-yes, even from Saskatchewan-to settle upon our farms, to conduct businesses, to provide professional services and to develop the resources of that area. In the main, these people are extremely happy in the knowledge that the province in which they reside is said by most people who know the facts to have the brightest future of any Canadian province. These people are happy in the knowledge that their provincial government is progressive, businesslike and doing a job in the best way that the job can be done.
The basic industry of that constituency, Mr. Speaker, is agriculture, as it is the basic industry of my province and the basic industry of Canada. Our farmers have been troubled, as farmers elsewhere in Canada have been troubled and are still troubled. Recently we devoted three days in this house to the consideration of the dread foot-and-mouth disease. I know how the owners of those purebred beef and dairy herds in my constituency felt when knowledge of this outbreak came to them. They knew that they were faced with the possibility of complete loss-complete loss, I should add less the compensation which the government proposes to offer. They are troubled as a consequence of the most disastrous effect which the disease has already had upon markets and prices. I join with others who say that confusion was caused as a consequence of the actions of certain provincial governments in imposing embargoes. They did nothing to solve the problem, but added immeasurably to the confusion.
These farmers are pleased with the knowledge that the agriculture committee is to meet and consider this matter. I say pleased, not because of the possibility of responsibility being pinned upon someone, but in the knowledge that we may discover whether or not we have planned to take proper and adequate steps to meet the situation should it occur in another part of Canada or should it get out of hand where it is now. Even before the threat of that disease, Mr. Speaker, the farmers in that area, in common with the farmers in other parts of Canada, were sorely troubled. Those farmers are now, and have been, squeezed between higher production costs and falling prices. All I have to do is remind the house of what is happening to the price of eggs, the price of beef, the price of poultry, hogs and lambs. The farmer is

The Address-Mr. Shaw convinced that those prices are on a toboggan, and anything can happen almost overnight. Those farmers witness the fact that our industrial workers are demanding and receiving higher wages. They are conscious of the fact that corporate profits within the country have been increasing substantially over the months and years. I am told that last year they increased by 25 per cent.
The farmer does not object to the industrial worker procuring an adequate wage; he does not object to the business institutions of our country procuring adequate returns; but he does object most strongly to being made the scapegoat. I say the "scapegoat" in the sense that it is firmly established in the minds of these farmers that there is not too great concern on the part of the government about falling agricultural prices, because the government is probably conscious of the fact that if farm prices fall conceivably the cost of living index will fall and it will appear as though the government's program to deal with inflation is operating successfully.
The government has not effectively dealt with the question of inflation. Let me repeat that the farmer is convinced he is being made the scapegoat, and he is not prepared to play that part. He asks for no more or no less than the protection which other sections of the economy are receiving today. He knows that the government has the power, and has been authorized, to spend certain sums of money to keep the price levels of farm products from falling to ruinously low levels. The prices of certain of the products I have mentioned have already reached a ruinously low level, and I underline eggs as a specific illustration. There is no one here or elsewhere who can successfully contend that, on the basis of what the egg producer is receiving today, he is meeting the cost of production. I say he is asking for no more or no less than is being granted to other sections of our economy. He will not be satisfied with less.
Those are the principal reasons why we have found it necessary to move an amendment to the speech from the throne. The amendment moved by my colleague the member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) is in two parts. It appears on page 216 of Hansard for March 7, and reads:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(a)	To provide adequate inducements for the possible and essential expansion in the production of foods in Canada, and
(b)	To provide for the economic marketing and distribution of whatever part of our food production may become surplus.
We feel that the case has been made, and we feel that those amendments are deserving of support. Just before leaving that .matter,

may I point out that one of the most erroneous impressions held by a good many people-and possibly by certain members of this house, also-is that there is no difference between the gross return recorded by a farmer and the net return. I often hear these references: the wheat production being a certain number of bushels, the price being so much, therefore there is no excuse for western agriculture not flourishing. As I said earlier, the farmer is squeezed between that price and the cost of production; but I am not going to deal with that matter further.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) spoke. Before I heard him speak, it had been my intention to say most of what I am going to say now; but I am naturally going to refer to certain of his assertions. It is with a view to helping him that I say this; but certainly if he is going to be helped, he must take steps to do certain things or to see that certain things are done, and he must do that reasonably soon. Yesterday the minister gave as his purpose for speaking that of clearing up "some of the misunderstanding, ignorance and criticism with reference to the administrative side of the Department of National Revenue." I have quoted his exact words. I notice that he did not take upon himself the task of clearing up all the so-called misunderstanding, ignorance and criticism, but just some of it. I think those words were rather strong. Conceivably the minister felt justified in their use. I will leave the matter to his judgment; it was his speech. But let me say this. I assume that he was referring to members of parliament when he referred to ignorance, misunderstanding and so on, because he had been referring to definite speeches which had been made in this House of Commons. Let me remind him of this. If there is misunderstanding, ignorance or criticism on the part of members of parliament, how much worse must the situation be among the Canadian people!
I am rather surprised that the minister stopped where he did, and that he did not proceed to cover the whole field, because I am much afraid that he has left us now in a more confused state than that in which we were before he started. I am rather surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the minister did not see fit, as far back as last fall, to undertake to answer some of the charges that were made in this house. I well recall that those figures which he referred to yesterday about net farm income, number of taxpayers and average payment of taxes were placed on the records of this house last fall. That information has been published in practically every newspaper in Canada, and I find in one

column that was in a great many newspapers the facts were referred to as incredible discrepancies. This statement has certainly caused the Canadian people a great deal of concern.
I would be the first to agree with the minister when he asserts that he is honestly endeavouring to do a good job. I have no doubt about that at all. I would be the last person in the world to accuse him of dishonesty. I would be the last person in the world to classify an employee of that department as being dishonest. I would be the first, however, to suggest that because of the actions of a few persons in his department, that department has come in for a tremendous amount of criticism, as has the minister. The Department of National Revenue is definitely the most unpopular department of government. One might say that is logical inasmuch as it is the department charged with the responsibility of taking money out of the pockets of the hard-pressed Canadian people. Conceivably it has been the most unpopular department, but it is rather strange to me that some of these things would be done-almost deliberately, it would seem-to add to the unpopularity of that department.
I am not one, Mr. Speaker, whom you have heard criticize civil servants in the sense that I have referred to them as bureaucrats or anything of that kind. I repeat that the vast majority of them are hardworking and conscientious persons who have a job to do and who are doing their best to complete that job. Unfortunately, however, there are a few who I think completely misunderstand their functions. In this little extract which I am going to quote they are referred to as bureaucrats-I am not coining the expression-but I think this describes the situation as applied to these few persons:
A civil servant is a person who serves the people according to law.
A bureaucrat is a civil servant who distils every drop of authority from the law and, when drunk with it, rules the people.
The great majority of civil servants and bureaucrats are personally honest and conscientious.
Bureaucrats are fanatically honest. They know what is good for the public better than the public itself knows. They are determined to do it to the public for the public good, come hell or high water.
The few persons whom I have in mind fall within that category, and they have made it difficult for the Department of National Revenue.
Before referring more specifically to what I have in mind, may I say that I think the minister should elaborate on two or three things he told the house yesterday; they 55704-26
The Address-Mr. Shaw bother and confuse me. In referring to the province of Quebec-and I mention that province only because he mentioned it here- he said that 30,000 requests to provide additional information were sent out. I may say this is to be found at page 362 of Hansard. He said that there was the subsequent receipt of over 14,000 returns. I want to know what happened in the other 16,000 cases. The minister indicated that there were fewer assessors in that province. He said that was probably a high number in proportion to the tax dollars realized. I want to know whether the number of assessors appointed is in all cases based upon an estimate made of economic conditions within a given area and the probable amount of taxation which could be collected if a more effective machine were set up.
He said farmers were difficult to find because comparatively few farmers are actually taxable. I think he should elaborate upon that statement and clear the matter up in the minds of the people. Upon what does he base it. He said it was difficult to determine actual income upon which the tax is payable, for three reasons: more business is done by cash, inadequate records are maintained, and the produce is sold in a variety of forms. My question to the minister is this. Is the principle of net worth applied right across this country from coast to coast; and is its administration as vigorously pursued in one part of the country as it is in another? It is this arbitrary and ruthless method of administering the net worth about which I have the greatest amount of complaint. We are not saying for a moment that a tax assessor is going beyond the authority which is given to him when he goes out and undertakes to compute a farmer's income on the net worth basis. I take the strongest exception, however, to the arbitrary and highhanded methods employed by some of them in dealing with the taxpayer. It has come to the point where the taxpayer is wrong every time. The assessor declares a figure, often without any cause or any real argument to back it up. Then he turns to the taxpayer and says: "I am right. Now the onus is upon you to prove that I am wrong."
I just have a few extracts from a case. I am not going to mention the individual. This has been pursued right through from the bottom to the top, without effective results. For example, here is an assessor who just arbitrarily declares that a declaration of $500 covering the cost of produce consumed on the farm is wrong. He refers to it sarcastically and absolutely refuses to leave the figure anywhere near the $500 and will not listen to explanations in relation thereto. In this case

The Address-Mr. Shaw the farmer was absolutely refused the right to refute, or to have time to muster his evidence to prove that the arbitrary assessment was wrong. This one farmer, within the course of a few months, was billed for these varying amounts: $3,216 was one demand; $2,682.04 was the next demand; $2,758.32 was the next demand. The sum of $2,168.24 was the actual figure mentioned when the sheriff was called upon to execute a seizure. This man, with his adviser, a capable adviser, went into the income tax office and asked for specific figures as to what he owed, and they could not tell him. Yet it had gone to the stage where the sheriff had seized certain of his farm chattels. This man asked for an appointment to discuss the case with the officials. A request was made on June 10 of last year. He did not get a reply until September 17, 1951, and then he was told that he did not keep the appointment. The taxpayer answered that letter asking on what grounds they had made that accusation, and they did not answer his letter, and yet, mind you, a seizure was made.
The taxpayer paid $1,491.26. He was credited with only $1,335.63, and they could not give an explanation. He had paid $565.63. Among other things it was on the basis of their declaration that he had not paid that that the seizure was imposed, and yet they came up with the explanation that they were sorry, but it had been credited to another man's account, a man having a similar name. That did not help the farmer. They deliberately cut $1,000 from his declaration of operating expenses, and to this day they have never given an explanation for having cut it. They disallowed the whole of the interest on borrowed money, $630, and to this day they have never given an explanation. And yet, let me remind you, the sheriff was instructed to take action. They disallowed the whole of his car allowance for maintenance of $229, which was most moderate. No explanation was given, and yet the sheriff had taken action.
They admitted in the department that they had not answered all of the letters; they admitted that the farmer had never been given an opportunity to produce further evidence to show that the amounts which they had arbitrarily deducted were wrong. He had carefully itemized accounts and yet this arbitrary reduction was made and a seizure was imposed.
I know that under the act, Mr. Speaker, the minister has the right to declare whether the income of a husband and wife shall be regarded as joint income or separate. I should like to ask the minister whether there was ever a case whereby, considering them separately *or together, if the tax is lower than it

would otherwise be, the minister has allowed them to do it. I have never known of a case. Here is the case of a woman who inherited money. She started a herd of dairy cattle; operated her business during the war in supplying milk to a town. The wartime prices and trade board absolutely refused to allow them to consider this, for the purpose of the payment of bonus on milk, as an operation carried on jointly by the two. The payments, under the regulations, were to be made to her; yet when they file their income tax returns, it is arbitrarily asserted that she does not operate that business separately, but operates it jointly with her husband, thereby adding an additional tax of over some $300. Under the joint assessment, the farmer was refused the right to claim deductions to which he would have been entitled were this considered as a joint operation.
That is the type of thing that has caused so much criticism to be levelled against the Department of National Revenue. There is no charge of dishonesty; they have the right to do these things. But, as indicated in that quotation which I read a moment ago, and I repeat:
A bureaucrat is a civil servant who distils every drop of authority from the law and, when drunk with it, rules the people.
In reference to these persons, that is what is happening in the Department of National Revenue.
This is the time, Mr. Speaker, when the bulk of tax moneys are being spent on national defence. The government has deemed it wise to agree to the setting up of a defence expenditures committee, I suppose, among other reasons, to see that the money is being spent in the most effective manner. This is the time when the bulk of the money paid by our people through the medium of income tax is going to meet the cost of defence. Why is it not just as reasonable and just as sensible then for the Minister of National Revenue to accept the suggestion that we set up a committee of this house-call it a joint committee of both houses, if you like-to go into this question of the administration of income tax? I should imagine that the minister would welcome it, and I would imagine that the Canadian people would welcome it too-in fact, I know they would. Therefore I am urging the minister and I am urging the government to support this suggestion of such a committee.
I am convinced that the Canadian people will pay their taxes. It is a heavy burden of taxation, there is no doubt about it. But they do insist upon the act being administered in the same way all across the country. They do insist that if this net worth practice is

employed in all its severity in certain parts of the country, then it should be applied in the same way in other parts of the country. I know the minister and his officials have a tough task, and I am not underestimating that at all. It is going to become tougher, not easier, if we do not make a move similar to that which I have suggested, namely, the setting up of a committee so that we can examine into policies and so that we can ascertain whether or not the machinery of that department is operating in the fashion in which we, the members of the House of Commons, expect that it will function, having regard to the legislation which we have passed from time to time in this house.
My time is drawing rapidly to a close. I am going to make a brief reference to another matter. My purpose in doing this is to seek information. I am pleased that the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) is in his seat because it would be from him that I should like to have the information that I am requesting. We all recall that during the last war many householders in Canada who had installed oil burners ran into tremendous difficulties with respect to supply and also with respect to prices, but I am not concerned about price at the moment. In my estimation our situation, in the event of another war, in spite of expanded production, could be far more severe than during the last war, inasmuch as war might easily involve loss of oil supplies from the Middle East.
I am advised that in Canada the rate at which oil burners are being installed is tremendous, and I am wondering if the Department of Defence Production has kept a close eye on that situation, having regard to the military requirements, having regard to the fact that probably we would be shipping oil from the west to the east rather than from east to west, and having regard to the fact that in a war such as the next war could be-and we hope it will never come, but must be ready for it if it does- there would be demands upon our supplies far in excess of our greatly expanded production.
Unless I am completely wrong I would visualize a situation of that kind developing. I would ask the minister if at some time he would give us all the information he has. I would ask him to give the Canadian people a lead, and particularly those who are installing oil burners. We realize that there is a tremendous expansion going on in the construction of homes, factories and the like.
On other occasions I have referred to the production of coal in Canada, and I have 55704-26f
The Address-Mr. Green always urged that we should never, never underestimate the importance of coal in the economy of our country. We are apt to lose sight of that. We hear a good deal about oil, and about the production of gas; but we must not forget that coal will continue to be a most vital product in our economy. If we allow the coal industry to deteriorate, we cannot possibly get it back into production overnight. Skilled miners will move to other fields-and it takes a long time to train those men as qualified, skilled miners. If a mine is allowed to deteriorate, it takes a long time to get it back into active production. Moreover we should bear in mind the fact that we must at all times remember the advisability of expanding our coal market into this part of Canada, because it is only in that way that we are going to be able to keep those mines operating effectively and efficiently.
We do not know what our oil and gas production could be a couple of years from now. But if we can believe what I regard as authentic information which has been given to US', we can count upon almost limitless coal production for literally hundreds of years to come. That is something we can count upon; and I urge the government, particularly the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), to give the Canadian people a lead, so far as this fuel question is concerned. Let them know what they should do in the interests of national defence, and I think they would be far happier. In that way I am convinced we could meet a condition of emergency much more effectively. Certainly we could do it more effectively if we were able to plan our activities in that respect from this point forward.
Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I shall not occupy more of the time of the house.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the great value of this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is in my opinion that members have just returned from their constituencies. We have had an opportunity-true, all too brief in this instance-to find out something about what our people are thinking in connection with the problems worrying them, and the policies they would like to have advocated on the floor of the house.
Today it is my intention to spend most of my time in dealing with two of the conclusions I have reached as a result of contacts with the people in my city of Vancouver. Before doing that however I should like to make a brief reference to one of the subjects dealt with in the speech from the
396	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Green throne. I refer to the War Veterans Allowance Act, a measure in which many of us who are veterans have been tremendously interested over the years.
We find in the speech from the throne this paragraph:
You will be asked to consider legislation to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946, and the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951.
I would point out that in that paragraph there is no statement to the effect that the war veterans allowance is to be increased, although I take it that surely such must be the intention of the government. In the speech from the throne a year ago there was a different kind of reference to proposed amendments to the Pension Act, which read in this way:
Amendments will be introduced to legislation concerning pensions for veterans and their dependents to relieve difficulties being experienced by certain groups of pensioners provided for thereunder.
I would stress those words,-"to relieve difficulties being experienced by certain groups of pensioners provided for thereunder." Today there can be no question that the recipients of war veterans allowance have been experiencing very grave difficulties. They are front-line soldiers. Most of them served with the old Canadian Corps. In order to qualify for the allowance a veteran must have been in a theatre of war, unless he happens to be in receipt of a small pension, in which event he may have served only in England or even in Canada. But the great majority of these men are front-line soldiers, and they are the most deserving group we have in the country.
They are men who have great dignity, men who take great pride in what they have done for the country, and they have a belief that any money they get under the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act is money they earned, and is not merely a handout.
Single veterans receiving that allowance have been getting only $40.41 a month, while married men have received $70.83. It is true that, where they have absolutely no other income, it is possible for them to get assistance up to the amount of $10 a month for single men and $15 a month for married; but that assistance is subject to a second means test and it is not given in regular monthly payments but by way of buying clothes or perhaps supplying money to meet some special account.
It must be obvious to every hon. member that these men have suffered greatly, particularly during the last years. They were left out of the increased benefits in the two sessions of 1951. Some of us tried very hard to have an increase allotted to them; but we


were voted down, with the result that they got no help whatsoever during the last year. As I have said, some of them receive small pensions; but even though there was an increase in the pension last year these men received no benefits, because as the pension went up the war veterans allowance came down. I have here a copy of the notice sent out by the Department of Veterans Affairs on the usual yellow sheet. It reads:
War Veterans Allowance
If you are in receipt of a pension under the Pension Act and if your pension has been increased from January 1, 1952-or/if you (or your wife) have been awarded a pension under the Old Age Security Act from January 1,	1952-your war
veterans allowance had to be reduced in order to keep your annual income within the limits of the War Veterans Allowance Act and to avoid an overpayment of your allowance.
Something must be done at this session to meet the condition of these veterans and their families. We need only to compare their position with that of the old age pensioners. In British Columbia the recipient of old age assistance or old age security can qualify for $50 per month, the province paying the additional $10. Furthermore, both the recipient of old age pension and his wife are entitled to medical and dental treatment. I suggest to the government that any change made this session in the War Veterans Allowance Act should provide that the payments under the act are at least equal to those paid by way of old age assistance or old age security. Furthermore, once a veteran has qualified for war veterans allowance he should be permitted to earn whatever he can. If he is able to go out and earn a little money, let him do so without that being taken into consideration.
At the present time the total permissible income of a single veteran is only $610 per year, whereas the figure under the Old Age Assistance Act is $750. This creates a most unfair situation. In the case of a married veteran the total permissible income is only $1,100, whereas under the other act it is $1,200.
I hope that this bill will be brought down at an early date and sent to a special committee on veterans affairs. I hope too that at this session the government will instruct its members on that committee that they will be free to vote as they wish and will not be subject to the party whip, which was the case last year. I know that if many Liberal members on the committee last year had been permitted to vote as they thought there would have been an increase in the war veterans allowance during last session.


Mr. Sluder:: Do not judge other parties by your own.

The Address-Mr. Green


Howard Charles Green: I am only going by what I saw and heard in the committee. I hope too that any increase in payment will be made retroactive to the first of the year. That undertaking was given by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) last session and I trust he will carry out that promise. So much for the war veterans allowance
I come now to the first suggestion I snould like to make as a result of discussions I have had in my constituency. I believe that the cost of living is still the main problem facing the Canadian people and should be the main problem facing the Canadian parliament. I believe also that it is most unlikely to come down unless the government leads the way. The government alone has the power to do so. Obviously it is beyond the power of any other governmental body in the country, provincial or municipal, and of any group of citizens to do very much about cutting down the cost of living.
Out in British Columbia, and I imagine the same is true from coast to coast, no thought whatever is given to cutting prices. On the contrary, it is the accepted feeling that when prices are set, they should be set high enough to cover any eventuality. That is the approach to the setting of prices. The same is true of the professions. I am a professional man and I know that most professional fees are increased in just the same way, only perhaps a little more. It is the accepted feeling in negotiations for wages that wages are going to go up. The only question is: By how much?
It is the accepted fact also that any increases in taxes will be added to prices to the maximum extent possible. For example, a year ago a surtax was placed on the income tax of public utility companies. I was simple enough to believe that that tax would come out of the profits going to the shareholders of those companies, but that is not what happened. The British Columbia Telephone Company, which is a public utility, applied at once for an increase in rates which was granted by the board of transport commissioners on the ground that this additional income tax had been levied. I believe the same action was taken by the British Columbia Electric Company. These additional taxes were simply passed on to the people in the communities.
May I point out to the cabinet that those in a position to do so are now very adept at passing on any burden of taxation. People living on small or fixed incomes are caught in a very cruel trap. They cannot escape; they cannot pass on these increases and the result is that their standard of living goes down.
I repeat that the general attitude of mind is to think of increases. No one is thinking of decreases. There is something the government could do about this situation. I think the situation offers the strongest argument for a reduction in certain taxes. A year ago the sales tax was increased from 8 per cent to 10 per cent. This tax is levied at the manufacturing level and of course it pyramids; along the line. I believe the sales tax is; the one tax which could be cut with the; most effect on the cost of living. Personally I see no reason why it could not be cut 21 per cent. But even if it were reduced by only one per cent that would be a start. That would have a definite effect on this attitude of mind across the country.
Then I believe the surcharge on the income of public utility companies should be removed, and that the increase of 10 per cent in the special excise tax which is levied on such commodities as automobiles and electrical appliances should also be removed; and that there should be a cut in the cigarette tax.
The government may not feel it can go that far, but the point I wish to make is that some definite reduction should be made in taxation for the purpose of giving a lead in bringing down the cost of living. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) does see fit to make any such reductions he should explain that the reduction in question is being made for that one purpose of bringing down the cost of living; and he should appeal to Canadians in all fields, in business, in the unions and in the professions, to follow this lead. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are very ready to follow leadership of that kind. In the last eleven years they have shown themselves to be very good at following suggestions made by the people who happened to be their leaders.
I am convinced the time has come for the government to take action such as I have suggested, or similar action. I believe also that if something of this sort is not done Canadians can expect the present price level to continue or go even higher. We may as well face the fact that unless steps are taken here to bring down the cost of living, nothing whatever is happening across the country which will bring it down.
I presume my second thought would be primarily of interest to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), though I also have a suggestion for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris).
I believe the time has come for Canadians to direct far more thought and effort toward building up secondary industries right across


Mr. Howe:: May I ask the hon. member a question? What government controls the deposits of iron ore in British Columbia?


Howard Charles Green: The provincial government, of course, has control.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why does the provincial government lease those deposits to people who
The Address-Mr. Green
intend to export the ore? It is wholly a matter for action by the provincial government. To say that that government cannot control exports is rather ridiculous in the circumstances, it seems to me.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is wrong in that. He cannot evade his responsibility in that way. The minister has control over exports and imports under the Export and Import Permits Act. He could stop that export tonight if he wished to do so.
Furthermore, the minister is in a position to further the establishment of a steel plant on the west coast. When I raised this question a year ago last fall, the minister said it was a good thing to have this ore taken out and sent to Japan, because it would mean that the mine would open up. After a while- he did not say how long we would have to wait-we would find we had iron ore wfoich could be smelted on the west coast.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is my view. The hon. member says I have authority to stop the export. I have no such authority. If I did I would stop the import of ore which is required to maintain our present position, for we are still a deficit country in iron ore.


Howard Charles Green: Someone in the government had the power to stop the importation of cattle into Canada, and I say if the government here has the power to stop the importation of cattle it can also stop the exportation of iron ore.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not wish to commit economic suicide.


Howard Charles Green: In any event, there is nothing to prevent the dominion government helping the establishment of a steel plant on the west coast.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Whom would we help?


Howard Charles Green: There is a firm there making steel from scrap.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They have been helped by this government.


Howard Charles Green: Something has got to be done to establish a steel industry on the west coast, and it has to be done by the dominion government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the people of British Columbia would put the same effort into starting the steel industry that they put into talking about it, I dare say they would have one.


Howard Charles Green: I think a statement by the minister to that effect is neither fair nor helpful. I suggest that the Canadian government should adopt policies deliberately designed to promote the use of our own raw
400	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Green
materials at home to the fullest possible extent. Then, let us export what we cannot use. In other words, I advocate a Canada first policy with our resources.
I mentioned iron ore on the west coast, but the same thing is true of Quebec and Labrador. I believe that this government's only concern is getting that iron ore out of the ground and shipping it down to the United States steel ports on the great lakes. They are not very much concerned with expanding the production of steel in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They tried that policy back in 1932.


Howard Charles Green: Well, Canada will have to adopt that policy or she will be merely an annex to the United States. The same thing is true of oil and gas. A year or two ago we had a debate on that in this house and the present Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) tried to urge that natural gas should be exported from Alberta first to the United States, and then the west coast could get what was left over.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a deliberate misstatement. My hon. friend can quote no such statement of mine.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has lost his temper again and is out of control, like an old Ford automobile running downhill. I happen to have been here at that time. I heard the debates and took part in them. The present Minister of Defence Production did his best to force through a policy of having that gas taken to the United States rather than straight through Canada to the west coast.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Every word I have ever said in this House of Commons is recorded in Hansard, and I defy the hon. member to find any words of mine to support his statement. He is deliberately misleading this house.


Howard Charles Green: I am asking, Mr. Speaker, to have the minister withdraw the statement that I deliberately misled the house. I do not mind what else he said, but I want that withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: While the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) was speaking, the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) interrupted. The hon. member resumed his seat showing that he was accepting it as an interruption in order that a question might be asked. The minister did say that what the hon. member had said was a statement which was deliberately misleading, or something to that effect. At that moment I should have intervened and asked
[Mr. Green.l
that the expression be modified. As the hon. member knows, when some language is used which may not appear to be exactly parliamentary, either the Speaker acts of his own volition, or a point of order is raised by some hon. member, or the hon. member who is supposed to be offended asks that the remark be withdrawn. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) at that moment did not do so. He carried on his discourse, and other interruptions took place. Now, after these interruptions have taken place, he says to the Speaker: "I want you to ask the minister to withdraw something which he said a moment ago but to which I did not pay any attention at the moment."


Howard Charles Green: No. He just said it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: As the
hon. member knows a matter of privilege must be taken up immediately. When any words which are supposed to be offensive are to be withdrawn the hon. member who is offended must immediately ask that they be so withdrawn.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the minute the minister said that I got to my feet and asked that he withdraw. He may have said it before as well. I do not doubt that he said it twice, but I did not hear him the first time, if that is what happened. But the minute he said it the last time I got to my feet and asked that it be withdrawn.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Under what rule?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Perhaps the first mistake that was made, and one which should be corrected, was that both hon. members, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), were speaking across the floor to each other and that what might almost be termed a debate took place between the two hon. members. I did not hear some of the remarks that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made and I did not hear some of the remarks which were made by the Minister of Defence Production. It is therefore extremely difficult to act as an umpire in this controversy.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I might be inclined to press the matter, but I really do not care what the minister said. When he gets into that frame of mind I think he is quite irresponsible anyway. There is a sure test as to where he is going to stand on this question. It is going to be only a matter of time, a matter of a few months, until the Canadian government will have to decide, or may have to decide, whether or not that gas from Alberta

is to go down through the United States with just a branch running up to Vancouver or whether it is going to go through British Columbia first. The minister will not be able to dodge out of that situation. He is the minister who will have to make that decision. If the gas is allowed to go to the United States first, I can assure him that the people of British Columbia will believe that that decision by the government will be little short of criminal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He will make the decision without worrying about threats from you.


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


Howard Charles Green: What did he say?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I must remind hon. members that whenever they have the floor they must address themselves to the Chair and speak loud enough so that the Speaker can hear them and know what is being said. Otherwise, when a question of privilege is raised later on, it is impossible to give any ruling whatsoever.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we have just had another dictatorship statement as to what the minister is going to do, regardless of what anybody else thinks; just another case of "who would stop us?"


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


Howard Charles Green: The suggestion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Howard Charles Green: I think that is hardly fair,
Mr. Speaker, because I had seven or eight minutes at the time this question of order was raised.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Sarto Fournier: object.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I do
not want to be unfair to the hon member. May I say that I was informed by the Clerk a moment ago that the hon. member, having started his speech at fifteen minutes to five, would therefore have to conclude by 5.25. At 5.20 the hon. member was interrupted. These interruptions have been taking place only since 5.20. I watched the clock. I knew that the hon. member, if he were not through when his time expired, would probably say that as he was interrupted he should have some more time. Precisely for that reason I watched the clock and at 5.26 I rose to inform the hon. member that his time had
The Address-Mr. Green expired. He knows what he has to do in these circumstances. This is a deliberative assembly. There is no rule in the book which says that whenever a member is interrupted, this time taken by the interruption must not be counted as part of the forty minutes to which his speech is limited. There is no rule to this effect. What the hon. member must do now is to ask for unanimous consent to carry on for a few more minutes. No doubt it will be given.


Gordon Graydon: I think the Speaker's time is exhausted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: There are no rules limiting the Speaker's speeches.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let the hon. member -carry on.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I have a noncontentious point to raise. I am all through with the other one. I am, however, in the hands of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Go ahead.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Is it
agreed that the hon. member may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: The other suggestion is that we should promote the migration of secondary industries from the United Kingdom. That migration would mean bringing over management and workers-which would mean bringing the "know-how" to Canada-and also possibly some of the equipment. It would not create unemployment but would lead to new jobs in Canada. We have had in British Columbia a good illustration of what can be done, in the wonderful results achieved by citizens of Canada who came from Czechoslovakia. I refer to the Korner brothers who have established on our coast a splendid lumber and pulp industry. The name of the parent company is the Alaska Pine Company Limited. Their advent to this country has been a splendid thing for Canada.
Obviously we need more citizens in this country. If we could bring in industries and people with them, we would have them nearer the raw materials and would get away from the situation of having to ship the raw materials abroad to the industries. We would also have that many people nearer to the food. I think such a migration would make it a great deal easier for Great Britain to buy food from Canada for the people who remain in that country. In addition, it would mean a strategic dispersal of manpower which is so important both to the commonwealth and to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I believe that the United

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
Kingdom would co-operate with Canada in some such scheme. I have here a dispatch reporting a speech by Right Hon. Anthony Eden on December 10 of last year. He was speaking to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Great Britain, and this is the report of what he said:
On immigration, he noted' that Britain now supplies about 17 per cent of the new citizens going to Canada, and said he wished the percentage of this movement "within the family'* were a little higher and added this might well prove a fruitful source of discussions between the two governments.
I would hope that an attempt would be made to work out with the British government some agreement which would lead to the migration of secondary industries to this country. I think we should change our thinking on this question of our resources. Instead of boasting about the amount of raw materials we export from Canada, let us wake up and realize that we should be trying to use these resources in Canada. Let us judge the success of our national policies by the proportion of the resources we are able to use at home.
In conclusion, I believe that these two broad thoughts I have expressed today would be approved by the great majority of my fellow citizens of Vancouver, regardless of party, and I trust that the ministers and the private members of the house will give them consideration. You know, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we public men of this generation have a great opportunity to build our nation; an opportunity which has never been equalled since confederation.
(Translation):


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted, first of all, to congratulate most sincerely the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. George) and the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) on the fluency with which they discharged their ever pleasant duties as mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I must say that I have been a member of federal or provincial legislatures for the past twenty-five years and that I have always admired the movers and seconders of the address. Providence did not give me that opportunity, but I feel no bitterness and I am happy to congratulate those who meet with as much success as those two members have had in the discharge of that duty.
Since the last session, Mr. Speaker, the association of free countries that make up the commonwealth has been bereaved by the passing of His Majesty King George VI.
The loss which was felt by the leaders of the free nations has been shared, not only
by the commonwealth countries but by the whole world.
I know that certain political thinkers do not believe in royalty, take it to be a somewhat obsolete institution handed down to us by the governments of the Middle Ages, and that the loss of a king leaves them rather indifferent. I believe that there is a place for good kings at the head of a country, that exemplary sovereigns like the one we have just lost are an inspiration for all forms of government to profit by, whether it be in the social, the family or the political sphere, so that all the laws enacted by these governments will tend to develop in the minds of their citizens the virtues of good citizenship, loyalty and respect of family ties, so as to counteract those dangerous modern concepts which tend to tear asunder family ties by refusing to endow them with the indispensable characteristics of strength and permanence.
The royal family has never, at any time or in any place, failed to provide us with an example of perfect unity. The royal family is undoubtedly the most valuable jewel which adorns the crown.
The passing of the head of the British empire has not weakened its ties. His successor, practically a mere child although she is a mother-the young queen, whose smile is still in the minds of our people as she seemed at times to give a questioning look to her prince charming, seeking advice or guidance-ascends the throne of England after having been brought up by a father and mother such as all countries must wish for.	i
While she was still a princess she already displayed, in a message to the mothers of the empire, great concern for sound family ties as she asked the mothers not to fail in the duties, the sorrows and the cares of motherhood. Through her example, she repeats the same message. She always keeps her smile and always holds the confidence of all mothers worthy of the name.
Not only is she a mother, she also takes upon herself another very heavy task and reigns over millions of people. Her own family is perfectly united; may God grant that the broader family of her subjects shall profit by the virtues and the affection which she has displayed.
If I have endeavoured to speak of the royal family it is because, like many others, I feel that the social cell of family is seriously menaced today and that the example thus set might give food for thought even to the

most apathetic minds; it might waken up all those who have been quite oblivious of the world in which they live; to those who advocate unlimited liberty at any cost, it might show the dangers awaiting them along the path on which they tread and even stop their descent on the down grade, and maybe lead them away from the slope along which they are sliding down faster and faster, carried away by the shallowness of their approach to the problems of the unity and permanence of family ties.
To proceed along that line, Mr. Speaker, would lead me to deal with a matter which has already been discussed in this house and which no doubt will come up again when the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is placed before us. I shall have more to say on that occasion.
At any rate, the world would be well-advised to follow the course set by the royal family, which has given us such a splendid example of solidarity, of unity and of all those civic virtues which are in such great need today. That example should be followed by all. It should be commented upon and brought to the attention of the most humble, especially those who have not much chance of listening to the radio or of reading newspapers and periodicals.
I wanted to mention that example, which should be a source of admiration to everyone. This is not only lip service on my part, but a sincere tribute.
I now wish to draw the attention of the house to another fact which, in my opinion, constitutes a rather serious problem for Canada. I want to say a word about the numerous human lives lost by fire. All those who, like myself, read newspapers and periodicals regularly-and we hear of those things mostly through the newspapers-must have noticed the large number of children who have lost their lives during the past two years in fires that have burnt down their homes. Their numbers moreover have been constantly on the increase.
There certainly is negligence somewhere, possibly thoughtlessness, possibly, too, a lack of knowledge of the operation of the newer heating appliances. In any event, every two or three days our dailies or weeklies report some fire which has killed one, two, three, four or five children and sometimes even the father and mother along with them. I think there is truly negligence somewhere.
13, 1952	403
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
I remember one case very well. Four children burned to death while the father and mother were absent; the house had been left in the care of a little twelve year old girl. To my mind, that is unforgiveable.
I am not suggesting that all deaths by fire are due to negligence of that kind, but it seems to me that our children are well worth the sacrifices the parents must make by giving up a few hours at the movies.
Those who use heating appliances do not go to the trouble of learning how to operate them. Certainly explosions in oil or gas stoves are much too frequent. You undoubtedly have noticed that there are more and more of these explosions every year.
In Canada and in the United States, we have what we call "fire prevention week". If fire prevention does, not come within the federal government's jurisdiction, it must come under some other authority. I therefore urge the governments of the provinces, of the larger cities and of the lesser municipalities to consider extending the period during which fire prevention is taught in order that all our citizens may be warned of the dangers present in their heating appliances. In that way, they would be made to understand that very young children should not be left in the care of a ten or twelve year old child because they could be burnt to death since the young guardian does not know enough and is certainly too young to run a house in the absence of the parents.
Fire prevention week should be observed throughout the country, even in the smallest parish, if we wish to put a stop to the enormous losses in human lives which we have suffered, especially in the past two years.
Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to raise here a question which concerns the hog producers of my constituency. I discussed this with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and he supplied me with an answer. There is no doubt that the problem raises the question of federal and of provincial jurisdictions.
In any case, since the federal government has decided to purchase any surplus of hogs at 26 cents a pound, ordinary people believe, -and I do not blame them,-that the federal government has established a minimum price of 26 cents per pound.
As a result, hog raisers of my constituency, who were building up an interesting business in that field, have to sell their grade A and grade B-l hogs not at 25 or 26 cents per pound, but at 20, 18 and even 15 cents per pound, thereby losing large sums of money.

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier They have sent a delegation to my office and submitted resolutions passed by municipal councils. They have asked me to see that something is done to remedy the situation. I am awaiting a reply from the Minister of Agriculture. If provincial governments that are jealously preserving their rights are going to do something to maintain the retail price of pork, I hope that they will give our farmers the help they need by providing them with the necessary protection so that they will not lose quite so much money. It so happens that the price of crushed feed has not gone down very much, not as far as I know, anyhow. They find that the costs of raising hogs are sufficiently high nowadays and that there is no need for the government to inflict upon them such a heavy loss by forcing them to sell their hogs at less than 26 cents and even as low as 15 cents a pound.
I now wish to speak of a matter which was brought up the other day by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). I do not see him in his seat just now but I know he is a very busy man. He spoke of this question with great frankness and courage. I wish to continue my remarks in English.
(Text):
I want to state as clearly as possible my position with respect to this question of immigration. I see the minister in his place.
I have full confidence in him, and I know he has competent officials working with him. I am sure he will understand the position I am taking toward this problem.
In stating my position I shall avail myself of the opportunity to place on record some quotations. In doing so I hope I shall not be breaking the rules of debate to too great an extent. I would ask your good will, Mr. Speaker, and the good will of hon. members so that I may be permitted to place these quotations on record.
When in 1950 I spoke in the house on this question I quoted the policy of the former prime minister, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, a policy which I know is that of the present minister, and of the government as a whole. Speaking on May 1, 1947, as reported at page 2646 of Hansard, Mr. King said:
With regard to the selection of immigrants, much has been said about discrimination. I wish to make it quite clear that Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens.
That is the position I take gladly now, and that I have taken in the past. He said further: There will, I am sure, be general agreement with the view that the people of Canada do not [Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) .1
wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.
In my view that is a sound and accurate statement, and sets forth what is to this day the policy of the government and of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris). If at this time I try to make my position clear, I do so because some people in other provinces seem to be under the impression that, generally speaking, the majority of people in Quebec are absolutely and radically opposed to immigration. I shall have some further quotations to make to prove that, on the contrary, they are not radically opposed to immigration, but that they want a very selective immigration.
Before making further observations, however, I shall quote the words of Miss Betty B. Robinson, M.A., who lectured at McMaster university in April of 1949 on the question of immigration. At that time she said this: It Is better to be overcautious than to be reckless in the matter of immigration.
These are strong and very accurate words. I should like to quote at the same time Mr. James S. Duncan, who has been quoted already by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), and who had this to say on the same occasion at McMaster university:
A thoroughly competent and adequate organization in the British Isles and Europe for screening, selecting and facilitating the movement to Canada of the best immigrant types-by all means let us screen and select those whom we desire among like-minded peoples.
I stress those words, because I wish to impress the house with the fact that I am in favour of a very thorough screening of all immigrants. I believe, further, that we cannot have a thorough screening if we support a policy of mass immigration. In the quotations I have read it will be clear to hon. members-and 1 refer to the quotations from the words of Miss Robinson and Mr. Duncan -that they always advocate a perfect screening and a good choice of immigrants. These statements are not made by French-Canadians from Quebec; rather they are made by English Canadians at McMaster university. I do not say this with any purpose of raising a racial issue; indeed, that would be far from my mind. I do it only to point out to hon. members that my native province is not so much opposed to immigration properly carried out, but that it is opposed to mass immigration.
I now turn to a quotation from La Terre de Chez Nous of June 13, 1950, where it says:
It is not enough to have fairer immigration regulations. They must also be put to good use. Immigrants from France have access to our country just like those from England and the United

States. Many French people wish to settle in Canada. This contribution from the mother country could be useful to us in a thousand ways.
Here, however, the provincial authorities or some private organization would have to be willing to take care of them. What has been done in this respect? Silence is the only answer.
The complaint is that no proper organization is doing anything for the immigrants to help them settle in Quebec. Reference is made to an inquiry conducted by Le Devoir in the following words:
One wonders, finally, If now we will see the province of Quebec admit French immigrants in as large a number as the group of British people welcomed to Ontario. Observers feel that it is up to Mr. Duplessis and the industrialists of this province.
If British immigrants settled in great numbers in the neighbouring province, it is due to the fact that, first of all, Premier Drew went and fetched them in Great Britain and that, with the agreement of Ontario employers, he opened a provincial employment bureau for immigrants in London.
I think we should do the same thing. There should be a Quebec provincial employment office in London, in France, in Belgium or in the Netherlands to select the immigrants we want and bring them to our province. I continue to quote:
If we want the French to settle here, our government and our businessmen should do likewise. If we feel that recent immigration from Britain disrupts the ethnical balance of our country, the remedy lies, after all, in our own hands.
Surely no one can take us to task when we try to preserve the ethnic balance between provinces. Surely no one can object if Quebec desires immigrants from Belgium, from Holland, from Italy and other countries the same as the other provinces want more British immigrants. We simply want to maintain the ethnic balance between the different provinces of Canada. We accept British immigrants in Quebec and we get along quite happily with them. If anyone wants to see how we get along all he needs to do is to visit our province and see how we treat our minority.
Surely the way I am speaking does not indicate that I want to raise a racial issue in connection with immigration. That is the farthest from my mind. I simply want to state our position as clearly as possible. We are ready to accommodate selected immigrants, but we do not want to take a chance on what has happened in the past happening in the future. As the hon. member for Spadina (Hr. Croll) said the other day, people have come to this country with the promise to be good citizens but they have turned around and stabbed us in the back. We want law-abiding citizens; we want good settlers; we want good farmers.
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier
I should like to refer to Relations of January 1950, a periodical issued by the Jesuit fathers. They quote Maclean's magazine as follows:
According to Premier Frost, the population of Ontario increases by 10,000 people a month and now exceeds four and a half million. The largest of our provinces keeps its lead: Quebec has less than 4 million people and its population increases by only 8,000 a month.
One reason why the people in Quebec were not in favour of immigration in the past is that we always trusted in Providence, we always had enough children to fill up our empty spaces, provide the necessary hands to do our agricultural work and help in the development of the wealth of our province. But the way things have been going, Quebec will have to do something about immigration. I have often been quoted as being one who was almost radically opposed to immigration, but I have had to change my mind because of conditions we have had to meet after the war, especially in connection with displaced persons. I shall continue with this quotation from Maclean's magazine as follows:
Autonomy allows others, smarter than we, to bring in reinforcements, tens of thousands of refugees, especially British or Dutch, who are well established on farms. The Pope has asked countries with vast territories to receive those who have none left, since that is better than almsgiving. Will Quebec therefore continually refuse to open its doors, its barricaded territories, even to our own kin?
Le Canada of June 13, 1950, had this to say:
The era of mass immigration to Canada has come to an end because the conditions that inspired it are no longer in force . . . but from the simple point of humanitarianism we cannot close our doors to foreigners who seek to establish themselves here. This does not mean we should accept anybody whatsoever, but we should exercise a judicious choice. Nor is the question of offering a welcome to these new Canadians something we should longer neglect. It is our duty to initiate them into the way Canadians live and to facilitate their assimilation. The new minister of immigration has a full enough program facing him and he will be able doubtlessly to rise to the heights of his task.
I think the minister has risen to his task. I think he has done a good gob. I shall come back to this a little later. I have received complaints from some of my municipalities, sometimes in the form of resolutions, asking me to contact different industries to ask them not to take immigrants in the place of nationals who may have been living for generations in the vicinity of their factory. I have contacted these officials and while I must admit that in a few cases immigrants have been hired, the fact is that to a great extent our nationals have had the preference in these industries. I was speaking to one of the officials of the department of immigration last night on the telephone and he told

The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier me that all the immigrants who had been gathered at St. Paul l'Ermite, the immigration station at Quebec, were being placed in other industries and it was being found that the task was not too hard.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, may I have permission of the house to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to table copies of an order in council which revokes a previous order having to do with the quarantined area for foot-and-mouth disease; copies of an order in council which gives authority to prevent shipment of meat into the quarantined area, and copies of a ministerial order which re-establishes the quarantined area.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. E. W. George for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fair, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Bryce.
Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was continuing my expose of opinions expressed by certain newspapers and periodicals in the province of Quebec. I have here a few words in French by Eugene L'Heureux, under date of Monday, March 10, 1952:
(Translation):
. . . Pope Pius XII, on several occasions since the war, has requested the thinly populated countries to receive charitably the families and individuals who are compelled to leave their country because of these extremely difficult times.
And Mr. L'Heureux writes further:
Nevertheless, immigration is necessary at this time. People call it a necessary evil or an appreciable blessing, according to their degree of optimism and their capacity for gauging future requirements for the accomplishment of difficult tasks.
And Mr. L'Heureux quotes Le Droit thus:
The editor of Le Droit of Ottawa was right when he wrote:	From all that has been written in the
newspapers for some time and from what we have been able to learn from the immigrants themselves, it is clear that immigration must be organized

methodically in the province of Quebec if that province is to profit by it. That systematic planning requires the co-operation of the government and of the main public bodies in a provincial organization.
(Text):
I think Le Soleil was right in saying this:
It is impossible to oppose all immigration in principle, provided that it be reasonable, in good order, well selected and in no way directed against one of the two principal elements of the Canadian population. This is what our representatives in the commons must say when the opportunity arises, and they must demand a guarantee that immigration must be kept within fair limits if recruiting begins again.
Then L'Action Catholique, another French newspaper in the Quebec district, was quoted by The Ensign in August, 1950, as follows:
French Canadians know that, on the slightest economic set-back, the province of Quebec is always hit harder than others, that the number of unemployed is more considerable and that unemployment lasts longer. Without rejecting the different alleged explanations of this unfavourable situation: they persist in believing that the fundamental reason rests on an excess population of which they should dispose.
They do not agree that they should1 eliminate this excess population by the artificial and immoral means of birth control. They believe that the country should make the necessary provisions to establish this surplus population, make use of the new generations by opening new centres and employing arable lands. They believe that the appropriation of these natural endowments and land should first be made by the sons of Canada.
With these reservations they do not oppose the admission into the country of a number of immigrants proportionate to the capacity of absorption of the Canadian population.
And The Ensign adds:
The firm stand of L'Action Catholique supported The Ensign view that "immigration has never, nor will it ever, be a substitute for natural growth."
Of course in the province of Quebec we always have confidence that the natural growth of our families will make provision for filling the empty spaces and for the work force necessary to make our natural resources more productive. The other day the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) had this to say at page 290 of Hansard:
Today a nation more than twice as large in population as it was in 1913, and many times as strong, is taking in only half the number of immigrants we took in at that time. I merely point out to the house that it is time we burst these bonds of caution.
I think these are very strong words from the mouth of a usually cool-tempered, man such as the hon. member for Spadina. We will never be too cautious. I imagine that past years have taught us greater care, and I cannot imagine that the necessary screening would remain fully efficient if all we said and did was "Bring them in". It is true that we received twice as many immigrants in 1913, but what was our population then? It was half what it is today. The more our

population grows the less space we have, and the longer it takes to absorb them or at least find them shelter, food and employment. I do not agree with the hon. member for Spadina when he says our immigrants do not have to be absorbed, that they only have to be placed. I think the first thing we must do is look upon the immigrants as people who in one way or another must be absorbed so as to become good citizens, rather than as people just coming here for homes and jobs.
It is all very well and easy to select those who want to leave their country in quest of a better future, but to be honest we must tell them the exact situation. During the last number of months we have heard many complaints from immigrants. Some go so far as to say they have been lured by the promised facilities they would find here, the big money they would earn, the jobs waiting for them and so on. We have to be careful; and we must not be surprised if many try their chances over the border. The question of our ability to absorb must never be overlooked. Then at page 291 of Hansard the hon. member had this to say:
From 1945 to 1950 Canada admitted 568,000 immigrants, an average of 95,000 a year . . . During that same period 314.600 persons left Canada, by the back door I think, to go to the United States or other places.
I have seen in some newspapers that the number of people migrating from one country to another, especially from Canada to the United States, is around 25,000 a year. If we take that figure from the 314,000, to be conservative, we have the approximate figure of our loss. A good part of what is left represents immigrants. Do you not see that the question of absorption comes into the picture once more? Then why spend the public money to send immigrants to the United States, when that country is as wealthy as we are? I repeat that our ability to absorb decreases in direct ratio to the increase of our population. Again at page 290 the hon. member said that Alberta had an increase of 17-6 per cent. Of course for the last five or six years the oil industry in that province has been attracting many of our own nationals as well as many immigrants. Next to Alberta is Saskatchewan with a loss of 7-5 per cent. Well, I ask myself where these people have gone from Saskatchewan. No doubt some have gone to Alberta, some to British Columbia, and some to the United States. Many have left farms, and those farms have been either taken up by other farmers or left uncultivated. We know that in the west today, especially in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, we need new farmers.
The figures given by the member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), which I quoted this
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier afternoon, show that only 25,000 out of 194,000 immigrants who entered the country in 1951 were farmers. Only 25,000 were farmers, but we need about 200,000 farmers. Certainly half our immigrants should be farmers, because there are many areas in this country which need to be cultivated. I feel that we should take special care to bring to this country as many farmhands as we can, rather than bring people who are not qualified specialists. I believe the hon. member for Spadina showed that over 35,000 of the immigrants were unskilled labourers. Certainly those people are not going on the farms, they are going into the cities. I hope that we shall not have another economic depression like the one we had between 1930 and 1935. If we do, we shall see the breadlines again.
I do not agree with the member for Spadina, Mr. Speaker, when he says that in 1940 we did not have the labour necessary to perform our duty and help our allies win the war. We certainly would not have amazed Mr. Churchill if there had been any such lack of employees during 1940-45. The hon. member mentioned the attitude of labour towards immigration. I have here a copy of a lecture given by Professor H. A. Logan, Ph. D., of the department of political economy, university of Toronto. He had this to say about the attitude of labour towards immigration:
For labour's attitudes toward immigration we look mainly to the expressions of the labour congresses. Judged by this source, the voice of labour has been consistently, until the end of the war, a protest voice. The Trades and Labour Congress (TLC) from its beginning in the eighties, like the American Federation of Labour (AFL) in the United States, has stood for restriction, especially of urban worker types, who are seen as a threat to the standards of living by its own members. Across the years it has expressed the views of the building trades, railway unions, printers and metal trades. In depressions, it has twice advocated complete temporary prohibition.
With the social laws passed by this government, we shall not witness a depression of the kind we witnessed between 1930 and 1935. I have to say that in praise of the government, and I thank the government for those laws. I know that the people are grateful for these social measures, and according to Professor Logan the same attitude is taken by the labour congresses. I continue to quote from Professor Logan:
Specifically, at all times, the TLC has condemned "irresponsible" advertising and "misrepresentation" by railways, employers' associations, private employment exchanges, and steamship companies, and of all who may be interested in immigration for profit; opposed passage, when assisted financially by dominion and provincial governments and charitable societies; also "contract labour" brought

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
in directly by particular employers (qualified recently by the clause "unless certified as necessary by national employment service").
During the war that was the policy adopted by these labour organizations. I have not the quotation here, but I am sure that somewhere I have seen that during the war the labour organizations asked for selective immigration. They want qualified men to come here, and ask that our economy be not disrupted by permitting too many immigrants to enter the country.
I believe I have made my position quite clear, Mr. Speaker, on the question of immigration. I have quoted many periodicals from my province, and I think I have expressed the opinion of the majority of the people of Quebec. This afternoon I said that I felt it was natural that the English-speaking provinces preferred immigrants from British sources, but they also receive immigrants from all countries in Europe. I recall that in 1950 one member of the Conservative party said he had Italian immigrants working for him. This afternoon I asked him if he was still satisfied with the Italian immigrants, and he said they were still working for him and doing a good job. In some provinces there are immigrants from Latvia, from Poland and from other countries in Europe.
I believe the people of my province are satisfied with the work these immigrants are doing on their farms. I come back to this, though, that the contract the immigrant signs with the department is for too short a period1. It should be for more than one year-and here I am addressing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg)-in order to give these immigrants an opportunity of understanding the people for whom they are working and understanding our way of life. It would enable these people to understand and to like their surroundings in Quebec, and might induce them to settle in our province. These immigrants are good people who are trying to give satisfaction and live up to their pledge.
I think -my position is clear. I do not have to add anything, but I shall repeat this advice given by Miss Betty B. Robinson which I quoted this afternoon:
It is better to be overcautious than to be reckless in the matter of immigration.
I do not oast blame on anyone, but I think 100,000 immigrants in a year are as many as Canada can possibly absorb.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to answer the speech made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I intend to show and to prove that the statement issued by the national council of the C.C.F. was
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) .1
factually correct and also correct in its implications. I intend to prove that the statement issued by NATO that we shall provide approximately fifty divisions in appropriate conditions of combat readiness this year is impossible of achievement, and therefore irresponsible.
Before I go on with that, there is a matter which I must bring up, and which is not at all apart from the subject of national defence. On several occasions during this session I have spoken in the house about the situation of packing house workers throughout Canada due to the most expensive mistake ever perpetrated by any department of the government. Several hundreds are unemployed due to foot-and-mouth disease. Plants have been closed in Regina. When I asked the ministers of the crown what the intentions of the government were in the way of recompensing these men, I was told that they would get unemployment insurance

after, of course, they had waited nine days. Now, owing to provincial action, packing house workers in other provinces are becoming unemployed. But when I asked the government what its policy was, I was not told the whole story; for apparently if the government did not have a policy, at least the Department of National Defence did. When this house approved unanimously last year the goal of 115,000 troops for our defence, some of us felt that that number could only be recruited to some extent by economic compulsion; and that indeed is what is happening today, for the Department of National Defence, through the army recruiting office in Winnipeg, is explicitly directing advertisements in these terms:
Packing House Workers
Do you want a pay cheque this month?
That is a nice question to ask those who are unemployed.
Men are being accepted daily at new higher rates of pay, with no lay-offs and no loss of pay through illness or injury. Men accepted are assured of steady employment . . .
And if they become injured, a beneficent government will recompense them. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, the advertisement is directed to only one segment of our society, namely packing house workers, not packing house Owners, and only to the unemployed amongst the packing house workers. We have consistently fought against any concept in this country of class struggle. We fight just as consistently against class differences. Here the government, by its own advertisement, says that there are class differences when it turns to one specific group in the community to join the army to defend-and quite properly defend-Canada.	In other

words, the Department of National Defence is prepared to use economic compulsion to get recruits. The Department of National Defence is prepared to use economic misery amongst our people to get recruits. A policy such as that can only be characterized as reprehensible and shameful.
In connection with what the minister said this afternoon, may I say that it is worth while that this debate has taken place. At least it gives us a chance once again to reexamine our national purposes; and I think they need re-examination. We in the C.C.F. have never faltered for one moment in our support of the principles of NATO; but because we oppose some of the policies which were suggested, that does not mean to say that we are withdrawing our support from a defence medium which is so essential to all of us.


Mr. Ferrie:: You cannot have your pie and eat it.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: If my hon. friend were capable of making a coherent statement, I would be happy to answer him. The purposes of NATO, as we understood them, were purposes of mutual defence based upon military defence and economic collaboration. We maintain, of course, that the degree of economic collaboration has been something entirely illusory. Here is a statement made by the state department in Washington in its foreign affairs outline "Building the Peace". It is printed in the New York Times of January 15, 1949. This is what the state department thought then, and which we thought then and think now:
Economic recovery is fundamental and should continue to have priority over rearmament. What is needed is a carefully drawn balance in Europe between recovery and rearmament and similar balance here between the need of our own domestic economy, our own defence, our contribution to ERP, and our contribution to European rearmament.
We agreed with that then as we agree with it now. But these do not appear the primary aims at this particular time. Even the temporary council committee of NATO, as reported in the New York Times of January 25, had this to say:
Adequate defensive strength can be created and maintained only if the economic and social foundation in each country remains sound and healthy.
These words are profoundly true; but the pity of it is that they still remain only words. What is really happening is this, and I think we were given an indication of it this last
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart summer in the columns of the London Economist on July 14 when that journal had this to say:
The vast preponderance of American assistance to other countries is now for military rather than economic purposes; yet is it quite certain that this preponderance should be so heavy?
Surely that is a question which must have vexed and caused anxiety to every member of this house, who thought about the situation. Why is there this shift in emphasis? There is a reason, and the reason is fundamentally bad. The reason is that our opposition to communism is infinitely greater than our support for democracy. In other words, we are fighting for something negative; and we cannot hope to achieve any success by fighting a purely negative battle. We have to fight for something positive; we have to show people that democracy is the answer and that it can work. I therefore say we have to shift our emphasis back to what it was originally.
We have said that the inability to fulfil what is suggested in this NATO press release is playing into the hands of Moscow. On the other hand the minister retorts with a tu quoque this afternoon and states that the C.C.F. policy is playing into the hands of communist propaganda.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: That is entirely a matter of opinion. I hear some "hear, hears" on the far side. If those gentlemen had any conception at all of political realities today, they would stay silent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: There are certain facts which we have to face. I am convinced-and I have said this frequently- that the rulers of the Kremlin believe that war between Russia and the west is inevitable but not necessarily today or not necessarily this year. Why should they resort to war when, by creating disturbances such as we have in Korea-where rightly and properly we defend collectively the rule of law against aggression-and when perhaps they may do it in Indo-China later, they can induce us to some extent to fritter away our strength and our resources. Granted we have to defend ourselves. But we must never forget that our real battle, if unhappily a war comes about, is going to be in Europe. We therefore have to be strong enough for that war. But we are not going to be strong enough by smashing the economies of the countries in Europe. That is the way to ruin. Unhappily Russia today, with some confidence, awaits what it believes to be is the inevitable collapse of these economies.
410	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart
As a democratic socialist I know something about communism, and I despise it; so we in the C.C.F. cannot in good conscience be partners to any policy which we believe will play into the hands of those in the Kremlin. Hence, when we see policies which we believe do so, we state our opposition in this house.
It might be said that there is little room indeed for a meeting of the minds between Russians and ourselves. But even if the room for it is only the size of a pinhead we have to continue to do as we as a nation have been doing in the past; that is we have to try to arrive at some modus vivendi between the two conflicting camps. Otherwise the alternative is war; and nobody in his sane senses should ask once again that the dark ingenuity of science should ravish the face of this earth, that Europe should become a shambles, that millions of innocent people should be killed. Although we win the war we in North America would still be the losers.
War we do not want if we can possibly and honourably avoid it, and so we have to try to arrive at a modus vivendi with Russia. But I and my colleagues are convinced that we can only do so from a position of strength, and that position of strength in Europe today is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and we do not want to see it imperilled by policies which we believe are wrong.
In his broadcast the other night the minister said that the communists believe that NATO is an aggressive organization and they say that NATO is an aggressive military alliance.
We disagree with them. The minister then went on to say: It is sad to see that the C.C.F. seem to be moving towards this position.
If anybody says that they see anything of the sort then they suffer from myopic astigmatism. We are very far removed indeed from that position. The minister then goes on to quote from the statement of the C.C.F. council:
NATO policies seem to have fallen under the control of the military.
Well, let us examine this statement. I hold in my hand an excerpt from a quite responsible magazine, the United States News and World Report of last July. What I have is an article by Robert Kleiman, who is European regional editor of that paper. He had been at SHAPE and had seen how NATO was working, and this is what he said then:
A new strategic concept of what it takes to defend Europe is one key to Eisenhower's assurance in the face of difficulties. He has decided that the Atlantic pact will be a success if he can


get 20 to 25 combat-ready divisions backed by adequate air power into line in Europe by next summer.
The new objective replaces the theory that nothing less than 60 to 100 divisions can make Europe secure.
I quote that to show that in Eisenhower's headquarters last summer they believed that 20 to 25 divisions this summer would be adequate. I have here-and I am calling others to witness rather than make these statements on my own-a statement of Walter Kerr, a correspondent of New York Herald Tribune. On the 20th of October last, writing from Paris, he says:
... it might be possible to approach the goal fixed by the military experts: about fifty active divisions by July 1 1954 and another fifty more reserve divisions . . .
The Toronto Globe and Mail on December 17 last published a dispatch to the effect that Eisenhower was asking for forty divisions by the end of 1952 and sixty divisions or more by 1954; and yet we are presented with this document which states fifty divisions at the end of this year. Am I to be told that the civilian heads of governments who were at Lisbon insisted that the military should raise their sights to fifty divisions? If that has happened then a revolution has come about. I have never known an example of where military men had to be induced to raise their sights, but on the contrary I am confident that in every case they have had to diminish them. Therefore when I say that we in the C.C.F. agree that when this was done it was because of military pressure, there is ample evidence to show it.
In his speech this afternoon the minister said that we supported higher figures last year. What were the figures which were given us last year? They were figures which the minister himself knew, figures apparently much higher than fifty divisions for this year, yet nobody else knew them. But it is very dangerous indeed when Canada is placed in the position where hidden commitments are made and the people of Canada know nothing about them. I am not disputing the minister's words that commitments were higher a year ago, but I do say that it is dangerous to have those high commitments, terribly dangerous, and not to let parliament know about them.
What is the situation now? I hear somebody who wishes to ask a question.


Mr. Benidickson:: I might ask the hon. member speaking for the C.C.F. party to indicate what his target would be as to the expectations of divisions in Canada?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: 
we are therefore anti-American. Unfortunately there has grown up in people's minds the feeling, "You are anti-American; therefore you are pro-communist." The sooner that nonsensical thinking is stopped, the better.
Let me quote what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said in the house on November 16, 1949:
The United States must recognize we can best do our share as an active partner but not as a camp follower.
This was applauded. There was approval for that statement. Undoubtedly the allies of the United States in this common struggle should be regarded in the same way as the Prime Minister regards his colleagues in the cabinet. He is primus inter pares. However, I agree that because the United States is paying the piper it should be entitled to call some of the tunes.
Let me quote the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs again, in October of 1951, in the American quarterly Foreign Affairs:
Today the spectre is that the United States may-feel it necessary to pursue policies inside our coalition which the other members cannot wholeheartedly follow.
It is right and salutary that he should point out our disagreements but it is equally right and equally salutary that criticism should come from this side of the house too.
Here again I have before me a document- and I cannot vouch for its authenticity, because the original is marked "confidential" and I have not seen it. However it is a report of a committee of the North Atlantic community which dealt with political, economic, social and cultural fields, and of which our own Secretary of State for External Affairs was chairman. I am informed that the first section of this report dealt with closer consultation among the NATO powers, particularly with a view to preventing a recurrence of happenings such as the United States suddenly deciding that Germany must be rearmed, or that Greece and Turkey must come into the North Atlantic treaty alliance.
As I say, it is right and salutary that we should be prepared to expostulate and to object, upon occasions. That does not mean in any way that we do not recognize what the American people have done for freedom in this world, or the magnitude of the sacrifice they have made. But it does not mean we are thereby prepared to be gagged because of that same American generosity. That is realized and recognized even in the United States. In this connection I quote the statement of Clarence Decker, mutual

.security agency assistant director in the Far East. Mr. Decker had this to say on February 26 of this year:
The United States must learn that its concept of freedom is not the only one which is opposed to tyranny. He questioned the wisdom of foreign economic aid predicated on agreements by recipient governments to follow any future United States course of action.
And because some of these offers of aid were predicated upon supporting American policy, ten nations, so far as I know, have refused it in this form. On the other hand you have this extraordinarily generous manifestation which took place in New Delhi a few weeks back when Mr. Chester Bowles, American Ambassador to India, gave freely, and without any strings attached, $50 million to the Indian people from Americans so that they could help themselves. If we or the United States wish to make friends and influence people then we should give for the sake of giving, we should help for the sake of helping. If we put strings or ties on what we give, then instead of making friends we shall indeed be incurring enemies.
We are not anti-American any more than we are anti-NATO. What we are against is deluding, not only the people of this country but the people of other countries as to what NATO actually is doing. We say that fifty divisions are impossible. The minister agrees that there may not be fifty divisions. I said earlier that Mr. Lovett, secretary of defence of the United States, said the same thing. He is quoted in the New York Times of February 23 as follows:
Mr. Lovett described as a very powerful force the more than 25 combat divisions and 20 plus ready reserve divisions pledged by signatories to the 14-nation pact during the coming year.
That is a vastly different statement from that which was made in the NATO release, vastly different indeed. Mr. Reston of the New York Times said so later, and I quote:
-they agreed in Lisbon to do these things:
(1) put fifty first-line and reserve divisions under General Eisenhower by the end of this year- though it should be added that there is less in these divisions than meets the propaganda eye.
What was that propaganda eye on? We submit that that eye was on the United States election. We submit that this document has been coloured to some extent by United States pressure for the sake of United States domestic consumption. I repeat we have stressed in every speech, not only the necessity for military aid but the necessity for economic aid. The minister has done likewise in every speech he has made since he has come to this house. Yet what has been the measure of our aid during the last five years? It has amounted to less than the cost of one package of cigarettes per capita of the
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart Canadian people per annum-$25 million for the Colombo plan. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated that we have to give economic aid, and he is right, but the government has voted against the possibility of economic aid.
It was hoped to set up an international development authority in the United Nations which would have the power to make grants and loans to underdeveloped countries. What did Canada do? Our Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that we should support this, but Canada, through the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), opposes it.
We have a situation where the nations of Europe are asking us for vital raw materials. It would be a far better thing for us to give these European nations raw materials out of which they can make the arms that they need; it would be a far better thing for us in the long run to help Europe to build itself up so that it can produce these arms; but what is our answer when they come to us and ask for aid in the form of raw materials-it is "undesirable in principle".
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) cannot agree he says, because we have a dollar imbalance in trade. I can tell him where he could get $100 million in United States currency with which to aid Europe. All he has to do is to ban luxury travel in the United States. However, he refused to help the European nations and then came back to Canada and lifted all exchange restrictions on United States funds. If we were serious in this we could find that $100 million and it would pay us tenfold.
That is a sort of help we should be giving, but we refuse to give it. On the other hand, while we permit those who are wealthy to spend their winters in Florida we insist on the packing house workers being conscripted into the army. There is not much equity there, nor is there much justice. Our position has been-this is the position which I have stated in my own constituency, to the people to whom I am directly responsible-that the best and shortest way of combating communism is by providing economic aid. I am convinced that if it is necessary to increase taxes in order to supply economic aid to Europe to enable those countries to combat communism, the people whom I represent would be quite prepared to accept those increased taxes. So would most others.


Mr. A. Phileas Cote (Matapedia-Malane):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of participating in this debate but after listening to my hon. friend, who I think is one of the greatest

The Address-Mr. A. P. Cote liberals we have in this house, after hearing him speak and understanding what he said, I believe it is my duty to stand up-


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Alcide Côté: It will get louder. My friend is a great liberal and I hope that I am also. But when he gets up and says what he has just said, then I cannot join with him. The chief of the opposition is not such a Liberal, and I am delighted to say that.
I would like to put on the record one thing just in case what the hon. member has just said goes unchallenged. We can be liberals without being communists. I do not think anybody here wants to be a communist. My hon. friend knows that this is not the time for us or those who are elsewhere to be communists. We can be liberals, we can have liberal ideas, and I think the best time for having liberal ideas is right now. I do not think that this is the time to be communists.
I think my hon. friend is wrong to be promoting communism in such a way.
I am sorry to have to debunk what he has said. I have to do it because I believe in liberalism and I do not believe in communism. I am sure that if his party held a caucus tomorrow the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) would be told that he had done right tonight. However, if he amends himself he could join us.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I never lose my self-respect so I cannot do it.


Alcide Côté: This is a house of many mansions, as Mackenzie King once said.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to deal with any of the particular phases of this debate which have been developed in recent hours, but there are some observations I should like to make which, although general, I feel are fundamental and of basic importance to us as a nation.
Since I last rose to speak in this house the whole western world was shocked to hear of the sudden and untimely death of our late King George VI. But in our sorrow we were comforted by the knowledge that the monarchy, like life itself, has continuity and stability, a continuity which does not stem from any individual but simply from the fact that when one generation has run its course there is another to take up the torch in its place. I think I speak for every member of this house when I say that our sympathy is with our young Queen in the task 

which destiny has called her to take up at this time.
That leads me to make this observation. There is a belief that when a queen rules over us it is an age of great hope, when we can look for a better standard of living, a greater measure of self-respect and prestige in the world, and a time of general prosperity. In the case of two queens especially, Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria, history bears out that belief. I think perhaps it would not be amiss to look back and see what were the characteristics which marked the men in places of responsibility in those ages. If we do so I think we will find that men in responsible positions in those two golden ages had the characteristics of industry and enterprise. They were ready and quick to defend their rights, their liberties and themselves against all comers. They had faith in themselves, yet coupled with that faith they had a deep humility, recognizing that while considerable power might have been given them as individuals, nevertheless they were very small cogs in the general scheme of things.
Those people, with those characteristics, received certain rewards which the whole of mankind thirsts for in this very day. They were rewarded by great discoveries, both geographic and scientific. There were rewards of material gain. In those circumstances the standard of living of our people rose very considerably. There were great advances in the arts, letters and sciences, and there was a tremendous advance in world prestige. The people had a satisfactory sense of purpose in their lives and I maintain that these are the very rewards all mankind is searching for today.
It might not be amiss to assume that if these are the rewards we seek, the characteristics which brought them about in the past might also bring them at the present time. We as a nation are wandering hither and yon with no definite sense of purpose and no discernible goal. Those of us who have travelled in England will know that there is a great irregularity about the countryside, and it is very easy to become lost and confused. You imagine there is no order about anything, no sense of direction and no straight line leading anywhere. But if you fly over England you can plainly discern the old Roman roads radiating in every direction, joining the old Roman towns of England. In the same way, if we can raise ourselves above the petty jealousies of local viewpoints and prejudices of various kinds, and as a nation try to see what our goal should be, at least we will find various roads open to us and will be in a position to select the goal for which we as a nation should strive.

These times, therefore, require a standard of statesmanship which is not often evident in this country. It requires a type of leadership which will give us purpose as a nation, and which will indicate to the whole western world that Canada is prepared to give leadership to that world where it has obligations in that regard. On many occasions this government, instead of that type of statesmanship, has shown a desire to trim its sails to every fickle wind of public fancy that happens to blow. They explain, of course, that they are a middle-of-the-road party, that they believe in certain principles of compromise, and that being a middle-of-the-road party they do not expect to satisfy everyone or even a large number of people but they hope to almost satisfy a majority. They preach certain principles of compromise, but I am afraid that on some occasions at least they practise the compromise of certain principles. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one of our greatest Canadian statesmen, on one occasion said the twentieth century belonged to Canada. If he were alive today I think he would be disillusioned and disheartened because of the way we as a country have wandered hither and yon, making only vague and general progress toward our goal.
When one travels over western Europe, through northern France and the low countries, one observes that the roads are crooked and winding, and seemingly without very much direction. Suddenly, when you are still some distance from your destination, you notice that the road becomes perfectly straight, and quite frequently dead ahead in the middle of the road is the spire of the cathedral of the next town. That is not so by chance. It is so because the pilgrims of the middle ages in making their progress in a vague and wandering fashion toward their destination would eventually come to the brow of a hill from which they could see the spire of the cathedral ahead. Then they made a beeline for it. The travellers through the centuries have followed in that way, and the roads have grown up in that fashion.
So it is today. We need courage, we need integrity and we need enterprise. We need in this country a goal that all Canadians, regardless of racial origin, religious beliefs or vocation, can work and progress toward with energy and satisfaction and unity. If this country has a government with the courage and energy to demonstrate these characteristics, then, as in the Elizabethan period, the era which this rich young country is now entering will be truly a golden age.
The Address-Mr. J. A. MacLean (Translation):


Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, we are now going to hear French spoken for at least a quarter of an hour; our English-speaking friends on both sides of the house, many of whom understand the beautiful French language, are those who often rejoice most in hearing French spoken here; for them, I shall endeavour to speak as distinctly as I can.
I want to take advantage of this debate to submit two recommendations to the government, concerning the improvement of telephone communications in Quebec's rural districts and more particularly in Bonaventure county, which I represent. It is an urgent problem, for about 80 per cent of the farmhouses in the province of Quebec are still without telephones.
On December 31, 1948, there were, in our province, 49,083 rural residential telephones. But the 1941 census showed that there were 217,308 rural homes. It is therefore evident that scarcely 22 out of each 100 farms are telephone subscribers in the province of Quebec. The province of Ontario is much more privileged from that standpoint and has made much more progress than the province of Quebec in that sphere. According to statistics there are, in that province, 150,371 telephones for 351,770 rural establishments, or 41.4 apparatus per 100 farms, compared to 22 in the province of Quebec.
Moreover, while urban telephone systems are being modernized by the installation of automatic devices, the few telephones to be found on the farms are of am obsolete type, manually operated and branched in groups of 10, 15 or even 20 on the same circuit.
Yet our farmers, and more particularly those who live far from villages, deserve a better telephone service than they are now getting. The telephone is an essential means of communication for the farmer. It is absolutely necessary in cases of emergency, such as when sickness strikes his family or his herd.
While an increasing number of farmers are asking for a decent telephone service in their homes, the telephone companies of the province seem incapable of extending their lines throughout rural districts in order that this service may be within reach of all those farmers who are asking for it.
One of the main reasons why our people have been leaving the country has been the lack of those modern conveniences which the city dweller enjoys, such as electricity and telephone service.

The Address-Mr Arsenault
And yet, in the past ten years, the price of materials and labour in the telephone industry has more than doubled. As far as urban services were concerned, the telephone companies met this situation by increasing the efficiency of their system through the addition of new phones and the installation of more modern equipment, as well as through an increase in rates.
As far as rural phone service is concerned, the construction and operating costs have increased in like proportion. And yet it is almost impossible, with very few exceptions, to increase efficiency by adding new customers.
The number of farms per single range mile is 8 and in order to give adequate service, you necessarily have to lay one line for every 10 subscribers from the telephone central. On the other hand, a rural telephone service, whether it be a company or a syndicate, must have a return of 6 to 7 per cent on its invested capital, otherwise it cannot get the funds necessary for the operation and development of the service.
Only one telephone company in Quebec can afford to operate certain rural lines at a loss. That is the Bell Telephone Company, which serves all the large urban centres. Operating profits there will always cover deficits incurred by rural lines. This company owned, as at December 31, 1948, 20,212 rural residential telephones in Quebec out of a total of 519,319 telephones, or hardly 3 [DOT] 9 per cent.
But there are-I think this house will be surprised to hear-255 other telephone systems in the province of Quebec and their financial standing does not allow them to follow the policy of the Bell Telephone Company. The only way out for these 255 telephone systems is to double the present rural rates by bringing them, for example, to $5 per month, whereas they average now $2.50-and the number of rural customers of the systems would then fall materially-or to get financial aid from the government. The government, or the state, should not take the place of private enterprise, but it is the duty of the state to help private enterprise do its job.
In the United States, congress has solved this problem of rural telephones, after protracted research and numerous discussions, by reducing the cost of that service through financial aid from the government, in the form of loans to private enterprise at 2 per cent over a period of thirty-five years. The difference between the interest charged for
[Mr. Arsenault.!
those loans and their cost to the government is made up of taxes paid by the great telephone systems serving the large urban centres. In this way, Mr. Speaker, the subscribers in the large cities served by important companies pay for part of the service cost to the subscribers of smaller companies operating in rural areas.
One of the essential characteristics of the American policy is that the loans do not cover only the building of new rural lines, but also improvements to existing systems in the urban section of the exchanges concerned.
I fail to see, at least under the present circumstances, any other complete solution to the acute problem of rural telephones in the province of Quebec. Again I say it is not a case of the state or the government replacing private enterprise but of helping it to accomplish a task it is not capable of doing by its own means. Our agricultural economy would thus be improved. I respectfully ask the government, and in particular the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), who has authority in the field of telegraph and telephone services, to study the problem very seriously in order to find a solution.
My second suggestion to the government is to increase, in the estimates, the amounts earmarked for repairing and extending telephone lines in settlements and other areas so remote from the main centres that private companies deem it economically impossible to extend their lines that far.
In the constituency of Bonaventure alone, 22 localities are almost without any telephone service.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: It is the same thing in Gaspe county.


Mr. Cole (Malapedia-Maiane):: And also in Matane.


Mr. Denis:: There are many in St. Denis county who are in the same position.


Bona Arsenault: It would seen that the members for Gaspe (Mr. Langlois), Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote), and St. Denis (Mr. Denis), are entirely of the opinion of the member from Bonaventure.
Among those 22 localities quite a few have no phone whatsoever. It is a rather strange situation, one could even call it tragic. What about the enormous sums of money which the government places at the disposal of other parts of Canada or uses to raise the living standards in other countries? Last year's fig-

The Address-Mr. Thatcher
ures show that $8 million have been contributed for help and rehabilitation in Korea and Palestine, under the United Nations, $25 million as our share of the Colombo plan, $65 million as compensation to western farmers for their losses or so-called losses sustained by them through the wheat contract they had entered into with the United Kingdom, whereas a few thousand dollars, in the form of loans or subsidies, would contribute greatly to the improvement of the standard of living of our own people, of Canadians who are in such great need of it!
I wish to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am not criticizing the gifts we are in a position to make and which we are making to unfortunate countries. On the contrary I believe these are first-class investments for a country like ours. It is, so to speak, charity on an international plane. I will go further and will say that I hope to see the day when all the countries in the world will have reached such a degree of civilization that at least half of the fabulous amounts now being spent on rearmament will be spent instead to help in the rehabilitation of resourceless countries or countries whose natural resources, during past centuries, have been sacrificed on the altar of imperialism.
We have a duty of justice and charity to fulfil in that respect and I know that the present government will not fail in this highly deserving task.
But the fact nevertheless remains that in our own country, with a wealth of the most diverse natural resources, there are thousands of our fellow Canadians who are unhappy because they do not have at their disposal means of communication considered essential like the telephone. We are not asking for millions. We are not from the West; we are from the East. A few thousand dollars more in the estimates of the Department of Transport under the item of telegraph and telephone would not make much difference but would render such a great service to our own people, particularly to those who have the courage to live in remote settlements or far from villages, towns or large centres, deprived of most of public services which are considered, at least in this century, as essential and indispensable, and of which the poorest workers in our large cities may avail themselves.
(Text):


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I desire this evening to deal briefly
with one specific matter, namely Canada's housing shortage. Even today I find it hard to believe that this critical matter was not even mentioned in the speech from the throne. After all, in view of the proportions of the shortage, I think most Canadians were entitled to expect their government, in that speech, to at least show some interest in the subject, to mention it, or perhaps even to suggest some solution. Instead, in the throne speech this problem was completely ignored. It was treated with silence and apparently with indifference.
How serious is the housing shortage in Canada today? I think most members would have to admit that there are at least 650,000 Canadians who lack adequate housing. Heavier immigration, natural population increase and defence industries have all helped to aggravate the situation, particularly in recent years. Today thousands and thousands of Canadians are living in basements. Countless others are living in attics. Many families are living in one room, and some Canadians are even living in garages. I suggest that the conditions in which these people are living should arouse in this house indignation. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the demand for housing is such that the situation seems to be becoming more serious with each successive week.
Last year I believe we brought to this country in the neighbourhood of 175,000 immigrants. I think the minister hopes to bring here roughly the same number in 1952. Every single week that goes by, thousands of new Canadians are coming to Canada. I congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) on the success of his program; but I regret that the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) has not shown the same vigour and the same imagination in getting homes for these people. It seems to me that unless, at this session, parliament succeeds in getting some kind of an adequate house-building program under way, there is a danger that our immigration program will break down. After all, you cannot continue to bring in people indefinitely without having some place for them to live. I say that the demand for housing today is at an all-time high in Canada's history.
What about the supply of new houses? The supply situation could be summed up fairly well in this way in most communities. All housing is short. Rental housing is much shorter. Low-rental housing and low-cost housing are virtually non-existent across the nation. Today three-quarters of our population is not in a financial position to buy a new home. I am going to suggest tonight to this house that the supply situation, instead

The Address-Mr. Thatcher of improving, is month by month deteriorating. In the first eleven months of 1951, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, 25 per cent fewer houses were started than in the first eleven months of 1950. And what is even more significant, the trend in the later months is even more serious. In September of 1951 46 per cent fewer houses were started than in September of 1950. In October the drop was 49 per cent; and in November 1951, 43 per cent fewer houses were built than in November, 1950. Surely these figures and these building trends should cause some concern to parliament. I respectfully suggest that the time has come for us to analyse the reasons why, after seven years of peace, or relative peace, Canada's housing backlog, instead of improving, is becoming greater.
Is our shortage of housing caused by a shortage of materials? Such a shortage may be a factor, but I do not think it is a major factor. Certainly I can tell the house that in most hardware lines which are required for building there is no shortage; there are plenty of nails, plenty of lock sets, plenty of building paper, etc. As a matter of fact, during the past year most merchants have been plagued with inventories which were too high, rather than too low. I have talked to many lumber men who tell the same story. Possibly cement is a little short, and a few steel items, but by and large I am sure that the paucity of new houses is not caused primarily by a shortage of materials. But even if such were the case, I believe the minister would have the responsibility of giving to housing the necessary priority that it required to get essential materials. Perhaps I am biased but, as I see this problem, the main reason why houses are not being built more rapidly in Canada today is the almost insurmountable difficulty which Canadians meet when they try to finance their housing contracts.
The main responsibility for that fact must lie on the doorstep of the federal government. For instance, look at the down payment. Except for defence workers, since last February, 1951, a minimum down payment of 20 per cent has been required. In actual fact, for various technical reasons, the down payment is closer to 25 per cent. That means that a man needs at least $3,000 to build even a small house. You could build a whole house for that figure about ten years ago. Of course the result is that many people in the lower income groups simply cannot build. Surely then it would be a sensible step for parliament to take, if it wishes to get an adequate program under way, to drop the down payment requirements from 20 per cent to 10 per cent or less. I say that if


people in this country could build a house with $1,000 down, you would see mass production get started in a hurry.
But such action to be effective should be accompanied by a second step, namely, more extensive terms on the unpaid balance. The house will recall that when the National Housing Act was originally introduced it was hoped and expected that the insurance companies of this country, or perhaps I should say the lending institutions, would jointly finance most of the unpaid balance on these housing contracts over a 20-year period. For several years that method of financing was fairly successful. But recently, and particularly in the past twelve months, the insurance companies of this nation have been increasingly reluctant to lend money for house construction. As a matter of fact, I think there is in Canada today what might be called a semi-strike on the part of insurance companies against such lending.
In some parts of the country they are refusing to lend money for housing under any circumstances. In some of the more select areas such as Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver and a few other cities, they are still lending money, but they are lending it on very stringent terms. In other words, they are making a 50 per cent loan or a 70 per cent loan, which in effect means today that Canadians, far from having a 20 per cent down payment, are often having to pay anywhere from 30 per cent to 50 per cent down in hard cash before they can get a house started.
Why have the insurance companies or the lending institutions curtailed their loans for housing? I have heard several reasons suggested since I came to Ottawa last week. The first reason put forward is that interest rates are too low. If that is so, I suppose it is a fairly legitimate reason. If the insurance companies can lend money more profitably and more safely elsewhere I suppose we cannot blame them. Some might suggest that the interest return under N.H.A. should be increased by the government to these lending institutions. I for one do not believe that this would be a solution. The minister made such a move a short time ago, by raising the interest rate a half of one per cent. I think the insurance companies now get 5J per cent. The step at that time, however, did not have much effect, and there was not a great deal more money put into housing by the insurance companies. I think the danger is that if the interest rate gets too high, the cost to the house purchaser will become prohibitive.
There is another rumour which I have heard in the corridors of parliament, a rumour which I must say in fairness I can

hardly believe, though it has come to my ears on three or four occasions. It has been suggested that the insurance companies are engaging in this sit-down strike on house loans in order to pressure parliament into refraining from passing the annuities bill which is shortly to come before us. As I say, I cannot believe that this rumour is correct, and I certainly hope that it is not. Such pressure would be most ill-advised. But whatever the reasons are, the hard fact remains that the insurance companies in Canada today are not lending the money which is required by house builders to put up sufficient new houses. I say that unless the minister or someone can find some way of persuading the insurance companies to put up more money, some other method of financing will have to be found and found soon.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that at this moment there is legislation on the statute books to deal with just such a contingency. Some time ago parliament passed section 31A as an amendment to the National Housing Act. Under that section the minister is empowered through Central Mortgage, where the regular lending channels do not function, to lend money directly. But for one reason or another so far he has not seen fit to utilize that section to' any degree.
On Monday last, at page 250 of Hansard I asked the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) a direct question as follows:
Can people in cities over 5,000 who cannot get housing loans from insurance companies get them now from the government under section 31A of the act?
The minister's reply was most evasive. He did not answer yes and he did not answer no; but he did say-and again I quote:
I hope that the lending institutions will continue to play their traditional role in this field.
Well, I hope that they will also, but what if they don't? Today they are not playing their traditional role in so far as lending for housing is concerned. Where do we go now?
A few days ago, Mr. Mansur, who is the head of Central Mortgage, told me that it is government policy not to lend money directly in cities with a population of 5,000 or more, for individual house construction. In view of the attitude of the insurance companies it seems to me that such a policy is the height of folly, and I suggest that it should be changed by parliament at once. Therefore surely the second step that is needed, if we want to get a housing program started, is to utilize section 31A of the housing act. After all, that is the reason it was put on the statute books. Surely members do not put 55704-27i
The Address-Mr. Power legislation on the books just to hear themselves talk. I say that our budgetary surplus is such that Canada can well afford to go ahead with such an investment program in housing. And I suggest, too, that if Canada did go ahead with this program, by using the nation's credit, the government could lend money to house builders at interest rates substantially lower than those now prevailing. In this way they would save house builders some hundreds of dollars over the 20-year contract period.
It may be that in connection with housing the provincial and municipal governments are partly at fault. I do not know. However it might be a good thing if the Minister of Resources and Development, before spring is here, got on a plane, as he did when he first took over his portfolio, and visited each provincial capital. Such a trip would enable him to discuss housing with the various provincial and municipal authorities. Perhaps by such a conference some of the red tape and difficulties could be eliminated.
We in the C.C.F. group believe today, as we have believed in the past, that a subsidized low-rental program is the only real solution to our housing problem. But if the government refuses to embark upon such a program, we do call upon it to adopt the three proposals I have just made: First, material priorities for housing construction; second, reduced down payments of only 10 per cent or less and, third, direct financial loans on the balance, where insurance companies refuse to lend. I suggest that we start making use of our building potential. I urge the minister to make a full statement to the house with respect to housing, at the first opportunity.


Hon. C. G. Power (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a few observations with respect to the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, or the readjustment of representation. I am fully aware that there is before the house at the moment a bill standing in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), and that at the last session there was a bill standing in my name, and that both these bills deal with the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons.
This evening I do not propose to do anything more than speak in a broad and general way as to the methods adopted in carrying out the redistribution of representation in the house. Methods of redistribution have been talked about in the house as far back as the earliest days following confederation. In 1903 Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then leader of the government, asked the house to adopt

The Address-Mr. Power a system involving a change from the system which theretofore had been in effect. The old system consisted in the government of the day bringing down a bill to which was attached a schedule, and it was then the duty of the house to indulge in a dog-fight in the house with respect to it, rather than to discuss the matter in committee with a certain amount of acrimony, as has occurred in subsequent years.
Since 1903 suggestions have been made that the method be changed. In 1937 a committee was asked to study methods of redistribution in effect in other countries, and in other parts of the commonwealth. In 1938 the same study was made, and again in 1939. In 1940, as a member of the government of the day, I was instructed by that government to prepare a bill and introduce it to the house, the purpose of which was to set up a commission which would proceed to the preparation of a scheme of redistribution which would afterwards, naturally, be submitted to the house for approval or otherwise. I am fully aware also that, because the cold war had terminated and the real war had begun, that bill was left by the wayside. No attempt in the way of legislation was made since that time, until we reached the last session.
I am fully aware also that neither the bill which is introduced by the government.-and I say that just in passing-nor that which I sponsored at the last session, proposed any change in the method of sharing seats as between provinces. Both of them propose to adhere to the constitutional amendments, as we have them from 1867 to date. I say that because I do not propose to discuss this evening the opportunity or otherwise of endeavouring to amend the constitution in order to prevent the losing of a certain number of seats by any of the provinces.
The principal argument used in the house- and it is a perfectly good alibi: I used it myself at the time of the last redistribution- against setting up a redistribution commission is the time element. It is true that to proceed to obtain a scheme of redistribution from an outside, non-partisan commission would take a considerable period of time. First of all, the house itself or some committee thereof would have to discuss the matter. Secondly, it would be obliged to lay down certain precepts or principles to be adopted by the commission it set up. Then the commission itself would have to make a study of conditions across the country, and finally make a report which, necessarily, would have to be submitted to the house for passage and adoption. That, to me, is not a peremptory reason for neglecting to study methods of redistribution other than that now in force in this country.
[Mr. Fower.l
If the government feels it must have a readjustment during this year, then I suppose it is quite within its rights and its responsibilities to proceed to this readjustment by the most rapid manner possible. After all, no one in the house, except members of the government, knows when the dissolution will take place. The government alone has the right to advise the crown as to when such dissolution should take place. So that it is rather difficult for any of us to cavil at the decision of the government to have what I might call a short-term plan.
What I should like to suggest to the house is that there should be no difficulty, no incongruity in a committee, other than the one being set up to effect redistribution, making a study of other methods which could be put into effect. I suggest that the committee on privileges and elections might meet simultaneously with the committee on redistribution to study other methods which might be more effective, more equitable and more in the interests of the Canadian people as a whole. Such a study need not interfere with the progress of the redistribution bill. I would anticipate that such a study would be improved by the experience which new members would have of the difficulties and turmoil and troubles of the persons who are endeavouring to carry on equitable distribution by the means presently available.
I would rather anticipate that the righteous among us would feel that they were strengthened in their support of a non-parti-sajn scheme of redistribution by what they will see if the committee runs true to form and follows what has occurred in past years. From what will be seen in the committee I anticipate that even those who profit from the manipulation will possibly want to consider some other means of redistribution in the hope that by a sort of tardy repentance they may obtain ultimate forgiveness.
The point I wish to make is that there seems to be no earthly reason, if we hope to achieve a proper redistribution once and for all, a proper scheme of redistribution for the whole country, why a study thereof should be restricted to perhaps the year after a general election. In almost every other year we are apt to be told, "It is too late; we must get ready for the next election; we cannot carry on with a scheme of redistribution for the last election, we must have the new one." It seems to me that if a new method is desired, almost any time is the time to study it.
Now as to the reasons for an alteration in the methods. I venture to say that even members of the government are prepared to admit that the present system is untidy, is

haphazard, is unsatisfactory and, above all, does not carry with it the conviction of the Canadian people that it is fair. It is true that nowadays in our idolatry of material success, in our following of the cult of win at any cost, we have departed in our morals, in our finances, in our politics and, worst of all, in our sports from our former and ancient ethical standards. But even today I am convinced that the public are not prepared to take as an accepted standard anything which even, unjustly or wrongly, they suspect of being the product of manipulation. Stacking the cards and cogging the dice are still not considered and looked upon as gentlemanly and sportsmanlike accomplishments, even in politics.
I would not want in any way to cast aspersions on hon. members who were members of former committees of former parliaments which passed the various redistribution bills, but the suspicion exists in the public mind that those redistributions had for their primary motive political advantage or personal political interests. It seems to me that the time has now come when the members of this house should endeavour to dissipate that suspicion that exists in the minds of the public.
I suggest that that can best be done by providing a new basic and fundamental procedure. Nothing but a new deal, approved of by this House of Commons, can satisfactorily dissipate some of the inequalities presently existing, some of which have sanction of history and tradition, others of which were based on what was considered in those days, and perhaps even in these days, as sound principles. But with all the good will and non-partisanship in the world, I submit that it would be extremely difficult for this house by itself, without the assistance of someone from outside, to endeavour to equalize the inequalities which presently exist. I suggest that the pressures which will come upon us from fair-minded, civic-minded citizens who are imbued with a sense of tradition and the importance of the localities in which they live, will be such that it will be a most difficult burden for the members of the house to bear.
In making our past redistributions we have thought in terms of personalities and parties, the constituency as related to personalities, whereas in a truly democratic state we should be looking at the constituency in the terms of the electors. I have been reading, and I commend it to members of this house who are interested in redistribution, a work entitled "The Canadian House of Commons" by Norman Ward, professor of economics at
The Address-Mr. Power Saskatchewan university. There is a very interesting and instructive chapter on redistribution, and I quote one sentence which he attributes to the late Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King and which can be found in 1932-33 Hansard at page 5468, as follows:
Mr. King said:
Anyone reading the Hansard report . . . must realize to how small an extent the redistribution being effected at the moment is based upon the foundational principle of the division of the various constituencies according to the general interest of the country as a whole.
I continue with Mr. Ward:
Although this statement was being applied speci-ficially to the fiasco of 1933, it could be made with equal force concerning even the most peaceful of the eight redistributions which have occurred thus far.
On page 46 Mr. Ward goes on to say:
At one time or another in this contentious history, as we have seen, no less than four principles have been followed: the use of local boundary lines; the adoption of relatively large urban divisions; the establishment of contact divisions; and the equalization of population. But one or more of these principles has always been applied in relation to the wishes of a majority of the House of Commons, and when it has been expedient not to observe a principle, it has been conveniently forgotten.
I suggest that a drastic major operation is needed, not the mere lancing of a boil or two here or there on the body politic; and, moreover, that the longer the operation is deferred the worse will be the disease and the condition of the patient.
Now I should like to suggest to the majority of this house another consideration, that of just what political advantage is derived by the effecting of a redistribution by the party in power. As my friends and associates from Quebec know well, I have never been a white-plumed Sir Galahad constantly seeking the Holy Grail of electoral purity. I look at these matters rather from the standpoint of the hard-boiled politician; and I say to my friends and to myself: what is there to gain by even a manipulated redistribution? I look back at the pages of history within my own recollection and beyond it. I start by studying the very interesting brochure written by MacGregor Dawson entitled "The Gerrymander of 1882" in which Mr. Dawson, after a very earnest and sincere *study of what historically has been considered the worst redistribution we have ever suffered, comes to the conclusion that Sir John Macdonald and his followers gained nothing whatever at the election which followed the redistribution. On the contrary they lost a great many votes in the gerrymandered seats and more than held their own in the seats which had not been gerrymandered.

The Address-Mr. Power
Now I come to 1914, which is within the recollection of a great many of us. In that year the government of Sir Robert Borden effected a redistribution; but those who have observed the political history of that day I think will come to the conclusion that had the House of Commons not extended its term but held an election in 1916, there was more than a good prospect that the opponents of Sir Robert Borden would have come into power. It is quite true that when 1917 came on, with a question which was of vital interest to people all across the country, then questions of redistribution no longer entered into the discussion in any way whatever, and no longer could be counted upon to sway the balance of power from one side to the other.
In 1924 a redistribution was made by the government of the late Mr. King. At that time there were no representatives on the Conservative side from the province of Quebec, so it is to be assumed that had the Liberals in that province wished they could have worked their wicked way. But in 1925 the Liberals were defeated at the polls. Mr. Meighen was returned with 116 seats while the Liberals had 101. If the government remained in power it was due entirely to something else than redistribution. In 1930 the Conservatives came into power on the 1924 distribution.
Following the same line of argument, the Conservatives had a much discussed redistribution committee in 1933. There was bitter controversy in this house over that redistribution. It was alleged to be the most notorious of all the gerrymanders that had taken place. Yet in 1935 the Liberals were returned to power with a very great majority. I do not speak of 1947 because, whatever may have been done by the committee of that year, I do not think anyone will allege that the overwhelming majority the government obtained in 1949 was due to the redistribution.
There is another reason. I have reached the conclusion that nowadays people are not, as the Gilbert and Sullivan play said, all born little Liberals or little Conservatives. There is no longer the same allegiance to party lines. Professor A. R. M. Lower, now of Queen's university, had a very interesting article in the Canadian Historical Review of September, 1946, on what he called "Determinism in politics". In discussing it with him I call it political predestination. He starts with a very amusing dissertation on two well known men then in public life, the Right Hon. Mr. King and the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. He discusses their physical characteristics and comes to the conclusion, as Shakespeare did, that those who have a lean and hungry look

are apt to be radical whereas those who are more rotund are apt to be conservative. He comes to the conclusion that he was wrong in that case. In comparing Mr. Meighen with Mr. King, his premises do not work out to *their logical conclusion. But he does give some interesting accounts of what he -calls predeterminism arising out of racial reasons, religious reasons and sometimes out of economic reasons.
In speaking of Winnipeg where he lived for some time, and I paraphrase in far cruder language than Professor Lower used, he mentions one constituency of which he knew, in which it would appear that the people who lived in the mansions voted Tory; those who lived in the houses voted Grit; and those who lived in the shacks probably voted C.C.F. If I have the time, the members of the house would be interested, perhaps, in reading of a riding about which he speaks in the following terms:
Group allegiance has decided many an election in Canada; in fact it may have decided most. In the riding known best to the author of this paper, there is a township of Scottish Presbyterians, who always lose their votes, and another of Irish Roman Catholics, who also lose their votes: they both vote Liberal. The solid mass of the riding is north of Ireland. Since confederation, it has never elected anyone but a Conservative. Whatever the issue of the day, personal observation forces the conviction that, as the average elector in that riding goes into the polling booth, he sees rising up between him and his ballot images of William of Orange and the Pope. He accordingly puts an X opposite the Conservative candidate's name, thus winning over again the battle of the Boyne.
May I say to my friends from Quebec also that many times we have won the battle of St. Eustache, and many another time, poor unfortunate Riel has been hanged from the hustings. My contention is that what he calls group allegiance has largely disappeared, and that from the past few elections we would almost come to the conclusion that people do not vote by sections; they do not vote by organizations; they do not vote by race; and they do not vote by religion. Even within families, the call of party loyalty is far less potent than it was. I venture to say that men and women under thirty-five, perhaps even under forty, are no longer influenced by party slogans and party shibboleths.
If hon. members here will agree with that theory, then I suggest to them that it is a waste of time and a waste of our tempers and a waste of our patience to endeavour to hive the Grits, shepherd the Tories or segregate the C.C.F. when few of us, if any, can tell with any certainty just where the habitat of the Grits, the Tories or the C.C.F. is. Under these circumstances the system which we have is not an equitable one. From a

material, political-gain standpoint it does not do any good. I suggest to the government and to this house that we endeavour seriously, by some studies, to arrive at a method which will be more in line with our democratic thought.
I suppose I shall be asked what motives I have for all this agitation. The answer is simply this. I have been here for a long time, and I have been associated with this House of Commons for a still longer time.
I have come to feel all its moods and tenses.
I know its frailties and its greatness. I can even stand, Mr. Speaker, for the pomp and ceremony of it, though I must say that I enjoy the coarse ribaldry that sometimes occurs. In all this time I have learned to admire this House of Commons as an institution, almost to venerate it. I would regret to see it do anything which would lower it in the opinion of the people of Canada, and greatly desire to see it do something which would elevate it in the opinion of the people.
(Translation):


Mr. L. E. Roberge (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, it is for me a very great honour and a privilege to be given the opportunity to speak here, particularly since I do so as the member for one of the oldest counties in the province of Quebec, the county of Stanstead. Without further ado, I shall join those of my colleagues who have spoken before me and warmly congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. George and Gauthier). They have nobly fulfilled their tasks and have depicted their counties from the historical, industrial and economic viewpoints. I think they have done very well and I extend to them my warmest congratulations.
And now, may I be allowed to compare our government to a huge fountain, equipped with taps, the various departments being the guardians of that fountain from which flow so many good things to the advantage of the various sections of the country. Quite naturally, I am tempted to draw nearer to that fountain, and try to show, to the best of my ability, what my county needs most.
May I, first of all, take you to the southern part of my constituency, situated on the frontier of Vermont, where we find three beautiful towns: Stanstead, Rock Island and Beebe. The bilingual population of those towns lives in perfect harmony.
Rock Island is a small village really made up of two municipalities.
Half of the small town of Beebe is located on the American side and the other half on the Canadian side of the frontier.
The Address-Mr. Roberge
We are somewhat privileged in our part of the country since we benefit from three cultures, or rather from three ways of life. First, we have inherited from our forbears a French culture enriched by the Latin culture and civilization. We also greatly benefit from the great business sense of our Englishspeaking citizens. We also enjoy the friendship of our good neighbours to the south. As I was saying a moment ago, the people of these three villages live in perfect harmony.
We have in Rock Island the South Stanstead United Church, members of whose congregation live both in the county of Stanstead and on the American side of the border. We also have two international organizations, the Rotary Club and the Chamber of Commerce, whose members come from both sides of the border as well. Meetings of these two groups take place on Canadian soil, at the Delmonty Hotel in Rock Island; perfect understanding prevails throughout.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the government's attention to the state of the granite industry in the town of Beebe. As is well known, granite quarrying is the main industry in Beebe; it employs mostly male labour. There are also a few textile plants where the labour force is mixed but predominantly female.
For some time the granite industry has not been as flourishing as it was in the past and I wish particularly to call the attention of the government to that point. In fact, I have been given rather exact information and data which made me realize that this condition is due to the importing of granite from overseas. Since the transportation costs of this granite are not very high and since our workers are paid higher wages than their counterparts overseas, our granite industry suffers very much from this condition.
One of the oldest companies in the village has laid off almost 75 per cent of its employees, who are mostly householders. I ' ask the government to come to the assistance of the people of this village. However, if the treaties signed at Torquay and Annecy and other similar agreements prevent them from doing so, I wonder whether the Department of Public Works might not, by granting contracts to that company, assist these unfortunate people. I wish to draw the government's attention to this problem and I hope it will lend a sympathetic ear.
Let us now come back to Rock Island, my home town. The situation there is none too

The Address-Mr. Roberge encouraging and it might be even more serious, from the government's point of view. I am referring to the customs office, a matter which has been discussed for many years. Plans were even prepared and then other plans were drawn up later on but the project never got beyond the offices of the architects and engineers. That plan has never materialized and I wish to call the attention of the government to this problem. I have been assured recently, however, that special consideration was being given to this matter. I surely hope so, for tourists coming from the United States and Canadians going to the neighbouring country have to go down a very steep hill before coming to a narrow street where all the stores of that district are concentrated.
In the summer months traffic is very heavy, especially on holidays; one may see over a distance of a mile or a mile and a half a line-up of automobiles that have to wait there in the hot sun after travelling 200, 250 or 300 miles; the nerves of these people are therefore a little on edge, so that when they get to the customs office-I had that experience myself as I was formerly employed there- those people, being very tired, do not want to co-operate in any way. They cannot be blamed. The customs officers have, needless to say, a very complicated task to perform, and if the government wanted to go ahead with this project, the situation would be alleviated and would, I am convinced, strengthen the friendship which the Americans have for us.
When tourists have to go through such a bottleneck, all sorts of rather unpleasant remarks are heard. I am speaking of route 5, which is the main highway between the city of Boston and Quebec; the traffic of four or five American states moves on that road, and you will readily understand that, during the summer months, traffic is rather heavy and the situation becomes intolerable. As there are few warehouses, truckers often have to leave their goods out in the rain; the customs officers then have to work in the rain, and the goods often get spoilt.
I do hope that following the observations which I have just made, the government will see fit to give this problem particular attention.
At the other end of my county, as well as in Stanhope the same condition prevails. For there are no warehouses and the employees have to work practically in the open. Fortunately, I have been told that no later than next year, this problem will be given proper consideration.


(Text):
I now wish to continue in English in relating some of the difficulties which we run across in my county and which I wish to bring to the attention of the government. One of them has been mentioned by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), and I do not think I should elaborate on it. I may mention, however, that we are also greatly affected by the situation in the textile industry, which is exceedingly gloomy, with people working two and three days a week, and families disappearing overnight by the hundred, so I have been told. The same thing prevails in Coaticook on a smaller scale. These things I am sure will be looked into and I do not need to elaborate any more. I am sure there will be an adjustment in the shortest possible time.
The next thing has to do with the north of the county in Lennoxville, one of the cities in my constituency. There things are just about as normal as they could be. It is a very nice locality and very close to Sherbrooke. I have no complaints about that part of the county at all. I must give a lot of credit to the electors of my county for the way in which they look at this. With all these troubles prevailing they have been very generous to me. They have understood some of the problems that I have tried to explain to them, and they have co-operated a hundred per cent. I wish to congratulate them on bearing with the government and with the country in so far as this unfortunate situation is concerned, which we hope will not last very long. The centre of the county is mostly agricultural. In one section in the central part which is near Massawippi there is an agricultural section which covers about 40 square miles roughly and which has good farms. On the whole things are not too bad, but some of our farmers are complaining on account of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the west. As I said a few minutes ago, they understand the situation and they understand the problem that is facing the government, but there are some hardships which confront them. For instance, a friend of mine had two or three loads of hay which had been purchased, but which he could not get over the line. Some of the farms just across the border depend on that hay, and that is especially true of last year when we had such prosperous crops. We had a lot of hay to dispose of, and now it cannot be sold.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: May 1 interrupt to ask a question? Can the hon. member tell me how an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease 2,200 miles away affected the value of that hay?


Louis-Édouard Roberge: I do not mean the value of it, but we cannot export it to the United States on account of the embargo. We cannot send it across the border.


George Matheson Murray: There could not
possibly be any germs from Saskatchewan in that hay. That is the point.


Pierre Gauthier: He did not say
that.


Louis-Édouard Roberge: I did not mention germs. I mean the situation exists, on account of this disease that has broken out in the west. It affects the whole economy of the border from coast to coast, as far as I understand the situation. It prevents our export of hay to the United States. We have a very good market for dairy cattle across the border which was also affected. I feel confident also that if in the near future, after a thorough investigation of the eastern parts, especially in our province, there are no signs of the disease spreading, this embargo will be lifted and things will get back to normal, which will help our farmers quite a lot, and we shall be able to export our hay.
Another problem that we have run into, and which some of our farmers have asked me many times to mention, is the drop in the price of pork and meats of all kinds, and eggs and poultry, and yet they have to pay such enormous prices for their feed. In our part of the country we have beef, pork and poultry. The farmers have to pay $4.10 for a hundred pounds of scratch feed, and eggs are selling for around 38 cents to 42 cents a dozen. Well, they cannot make much headway at those prices. The same thing applies to some of the cattle feed as well. The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) said this afternoon that some pork has sold as low as 15 cents and 10 cents a pound, and yet the farmers have to pay up to $4.75 for starters. These prevailing prices are rather high when you take into consideration what they get for the produce of the farm. I should like to talk to some of the members of the cabinet and find out the answer. However, I am sure that after discussing the problems things will get back to normal.
I should now like to deal with some general matters, Mr. Speaker. I was in the national revenue service for some time. We ran into a lot of grief. There is one regulation that I should like the government to take into consideration and change it somewhat. It would not amount to very much, just a few dollars. At the present time gifts from abroad, from the United States or from any other country, are allowed in duty free to the value of $5. The sum of $5 for the
The Address-Mr. Roberge average family these days does not mean very much. We know very well that these gifts are occasionally sent to the individual, but mostly they are for the general welfare of the family, man and wife and children. Instead of having the $5 that we have now,
I think that we could raise it to the amount of $15. That would be quite a favourable change and it would avoid the customs officers on the steamship lines or on the border, or anywhere, where these gifts come in through customs ports of all kinds. It would relieve the situation and help out matters quite a lot. Many arguments are caused when people go to claim a parcel at customs which has the value of $5 on it. We know that sometimes the amount of $5 is a little bit off key. If we had a value of $15 in the customs regulations it would benefit our people and it would not do any harm at all as far as revenue is concerned. I would strongly recommend that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) take this into consideration.
Another item that I should like to draw to the attention of the government has to do with the income tax brackets. We know today, especially in our part of the country where the families are large, sometimes one or two in a family are exceptionally good at school and they want to pursue their studies right up to university or to take special courses of some kind. There is an exemption for children and we have the family allowances up to 16. From 16 to 21 there is a deduction for anyone in a university or a college, but when the individual reaches 21 the exemption is no longer granted. I know of two or three cases where real talents have been lost on account of lack of funds to carry on with their studies. I would suggest that the exemption age for students in universities and schools be raised to 25 years. I think that would just about compensate them and then they could take care of themselves. Two cases have been brought to my attention where the families were quite large and one individual was doing exceptionally well in university but could not take the advanced course. The father may say that he is out of funds, that he has used up all his money, that he has only a little left and cannot afford to spend more. However, through securing loans, and by other methods, he manages to secure enough funds. This is a hardship for the family, and I suggest some measure of relief is required. If the income tax branch would raise the age limit to 25 years, whereby a certificate could be made under regulations prescribed by the minister, it would be beneficial and would help these young men to finish school.
426

The Address-Mr. Poulin
I believe I shall wait until the budget debate to discuss other matters I have in mind. I do not pretend to be well versed in matters connected with foreign policy. However, in closing may I endorse the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Port-neuf (Mr. Gauthier). A number of immigrants have come to our section of the country, some of whom have been first-class, others not quite so satisfactory, and a few who have proved unsatisfactory.
It has been our experience that many of the immigrants would like to sneak across the boundary line to the United States. I have in mind one instance of a gentleman who came from the woods in northern Ontario. He travelled in light clothing and without warm footwear, in sub-zero weather. It happened that he knew one of the immigrants who had settled near the international boundary line. Those people had some difficulty in getting rid of their visitor. He had nowhere else to go and, in the sub-zero weather, they did not wish to turn him out. In the minds of immigrants of that kind-and we see it often in my part of the country-there is only one thought: How can we get across to the United States?i
Let me say, concerning the remarks of the hon. member for Portneuf, that in my part of Canada we are 100 per cent in favour of immigration, but we would confine it to a select group of immigrants who would be prepared to fulfil their contracts, and to conform to our way of living. I believe that I shall leave to the debate on the budget any further remarks I may have to make. (Translation):


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with a very pleasant custom but more particularly out of personal conviction it gives me pleasure to associate myself with most of the previous speakers who have congratulated the mover and seconder (Mr. George and Mr. Gauthier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
When we read those speeches where everyone boasts about his own district, we find ourselves loving still better this beloved Canada of ours.
Like the rest of Canada, the people of Beauce county were deeply grieved upon learning of the death of our king, especially since he was a humane and understanding king. The people of my constituency have adopted an attitude of respect and submission towards Her Majesty the new Queen.


As long as we are governed by the present system of constitutional royalty, I am confident that our people will always show the greatest respect for the man or woman in whose hands the sceptre rests.
I wish to express to the government, and more particularly to the Prime Minister, my personal gratitude for having chosen a Canadian as governor general. It is universally recognized that the actual holder of the post is a fine man, eminently qualified for this high office. But that is only accidental; the main thing is that it has been finally recognized that a Canadian was capable of occupying this exalted post just as well as a person belonging to another nationality.
Our country having ceased to be, at least in name, a dominion, is gradually becoming conscious of its responsibilities and worth. Let us hope that it will not stop there. There is still a long way to go before it is wholly emancipated and before it achieves the standing of a republic which, to my mind, would be the ideal of statehood.
But until then it will no doubt be possible to walk on, slowly but surely, and to give ourselves along the way, first of all, let us say, a flag which would make our presence known wherever we may foe

and God knows we are in a great many places today-but which would enable us, above all, to give a concrete form to the hopes and aspirations of all those youths who do not know where to look when they want to see the symbol of their country, for which they often generously sacrifice their comfort and sometimes lay down their lives.
And why should our country, once well on the way to independence, not give itself a national anthem?
Among other things, the speech from the throne says this:
Your approval will also be sought for a further Canadian contribution to the Colombo plan.
That, in my humble opinion, is a sound idea and it is well to mention it and to repeat it in this house; it meets with my full approval. For my part, I would be willing to increase it, for example, by any amount that might be deducted from the sums spent for military purposes in Asia. In fact, I am convinced that the way to make friends in that part of the world is not by brilliant feats of arms, by the success of our cannons and our planes but rather by giving aid to satisfy hunger, to create ambition and joy of living and to cause the gratefulness of the stomach if not of the heart.

And now, a few words about the foot-and-mouth disease-the awful fever, as some people call it-which is becoming a national disaster. First of all, I wonder if people are right in blaming the government for its so-called want of care or negligence. There were on the spot experts from both the provincial and federal governments. It is recognized that they took a long time in diagnosing the disease but it must be recognized also that in the case of animals as in the case of human beings it is sometimes impossible to diagnose the disease at the onset. When microbes or virus diseases are involved, the symptoms change very much, precisely because the characteristics of the microbe or virus keep changing and also because the reactions of the diseased animals change so much through successive generations.
At all events, let the experts bear their own responsibilities but let us not be too eager to condemn them, at least until we have proof of their carelessness or of their incompetence.
In this connection I read a few days ago in La Presse of March 11 a piece of news which worried me considerably. The article was entitled "Unanimous approval in Edmonton".
Yesterday evening, the legislature of Alberta approved a motion asking the federal government to take immediate measures in order to abolish the embargo which five Canadian provinces have laid on the import of meat from the west.
Will the federal government consider favorably such a request? Will it take a bias which would neutralize the embargo clamped on meat by the province of Quebec? I would imagine that it is not without due consideration that the provincial government has come to such a decision. I know from the newspapers that the man who is at least partly responsible for that embargo and who is responsible for its enforcement is none other than Dr. Maxime Veilleux, a veterinary doctor of great talent and renown, a graduate from Cornell university, a credit to the province of Quebec and to the county of Beauce in particular. It was indeed in a parish of that beautiful county that he began to practise.
Neither am I forgetting that Mr. Abel Marion, general chairman of the U.C.C. of Quebec, has publicly expressed his thanks to the provincial authorities for their action. This is an extract from a recent statement of his. I am quoting Le Devoir of March 3:
Quebec had to lay the embargo. The chairman of the U.C.C., Mr. Abel Marion, thanks the provincial authorities.
As the only effective remedy known against foot-and-mouth disease is the slaughtering of the stricken animals, the outbreak of this disease in our province would result in a milk shortage for
[DOT] 55704-28J
The Address-Mr. Poulin our towns. The U.C.C. thinks, therefore, that by laying the embargo on shipments of stock from the west of Canada, the provincial government is looking after the best interest of all the people in Quebec.
Such a step might well be criticized in certain quarters. On the other hand, the U.C.C. believes that the provincial department of agriculture had no other means of preventing the infection of our herds and, therefore, the ruin of our breeders. The position taken is courageous and praiseworthy and, once again, it benefits the people of the province at large.
Mr. Marion is a bona fide farmer who has won and, what is more, has kept the confidence of the united farmers of his province. I must say that he always talks sensibly, not only when he praises the government, but when he criticizes it, as he is likely to do at times. Since men like Dr. Maxime Veilleux and Mr. Abel Marion approve the position of the Quebec government, I deem myself justified in asking the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to refrain from taking any steps that would render void or ineffective the embargo imposed by the government of that province.
I wish to say a few words on a subject which, though it may not be as highly topical as the infection of which I have just spoken, is nevertheless a nightmare for the parties immediately concerned. I mean the sale of pork.
Last Saturday I was visited in my home by a group of farmers from the parish of St. Honore de Beauce. They had brought me a petition which they had circulated in great haste among their friends, the hog producers of the district. In a few hours this request was covered with 165 signatures.
St. Honore is an average agricultural parish in my constituency. The farmers are relatively prosperous because they are hard-working, thrifty, and: because they know how to turn to account the small income afforded by their calling. I repeat that in that one parish, in the space of a few hours, 165 hog producers asked to have their grievances brought to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) through their representative in Ottawa.
And what do they ask? Briefly this: that in view of the price of feed, the floor price of 26 cents a pound for pork is much too low; that, moreover, the floor price is not maintained in the Quebec market.
Some may refer to provincial autonomy but, for my part, this leaves me cold, providing the farmers get a reasonable price for their products. As a matter of fact, I have in my hand forty-one copies of invoices given me by these good farmers, and I see that in the

The Address-Mr. Poulin weeks of February 25 last and March 3, those farmers were paid at the Legrade, Inc. packing plant, in Quebec city, 20 cents a pound for class A hogs and 19-6 cents for class B-l. Those people were right in asking that a floor price be enforced in Quebec as elsewhere.
1 also received yesterday a letter from another producer in my county, Mr. Gerard Veilleux of Ste. Clothilde de Beauce. He told me in his letter that he sold his hogs and he enclosed a recent bill from which I saw that in that case also Legrade Inc. had paid 20 and 19 cents per pound. If I had the time, I could quote from that letter and I think I could prove, by the figures submitted, that that gentleman lost the sum of $58.61 on the sale of four hogs.
Confronted by those stupendous facts, I went to the extent, yesterday morning, of writing a message to the packing house of the Cooperative Federee, in Quebec, in order to find out what is going on in that establishment. I wrote:
Could you let me know what price was paid for hogs, grades A and B, which reached packing house, February 23, and March 3, 4 and 5?
Soon afterwards, I received a most courteous answer, stating:
Since February 16, we pay for grade A hogs support prices Quebec 25J, grade B 25-10.
Naturally, I looked around for some sound explanation of the whole business; I contacted an official in the department, right here in Ottawa. To my great surprise, he told me a thing I did not know; it appears that throughout Canada neither the merchants nor the packers have to pay the minimum price of 26 cents set by the agricultural prices support board. I must confess that I have wondered whether I had misunderstood the matter and a few hours later, I again turned to the same official who gave me the same answer.
I am asking the Right Hon. Minister of Agriculture to enforce, if possible, the payment of that floor price to producers. I also ask him to raise this price at least to 28 cents a pound, for even at that the farmer would produce at a loss.
I received lately a resolution passed by the U.C.C., a southern Quebec federation, which reads as follows:
February 7, 1952
At a meeting held at St. Joseph de Beauce on February 6, 1952, and which was attended by about 300 farmers representing 35 unions of the U.C.C. of southern Quebec . . .
Thirty-five unions, that's something, for sure.
Resolved that whereas the price of pork has fallen disastrously the meeting registers a strong protest against this situation.
Claims from the agricultural prices support board a minimum price of 28 cents.


Mr. Knowles:: Eleven o'clock!


Raoul Poulin: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the house, I could be through in two or three minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Agreed.


Raoul Poulin: The official of whom I was speaking a moment ago went further. He told me: "It is up to the farmers to look after their own business and not to sell to those who do not pay the floor price." That is a fine answer, Mr. Speaker.
Farmers see to their own business, as was demonstrated by those who came to see me last week to bring me their request and also by those who wrote to me or sent me resolutions. This good fellow from the department might also look to his business and inform the farmers they must be wary of the orders he himself has undoubtedly helped to prepare, so that scandals like those which have just occurred at Legrade Inc. in Quebec will not recur, to the desperation of farmers who no longer know how to organize their production.
(Text):


Mr. Adamson:: May I move the adjournment of the debate?


Mr. Knight:: May I move the adjournment of the debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I am
sorry; the hon. member for York West has already done so.
On motion of Mr. Adamson the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Tomorrow we will continue this debate. If it is concluded we will proceed with the second reading of Bill No. 8 and other matters on the order paper.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 14, 1952