1952-03-18

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:


[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Benidickson
Boisvert
Brooks
Campney
Cardiff
Carter
Coldwell
Cote (Matapedia-
Courtemanche
Crestohl
Dickey
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Fair
Fulford
Messrs:
Gour (Russell)
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Knowles
Leduc
Lefrangois
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
Matane) MacKenzie Murphy Parent Pouliot
Richard (Ottawa East) Stewart (Yorkton) Stuart (Charlotte) Viau-29.
(Quorum-10)
Argue
Balcer
Balcom
Bater
Beyerstein
Bonnier
Brooks
Cameron
Campney
Cauchon
Churchill
Cleaver
Cournoyer
Croll
Decore
Demers
Dinsdale
Eyre
Ferguson
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Gauthier (Lapointe)
George
Hansel!
Hees
Hosking
Hunter
Jeffery
Kent
Knight
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Lennard
Little
MacDougall
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria)
Macnaughton
McLean (Huron-Perth)
Meeker
Murphy
Noseworthy
Roberge
Robertson
Stewart (Yorkton)
Studer
Tustin
Valois
White (Middlesex East)
Whitman
Winkler
Wood
Wylie-50.
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Applewhaite
Beaudry
Bertrand
Beyerstein
Bonnier
Bourget
Browne (St. John's West)
Cannon
Carroll
Carter
Casselman
Cavers
Chevrier
Churchill
Clark
Conacher
Darroch
Dewar
Eudes
Ferguson
Follwell
Fulton
Garland
Gauthier (Portneuf) Gillis
Gourd (Chapleau)
Green
Harkness
Harrison
Healy
Herridge
Higgins
Hodgson
James
Lafontaine
Low
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacNaught
McCulloch
McGregor
Mclvor
Mott
Murphy
Murray (Cariboo)
Mutch
Nickle
Nixon
Noseworthy
Pouliot
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Riley
Robinson
Rooney
Ross (Hamilton East) Shaw
Stuart (Charlotte) Thatcher Weaver Whiteside Whitman-60.
BANKING AND COMMERCE Messrs:
Adamson
Argue
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Balcom
Beaudry
Bennett
Blackmore
Bradette
Brooks
Cannon
Carroll
Cleaver
Crestohl
Dumas
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
Fulford
Fulton
Gingras
Gour (Russell)
Harkness
Harris (Danforth)
Hees
Hellyer
Helme
Hunter
Laing
Leduc
Low
Macdonnell (Greenwood)
Macnaughton
Maltais
McCusker
McMillan
Nickle
Picard
Quelch
Richard (Ottawa East)
Riley
Sinclair
Smith (York North) Smith (Moose Mountain) Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thatcher Viau Ward Welboum White (Hastings-Peterborough)-50.
(Quorum-20)
(Quorum-15)
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Messrs:
Anderson
Ashbourne
Balcer
Beaudry
Benidickson
Beyerstein
Blue
Boisvert
Boivin
Browne (St. John's West)
Cauchon
Cavers
Churchill
Cleaver
Cloutier
Croll
Denis
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
Fulford
Fulton
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Gibson
Green
Harkness
Helme
Johnston
Jutras
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth) Larson
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
Macdonnell (Greenwood)
Maltais
Major
McCusker
Nowlan
Pearkes
Picard
Pinard
Richard (Ottawa East)
Riley
Robinson
Shaw
Sinclair
Sinnott
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thatcher Wright-50.
(Quorum-15)
AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION Messrs:
Anderson
Argue
Arsenault
Aylesworth
Bater
Bennett
Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Blue
Breton
Browne (St. John's West)
Bruneau
Bryce
Cardiff
Catherwood
Charlton
Clark
Corry
Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Courtemanche
Cruickshank
Darroch
Demers
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Dumas
Fair
Fontaine
Gauthier (Lapointe) George
Gour (Russell)
Harkness
Hetland
Jutras
Jones
Kent
Kickham
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Laing
MacKenzie
MacLean (Queens)
Major
Masse
McCubbin
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McWilliam
Murray (Oxford)
Murray (Cariboo)
Proudfoot
Quelch
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleehe)
Roberge Ross (Souris)
Studer
Welboum
White (Middlesex East)
Whitman
Wood
Wright
Wylie-60.
(Quorum-20)

[Stage Direction]
Boisvert Boucher Breton Casselman Denis Gibson Green 
Messrs:
Henry
Huffman
Knowles
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Meeker Monette
Pinard Quelch Robinson Ross (Souris)
Smith (York North) Stuart (Charlotte) Viau-20.
(Quorum-8)
MARINE AND FISHERIES Messrs:
Applewhaite
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Balcom
Bennett
Black (Cumberland)
Blackmore
Blair
Breton
Cannon
Catherwood
Cavers
Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Fulford
Gibson
Gillis
Harrison
Henderson
Higgins
James
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough) Langlois (Gaspe)
Leger
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
Maclnnis
MacLean (Queens)
MacNaught
Maltais
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McLure
Mott
Pearkes
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte) Thomas-35.
(Quorum-10)
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messrs:
Adamson
Benidickson
Black (Cumberland)
Boivin
Brisson
Byrne
Dickey
Dumas
Eyre
Ferrie
Gauthier (Sudbury)
Gauthier (Lapointe)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Harkness
Herridge
Higgins
Hosking
Hunter
Jones
LaCroix
Lafontaine
Larson
Little
MacLean (Queens)
Mclvor
McWilliam
Nickle
Pearkes
Proudfoot
Simmons
Stick
Thomas
Weaver
Welboum
Wylie-35.
im-10)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Messrs:
Balcer
Beaudoin
Black (Cumberland)
Boucher
Bourget
Breton
Brown (Essex West)
Byrne
Carroll
Churchill
Clark
Cloutier
Conacher
Cote (Verdun-La Salle) Croll
Fairclough, Mrs.
Gauthier (Sudbury) Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Gillis
Higgins
Johnston
Kent
Knowles
Lennard
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
Maclnnis
McWilliam
Mott
Murphy
Nixon
Pouliot
Ross (Hamilton East) Stewart (Yorkton)
Viau
Weaver-35.
(Quorum-10)

	DEBATES
	Messrs:
Boucher	Johnston
Casselman	Murray (Oxford)
Crestohl	Pouliot
Hees	Simmons
Henry	Valois
Knowles	Viau-12.
	(Quorum-7)
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS	
	Messrs:
Balcer	Higgins
Bater	Jutras
Benidickson	Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Bennett	Lesage
Bradette	Low
Coldwell	MacDougall
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Maclnnis	
Croll	MacKenzie
Decore	Macnaughton
Diefenbaker	McCusker
Fleming	Murray (Cariboo)
Fournier (Maisonneuve- Picard	
Rosemont)	Pinard
Fraser	Quelch
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Richard (Ottawa East) Gauthier (Portneuf) Riley	
Graydon	Robinson
Green	Stick-35.
	(Quorum-10)
	PRINTING
(Members to act	on the part of the Commons)
	Messrs:
Argue	Harkness
Ashbourne	Healy
Bertrand	Hees
Beyerstein	Hetland
Black (Chateauguay- Hodgson	
Huntingdon-Laprairie) Hunter	
Blackmore	Lefrangois
Boivin	MacLean (Cape Breton
Bonnier	North and Victoria)
Breton	Maltais
Browne (St. John's	West) McDonald (Parry Sound-
Bryce	Muskoka)
Cameron	Mclvor
Cardiff	McLean (Huron-Perth)
Cauchon	Me William
Cavers	Murray (Oxford)
Charlton	Robertson
Cruickshank	Rochefort
Darroch	Rowe
Dechene	Shaw
Dickey	Sinnott
Fairclough, Mrs.	Stanfield
Ferguson	Stuart (Charlotte)
Ferrie	Studer
Follwell	Tustin
Fontaine	Weaver
Gingras	Whitman
Goode	Wright-54.
Gour (Russell)	(Quorum-)
	LIBRARY
(Members to act	on the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker and Messrs:	
Beyerstein	Carter
Blackmore	Conacher
Brown (Essex West) Coyle	
Carroll	Dechene
Standing Committees
Demers
Dinsdale
Eudes
Gauthier (Lapointe)
Gingues
Goode
Hellyer
Henderson
Higgins
Hunter
Jones
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough) Knight LaCroix Laing Leger
MacLean (Queens) MacNaught
McHraith
McMillan
Meeker
Noseworthy
Pearkes
Proudfoot
Ratelle
Rochefort	.
Ross (Hamilton East) Rowe
Smith (York North)
Smith (Moose Mountain)
Tustin
Valois
Ward
White (Middlesex East)
Whiteside
Winkler-44.
(Quorum-)

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker and Messrs:
Casselman Cournoyer Cruickshank Dewar Ferguson Gauthier (Sudbury) Gour (Russell)
Hansell
Harkness
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Little
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacNaught
McCulloch
McGregor
Ratelle
Richard (Ottawa East) Riley Rochefort Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Stick
Ward
Warren
White (Hastings-Peterborough) -24.
(Quorum-)
Mr. Weir moved: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Gilbert Weir: That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting Their Honours that this house has appointed Mr. Speaker and Messrs. Beyerstein, Blackmore, Brown (Essex West), Carroll, Carter, Conacher, Coyle, Dechene, Demers, Dinsdale, Eudes, Gauthier (Lapointe), Gingues, Goode, Hellyer, Henderson Higgins, Hunter, Jones, Kirk (Antigonish-Guys-borough), Knight, LaCroix, Laing, Leger, MacLean (Queens), MacNaught, McHraith, McMillan, Meeker, Noseworthy, Pearkes, Proudfoot, Ratelle, Rochefort! Ross (Hamilton East), Rowe, Smith (York North)! Smith (Moose Mountain), Tustin, Valois, Ward! White (Middlesex East), Whiteside and Winkler, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the

Reports and Papers
interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Gilbert Weir: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the following members, namely: Messrs. Argue, Ashbourne, Bertrand, Beyerstein, Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie), Blackmore, Boivin, Bonnier, Breton, Browne (St. John's West), Bryce, Cameron, Cardiff, Cauchon, Cavers, Charlton, Cruickshank, Darroch, Dechene, Dickey, Fair-clough, Mrs., Ferguson, Ferrie, Follwell, Fontaine, Gingras, Goode, Gour (Russell), Harkness, Healy, Hees, Hetland, Hodgson, Hunter, Lefrangois, MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria), Maltais, McDonald (Parry Sound-Muskoka), Mclvor, McLean (Huron-Perth), McWilliam, Murray (Oxford), Robertson, Rochefort, Rowe, Shaw, Sinnott, Stanfield, Stuart (Charlotte), Studer, Tustin, Weaver, Whitman, Wright, will act as members on the part of this house on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Gilbert Weir: That Mr. Speaker and Messrs. Casselman, Cour-noyer, Cruickshank, Dewar, Ferguson, Gauthier (Sudbury), Gour (Russell), Hansell, Harkness, Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge), Little, Macdonald (Edmonton East), MacNaught, McCulloch, McGregor, Ratelle, Richard (Ottawa East), Riley, Rochefort, Stewart (Winnipeg North), Stick, Ward, Warren, White (Hastings-Peterborough), be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the restaurant so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I desire to lay on the table the annual report of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1951; also the annual report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year 1950-51.
I may say that copies of the wheat board report are available for hon. members at the distribution office.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Does the minister propose to have these reports, which he has tabled, sent to the appropriate committees as recommended by the public accounts committee last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the appropriate time I had intended to move that the report of the wheat board be referred to the committee on agriculture. So far as the report of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation is concerned, I had not intended to refer it to a committee, but there is no objection to doing so if any committee is interested in studying the report.



JAPANESE PEACE TREATY


Mr. Jean Lesage (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On behalf of the minister I beg leave to table two copies, in English and in French, of the treaty of peace with Japan, and related documents.
The treaty was signed at San Francisco on September 8, 1951.
[Later: ]



RATIFICATION BY SIGNATORIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He may not be able to answer offhand, but perhaps he will give the information to the house at the proper time. Can he tell the house how many nations who signed the treaties with Japan at San Francisco last fall have now ratified or approved the peace treaty with Japan through their parliaments?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I cannot give that exact information offhand. I know several have; but I shall bring down the details for the information of the house at the next sitting.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Calherwood (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister make a statement to the house as to whether any decisions were arrived at between Canadian agricultural officials and the United States department of agriculture authorities at a meeting held in Washington on Thursday and Friday of last week for the purpose of arriving at some clarification of the embargo restrictions placed on as a result of the foot-and-mouth disease?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to furnish me with a copy of his question, to which I have prepared the following answer:
A group of Canadian officials went to Washington last week to meet United States officials to discuss problems related to foot-and-mouth disease. These discussions were arranged for two purposes: first, to exchange information regarding the quarantine and protective measures which are in force in both countries, and, second, to examine the effects upon trade of the import controls which have been imposed in both countries on livestock and related products. These meetings were informal and exploratory and were not for the purpose of negotiating commitments on the part of either government.
From the Canadian point of view the discussions were very informative and resulted in a clarification of the situation. All canned meats hermetically sealed and all cooked meats are not affected under the United States embargo. Some classes of boned-out meats, either cured or partially cooked, may also enter the United States under certain conditions.


Mr. Fulion:: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether under the restrictions imposed by Canada on the importation of meats from the United States, the same class and types of meats will be permitted entry into Canada as he has just told us are permitted entry into the United States, notwithstanding their embargo?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that would be true.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles Henry (Rosedale):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Resources and Development. Will the minister make a statement with respect to his last negotiations with the Ontario government for rental housing in the vicinity of Toronto?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question. I may say that during the last two months I have had discussions in Toronto with the Ontario government about problems of rental housing throughout the province under the terms of section 35 of the National Housing Act, that is, the section which provides for the federal-provincial partnership approach to the housing problem.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Both the Ontario government and the federal government realize that any comprehensive housing program for the province of Ontario should include rental housing for the greater Toronto area. My hon. friend will appreciate that the municipal problems of the greater Toronto area, involving availability of serviced land, schools, levels of tax rates, and so on, are complex. A number of suggestions were put forward during these conversations, and the Ontario government undertook to explore ways and means whereby section 35 might be implemented in greater Toronto. I expect to hear from them in this respect before long.


Mr. Thalcher:: I should like to ask a further question of the Minister of Resources and Development. Could he tell the house what progress he has made in negotiations with Saskatchewan to get housing started out there?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, a project for some 75 units in Moose Jaw has the concurrence of all levels of government, and the signing of the agreement is imminent.
I understand that in Regina a project for some 150 units-I am speaking from memory -is under negotiation.



HANDLING OF OUT-OF-CONDITION WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary West):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government, in its investigation of ways and means of solving the damp grain problem of western Canada, considered the chemicals tetrasume and tetratil, manufactured in the United States, and widely used there for low-cost drying and fumigating of grains?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the few moments I have had since receiving notice of the question I have not been able to obtain any information on the subject. I will, however, refer the question to the research department of the board of grain commissioners and bring down an answer when I have such information as they can furnish.



SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: As we
have been setting up committees today it may be appropriate to ask the Prime Minister

House of Commons
if it is the government's intention to set up again the committee on rules which sat during the last session. Does the government propose to take some action on the recommendations contained in the report of the committee at the last session with respect to the hours of sitting?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government does not consider that it is the function of the government to take action with respect to rules of the house, which are under the control of members of the house.
Now, as to whether a committee should again be set up-that is a matter which has not been decided upon, but to which consideration can be given. I have had conversations with several of the members who composed that committee, and they seem to feel that what had been achieved was hardly compensation for the attention they had given to this work, and that unless there was some indication that there might be greater achievements than have been realized, it did not seem to be worth their while to devote more time to it.
However, I was not a member of the committee, and I have no opposition myself, personally, to its being set up again. If it is the desire of members of the house that it be reconstituted I will have no objection to making an opportunity for the matter to have consideration in the house.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask a supplementary question? Does the Prime Minister not feel that the implementation of what the committee recommended last year would in itself be compensation for the work we did?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I think if what was recommended by the committee could be accepted by the house, it would be an achievement. But it has been my understanding that there was no unanimity of view about that, except on one point, and that if it was brought before the house for discussion we would have little to show for it but the discussion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the committee was unanimous with respect to the proposed changes in the hours of sitting, will the government give consideration to allowing those changes to be made?


Mr.   SI Laurenl@: The government does not allow or disallow anything with respect to the hours of sitting of the house. That is a matter which is under the control of the house. Members of the government are also members of the house and they may have their views about it. I have spoken to several

about it-not just members of the government but other members of the house, and I have found objection to a shortening of the hours unless something else were done that would make it appear that shortening the hours would not lengthen the session.
I know that there are divergent views about this. Views have been expressed by others that we could have these shorter hours without doing anything about the length of speeches and still not prolong the session. But there seems to be no general agreement in that regard. I know that the hon. member has his views as to what would be desirable, and I have mine, but we are only two of 262 members, and we cannot always have our way.
I was told that the thing that would have to be done to follow the traditions of the house was, first, to have a motion that the report prepared during the last session be considered during this session. If that were agreed to, then a motion could be introduced referring the whole matter to the committee of the whole house. It did not appear to me that if we referred it to the committee of the whole house we would get very far beyond a lot of, no doubt, most interesting speeches.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, since this is a
matter of some importance, and of obvious interest to the whole house, I suggest that the Prime Minister should not leave the impression that his position in a matter of this kind is simply that of a single member of the house. Both under the rules of the house and by virtue of the very evident willingness of members of the party to which he belongs to support his statements in this house, there is no suggestion that his position is the same as that of a private member. So far as that is concerned, a private member cannot bring forward this motion. This motion can be brought forward by the government at any time, and it does not need to be a motion to approve the report that was introduced in the last session.
I think all that hon. members who have raised this question are asking is that there be a motion to refer the matter to a committee. With the knowledge of what has occurred, that committee could probably bring in a report in a very short time. In spite of the delays that government supporters are creating at this time in other fields of discussion, I believe that in this case the committee could bring in a report very quickly and place before the house views which could be approved or disapproved.

May I suggest to the Prime Minister that we deal with this matter in terms of reality, and recognize that if this matter is to be considered at all it must be initiated by the government? While it is not the responsibility of the government to say what shall be done, a committee should be given a chance to recommend to this house what the representatives of all the parties agree can be done.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will ask the gentleman who acts as our whip to confer with those who represent the other groups in the house, and if they can agree on such a committee I shall be glad to provide an opportunity for the house to pass upon their suggestion. I shall do that just as soon as I can get a report from them as to what seems to be the desire of hon. members in that regard.
Dealing with the other point, I should be only too happy to suggest what might in my view-I have not had as great experience as some other hon. members, not having been here so long-be helpful for the conduct of the business of the house. But in view of the fact, as the hon. gentleman has said, that there is a large majority of members in the house who usually agree with me, I have always hesitated to expose hon. members and myself to the charge that we were steamrolling things through the house. That we do not wish to do. If through the good offices of the gentlemen who represent the different groups in the house we can get at something % that will not appear to be an imposition upon any minority group, I shall be most happy to provide the occasion for the house to deal with it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that
suggestion. May I point out that far from saying that the Prime Minister was doing anything that could be interpreted as operating a steamroller, I was merely suggesting that he provide a vehicle by which the members themselves could give expression to their different ideas as to what they wanted to do.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 17, 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.
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, from what I have heard in this house at times it seems to me that some hon. members are not aware that Nova Scotians are very
The Address-Mr. Balcom hardy people. If we were not so hardy I am afraid we would have been pushed into the Atlantic years ago. The weaker members of our community migrate to Ontario, where the competition is not so keen, and in a short time they become heads of universities or of great financial institutions. Some even find their way to British Columbia and return to Ottawa as members of parliament.
In the course of a day a great many problems are presented to a member of parliament. Many of them are individual or group problems which have no real bearing on public policy. A great many are the result of the increasing government activity in the life of the nation. This has been increasingly marked with the need to devote a greater proportion of our resources to defence. But apart from such expenditures, which we hope are to some extent temporary, but which although temporary have nevertheless curtailed the extension of other services such as public works and social services, the government has gone a long way in the field of social security. This aspect of public policy is here to stay, but its relative newness, together with the huge defence expenditures, has helped to create problems which go to the heart of our system of government.
The most disturbing aspect of this matter is the growing tendency for individuals and groups to look to the government to bail them out of difficulties that arise or to provide them with special benefits for some reason, all of which become precedents for others in like situations to follow. I would suggest that there are probably a few members in the house who have a tendency to take advantage of precedents that have been so established. This government has an outstanding record in the field of social security. Our present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is truly conscious of the needs of our people, and his co-operation is reflected across Canada in the many good works sponsored by his department. The most important recent step, of course, was the implementation of universal old age pensions. Hardly less important, although less widespread, is the increase in the veterans pension; and now we hope for a sympathetic and understanding consideration of war veterans allowances for burnt-out soldiers.
These are steps which I think have had the support of most Canadians. There is criticism, of course-some on the basis that the timing only increased inflationary pressure, others on the basis that the old age pension of $40 was not large enough. That, however, is a healthy sign, for opposition, freely expressed, is part and parcel of our way of life. These measures are consonant with our
53S

The Address-Mr. Balcom industrial development and are quite in keeping with the abundance of our resources.
One of the most difficult problems of a member of parliament is to keep first things first in dealing with the many problems that are brought to his attention. The way of least resistance, of course, is to espouse the causes which are backed by strong organizations. The danger in this course is obvious, for its corollary is political weakness where organization is lacking, resulting too often in neglect when public policy is wanting.
Progress has been made in the past few years both in organization and in the recognition by government of the problems of the fishing industry. But there is a considerable group which has no association to speak for it and whose problems are quickly supplanted in the public eye by causes more vigorously pressed.
I am speaking particularly of the inshore fishermen who live in the communities which dot the shores of Halifax county-indeed of the whole coast line of Nova Scotia-and who lack organization. Granted that their way of life is one of independence and that the nature of their craft, with its reliance on skill and courage, is eminently suited to the exercise of individual initiative. Yet surely the farmers, if we may judge from those in the house, have not lost their independence by building up strong federations.
A perennial cause of dissatisfaction among these fishermen is the spread between the price they receive for fish and the price the consumer pays. This controversial question of "price spread" is complicated, and I have not the information to make a conclusive judgment. It has been contended after past investigations that rather than unreasonable profits to "middlemen", as is commonly held, the major cause of the low return to the fishermen is inefficiency in handling and distributing by our transportation system. The nature of the product in this case makes it peculiarly liable to spoilage and presents special technical problems in transportation and distribution. Yet other industries have solved similar problems. These would not be insurmountable if tackled with sufficient vigour, financial backing and organization, I am sure. Here is where the leadership of a strong trade association would be effective and could compensate to some extent for the difficulties of small producers in competition with mass production industries.
It may be said that it is no concern of the government whether or not the industry has lacked ardent spokesmen and been politically weak. I contend that by so much the more should the government recognize


its problems. The industry has over the years been traditionally between the hammer and the anvil: the old familiar problem of maritime industry of high cost supplies, gear and equipment bought in a protected market on the one hand, and highly competitive selling in the world market on the other.
There has been some adjustment in the industry as a whole in the past few years. A larger proportion of production is now going to the North American market, and there has been a period of relative stability. And on the basis of resources and market possibilities, further expansion on a profitable basis is possible-given, of course, improved equipment and facilities.
This is an industry which can be developed further to the very great advantage of the maritime provinces. A relatively minor expenditure on further research, both scientific and economic, and active development, would pay handsome dividends. It would be not a question of subsidy or special assistance on the basis of expediency, but a wise investment. We have found that so often national policies for development of other parts of Canada have redounded to the disadvantage of the maritimes. Surely it is not too much to ask for adequate attention to the development of these rich resources, lying right at our door, which other people come across an ocean to exploit-and at a profit, too!
I feel that much remains to be done, but I do want to commend the government for the increasing attention given to the fisheries industry in the past few years. In co-operation with the provinces, training has been provided. Shore facilities, such as bait freezing plants on a small scale, have been established; loan capital has been made available through provincial loan boards for procuring boats and equipment. But unfortunately these loans are not such that they can be given to the small inshore fisherman who can provide himself with only a small boat and cannot afford a larger one. Capable research people are working both on fish resources, and processing and handling, and the plant in Halifax is not only the best in Canada, I am given to understand, but one of the finest, in work results, in the world-that is in work results; I do not mean in equipment particularly.
Yet I feel that we have not yet reached the fundamental problem of the individual fisherman, that is, to increase his productivity-by increasing his capital equipment- in such a way that he is in a position to cope with the risks of the trade. Nor have we solved the financial and technical problems of satisfactory marketing facilities

which are fundamental to the industry as a whole. A more radical approach to both phases of the problem may be called for. For lack of initiative or imagination on our part let us not sell these fishing communities short and permit an important resource to go by default to those countries with superior know-how.
The problems of the fishing industry in Nova Scotia were ably set out and presented on Tuesday by the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk), and by my colleague, the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), and by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) on Wednesday. But I should like to add to the list of losses of those in the western counties the losses in the immediate vicinity of Halifax. Our information is that 6,126 lobster traps were lost in the recent storms, and at the value placed upon them by the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth that loss would be some $40,000. Some communities were hit harder than others. For instance at Devil's island, a small island off the mouth of Halifax harbour which is exposed to the winter rigours of the Atlantic, thirty-six fishermen lost an estimated 2,300 traps of the 2,500 that were in the water. That was a paralysing blow. At the small village of Sambro, to the west, twenty fishermen lost approximately 1,000 traps. As I said before, this leaves the fishermen with practically no resources, and with neither cash nor credit at the bank.
In addition to the hazards of wind, ice and storms, these fishermen face other dangers. I shall refer to only one; that is the risk taken by our fishermen during the war when submarines operated off our harbours and in the bay of Fundy. In the latter instance spies were landed on our shores; and the presence of submarines in our waters was first learned by our fishermen, who I have no doubt were used by naval headquarters in order to obtain information. In spite of the menace, however, the fishermen continued their work and daily faced a watery grave. Nothing could scare them off the sea. Of all our citizens none are more loyal than the fishermen. When wars break out, almost the first to enlist are these same fishermen, who join the navy and merchant marine as captains, skippers, crewmen and pilots.
I am looking forward to the time when government experts will devise, as they have in other occupations, a cheap form of insurance for fishermen on their gear and equipment, and a means by which the fishermen may enjoy the benefits of unemployment insurance and compensation. I am afraid a great many members of this house are not aware that at present fishermen are not
The Address-Mr. Balcom entitled to unemployment insurance and these other benefits. With other hon. members I respectfully suggest to the government that an exhaustive inquiry be made into these matters on behalf of the fishermen, and soon. We are not asking for a subsidy for our products but merely for an investment in maritime economy; for I contend, Mr. Speaker, that our Canadian pattern of life is made strong by all the complex forces involved and co-operating in it. The active part in our national life played by the fishing folk of this country cannot be overestimated, and they should be taken out of the class of forgotten people.
Haligonians generally are very appreciative of the co-operation they have received from the ministers. Particularly are they grateful to the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), who has done many things for us. I refer particularly to the fact that the historic sites branch of his department has taken control of the historic Halifax citadel, known as Fort George. Already we can see great changes in this structure, in that the old moat with its stone and iron work is being preserved.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and to extend to him the thanks of the people of Halifax for the assurance of his co-operation with the city in the establishment of an airport. The position of Halifax in the national communications system is important, and I might also say unique. As it is the main land terminus of air, rail and water transportation, there must be adequate and flexible facilities for commercial as well as defence needs. But this same terminal position involves rather heavy costs in relation to revenue, and it has not been easy to obtain and maintain adequate services. The minister has recognized that it is in the national interest to maintain and improve transportation facilities. The proposed arrangements regarding the Halifax airport are in line with this policy. Such a port as ours is vitally necessary not only for commerce but as an alternative in time of emergency to the naval airport at Eastern Passage.
While I am on the subject of transportation facilities I should like to draw attention to the inadequacy of hotel accommodation in the city of Halifax. In 1930 the Canadian National Railways built the Nova Scotian hotel, a structure of 170 rooms. At the same time the citizens of Halifax in a community effort built the Lord Nelson hotel with 200 rooms. Today the Nova Scotian hotel is completely inadequate to meet the demands of the travelling public or of the patrons of the Canadian

The Address-Mr. Balcom National Railways, Canadian National Steamships, or Trans-Canada Air Lines. With ship travel increasing every year from this port I would urge the minister to give the question of adding another 100 rooms to this hotel his earnest consideration.
Alongside this too small but none the less fine and well-operated hotel are the outmoded express sheds adjoining the Canadian National station. These sheds are of wood and were built, if I remember correctly, about the time of the first war. They are not only a potential fire hazard; they are unsightly, and should be replaced.
On March 31 Halifax is to have the pleasure of a visit by the Minister of Transport, who will officially open the new pier 3 which replaces one burned out many years ago. The completion of this pier will greatly assist in the efficient handling of freight, but the port facilities are by no means rounded out by this structure. The old pier 4 is at present in very bad repair, and will need to be reconstructed in the very near future so that freight to Newfoundland and Europe may be expedited.
Almost every day in this house we hear of grade A hogs, grade A cattle, No. 1 wheat and everything else coming out of the west. So I was somewhat surprised to learn through the columns of the Halifax Herald of March 6 that Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia had a greater percentage of grade A hogs in their shipments to market than any other Canadian provinces, according to the latest tests by the federal Department of Agriculture. Like so many things produced in the maritime provinces, we have not the quantity but we surely have the quality.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, is it too much to ask that we should have a greater unity in objectives in this Canada of ours? Is it too much to ask -that our ten provinces aim their policies at what is good for the whole, and that the federal government in turn act in the same way toward the units that make up this wonderful country? It was only last week that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), speaking in this house, stressed the f-act that we have a great country and a great people, and of course we all agree with that. A former Canadian statesman once said that Canada was like a string of beads, but he qualified that by saying they were not all pearls. If such is the case I would-suggest that those provinces which might not be classed as pearls be brought to equality with the others, so that we may -all be considered of the same value. So far as humanly possible any bars between provinces should be discarded. We should start at once at the top, and by that I mean by having

reciprocity in education. Where education is of equal standard, professional degrees granted in one province should qualify a graduate to practise his profession in another. I am sure that this would end the overcrowding of a profession in one province; in fact I feel we would never have to meet that condition. We should, Mr. Speaker, see that all citizens in this country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, are entitled to receive the same opportunities and privileges.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all members in this house have listened attentively to the member for Halifax (Mr. Balcom) who has just taken his seat. There was very little in what he said with which anyone could disagree. I am heartily in accord with practically everything he said. I agree with his remarks about our social services. He mentioned the fact that his party had brought in most of the social services in this country. I would point out to him that old age pensions, -children's allowances and all social service matters that have been introduced in this country have had the full support not only of every party in this house but of every member.
I agree also with the hon. member's desire that the fishermen of his province, as well as those of the other maritime provinces, receive more consideration. My constituency is not directly interested in fishing, and is one of the few in the maritime provinces that is not. There -are three -constituencies out of ten in New Brunswick that do not touch the sea. All the other constituencies in New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia and in Prince Edward Island, as well -as those in- the province of Newfoundland, are interested in fishing; they -all border on the sea. Mention of that fact indicates how necessary it is that -this great industry in the maritime provinces receive -the -consideration which is its due.
Another matter has been- mentioned during the last few days, particularly by members from the province of Saskatchewan, upon which I desire to make a few comments. Saskatchewan is greatly concerned over the fact that it will lose some four or five members in the redistribution. We all sympathize with this great province, because I look for important developments there in the future. I do not think that they need to worry too much, because if they lose members today I am satisfied that a few years from now they will regain their members, especially if the developments which have been sponsored by certain members, such as the South Saskatchewan river development, occur. This will mean much to the economy of that province in the future. I would not

be surprised if Saskatchewan were to compete with Alberta in days to come also in the development of oil.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) mentioned yesterday that one member thought it unfair that Prince Edward Island should have four members when other provinces with much larger populations in proportion were losing members. I should like to point out to those members that our maritime provinces, particularly New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, were two of the pillars of confederation. In 1874 New Brunswick had 16 members; today it has 10 members. In the same year Nova Scotia had 21 members; today it has 13 members and I believe is to be reduced to 12. While the Saskatchewan members are feeling sorry for themselves, I would point out to them that throughout the years the maritime provinces have seen their populations decreased and have lost representatives in this house, just as Saskatchewan expects to lose representatives now. In 1874 the maritime provinces had 43 members, but today we have 27.
As a New Brunswicker, and because I feel he deserves it, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. George), the mover of the address, and also the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John). I expect these hon. members are now beginning to feel bored: with these congratulatory remarks. However, they are deserved. The member for Westmorland said that it was not altogether a compliment to him when he was chosen for this task, but it was a compliment to his constituency. No doubt that is a fact. I feel it was also a compliment to my province of New Brunswick. In looking over the record I find that this is the first time in many, many years that a member from that province has been asked either to move or to second the address. We are glad to see that we are receiving some recognition, even if it is only in this small matter.
One item in the speech from the throne which interested me very much, and which has already been the subject of comment by a number of members, is the mention of legislation to be brought down in connection with the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Veterans Benefit Act. I am pleased that these matters are to receive attention. I want to say here that personally I feel they should have received attention some time ago. I could not understand why, when the old age pensions and veterans pensions were dealt with at the last session, these matters were not dealt with at the same time. The veterans from one end of this country to the other could not understand the delay either, because nothing has been gained by it. I
The Address-Mr. Brooks feel that a great injustice has been done to many of our veterans, especially those on small pensions. The small pensioner, who also received war veterans allowance, did not get any benefits from the increased pension if he was receiving $610 as a single man or $1,100 as a married man. He could not understand it. I am pleased to see that a veterans committee is to be set up, and I hope that this injustice in the War Veterans Allowance Act will be corrected.
My main object in speaking this afternoon is to support the appeal which was made by the member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) with reference to the expansion of the port of Saint John. Perhaps I have not the same interest in the city of Saint John that the hon. member has, but I might say that my constituency touches the Saint John river and is only a few miles from the city of Saint John. There is no constituency in the province of New Brunswick which benefits more from trading with that city than does the constituency of Royal. We supply them with their dairy products. Practically all the milk that is consumed in the city of Saint John comes from my constituency, and when the city of Saint John is prosperous the people of my constituency and the people of other parts of the province of New Brunswick are prosperous.
It would mean much to us if in our province we had a city twice the size of Saint John. That is one reason why we are jealous of anything which seems to detract or take away from it. I may say that we are very proud of the city of Saint John, the first incorporated city in the Dominion of Canada. It is one of our oldest cities. It has been a great seaport from the very early days of the history of this country. Ships and the sea have been a part of Saint John since the days of Champlain, Latour and other earlier discoverers of this country. Saint John is also one of the few cities that have been mentioned in prose and poetry. I am not going to quote any poetry this afternoon, but two of the great poets of this country were born in my province. I refer to Bliss Carman, probably the greatest poet of Canada, and his cousin, Sir Charles G. D. Roberts. Both wrote poetry on ships and the port of Saint John. Before confederation it was a great port and a great shipbuilding centre. After confederation we were told that our city was to be the Liverpool of Canada. Sir John A. Macdonald said at that time that the commerce going from ports of the maritimes would bring prosperity to these provinces such as they never had before. When speaking in the city of Saint John in 1897, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that he would never be satisfied until every pound of Canadian

The Address-Mr. Brooks freight was carried through Canadian ports. That has been the ideal and the objective of the ports of Saint John and Halifax. I am sorry to say that the dream of Sir John has never been fulfilled, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier's promise or hope that every pound of freight would go through the ports of Saint John and Halifax has not been realized. We had to fight and fight all the way to get the freight which originates in the west, and in different parts of Canada, from being shunted off to ports like Portland and Boston and other ports of the United States. It has been a continual fight for these two cities of Saint John and Halifax.
We have been quite successful. Today Saint John and Halifax are enjoying a very busy winter. They are enjoying considerable export from these cities, but there is fear today that on account of lack of suitable accommodation and port facilities they are going to lose a certain amount of this business and that it will again be diverted to ports in the United States. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read a short paragraph from an article in the Times-Globe of Saint John, published on March 12 of this year. In speaking about the situation in the port of Saint John that paper said:
At the present time, the inability of the port of Saint John to handle the normal flow of business is causing loss of potential wages to many harbour front workers. Vessels are being diverted in some cases to other ports to avoid long waits for docking accommodation, because each day's delay is very expensive to the shipping lines.
That is something that should not be permitted to happen. On account of the lack of port facilities the diversion of ships may again take place and ships will be sent to Portland or to some other United States city. I do not wish to weary the house, but I have here a letter which comes from the Saint John board of trade. It is not too long, and it sets out very clearly the situation in the port of the city of Saint John at the present time. I may say that this is one of forty letters which were sent out by the board of trade of Saint John to the different members who visited that city last winter, and who, I am sure, have very pleasant memories of their visit. This letter is from the president of the Saint John board of trade and reads as follows:
Mr. A. J. Brooks, M.P.,
Royal, New Brunswick,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Brooks:
We did so enjoy your visit with us during March of last year, and as I drove down Germain street this morning I did so wish that you could be back

with us to see the emergency situation existing in our port. Each and every dock working to capacity, and seven ocean-going freighters anchored outside the harbour warned that there would be a five-day delay before they could dock. Each containing cargo important to our Canadian economy in one province or another.
This situation is urgent and terribly important to the city of Saint John, the province of New Brunswick and all Canada. There is no criticism of port management nor national harbours board. A wonderful job is being done under the conditions.
To fulfil our part we must have something now more than replacements and the proper authorities have full details where expansion could be made with speed this summer.
We are attaching a mimeographed copy of a recent editorial in our local paper where it is correctly pointed out that, not only the Canadian effort, but the entire economy of our province of New Brunswick is adversely affected by lack of proper facilities in our port, which facilities we had great pleasure in showing you one year ago.
Our member, Mr. D. A. Riley, has brought this matter to the floor of the house, and the Hon. Mr. Chevrier has expressed knowledge and appreciation of the situation but, according to press report this morning, advised Mr. Riley that he does not make government policy.
We know that one minister in the government does not make government policy; we also know that a minister in charge of a department recommends policy regarding his own department, and that is what we hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) will do. I continue with the letter:
We have had marvellous replacements but not a single additional dock in twenty years.
That is a long time ago. Twenty years ago there was a fire in the city of Saint John and the docks were destroyed. As is pointed out here, a considerable sum was spent in that port, but it was only for the replacement of the docks that were there twenty years ago. The letter continues:
There is another replacement contemplated, which is fine as far as it goes, but what this port needs is increased facilities by extension of present piers that will permit us to do our part. In other words, all we ask is "Give us the tools."
On behalf of our board, to you who actually visited the port of Saint John and travelled in our harbour, may I ask and urge your support of Mr. Riley in helping the Hon. Mr. Chevrier by voicing your support on the floor of the house, resulting in order in council, or whatever parliamentary procedure may be necessary, so that increased berthage needed in the port of Saint John be recognized as part of Canada's defence effort and national economy and implemented without delay.
I am trying to make this letter as brief as possible, but I could give you figures on very short notice of the very poor publicity our port is receiving because of delays to all shipping companies whose ships are on very tight schedules. I could give you figures of ships on such tight schedules that this port is losing because they cannot wait, and I can show you letters to shipping agents here, from shippers who are cancelling further shipments from this port. Possibly lost altogether to Canada.
Our board of trade will sincerely appreciate your active interest in this effort, in which we have the

complete support of the premier and legislature of the province of New Brunswick, the mayor and councillors of the city of Saint John.
Our all-year-round port is important not only to us, but to all Canada.
Kindest personal regards.
G. G. Anglin
President.
That letter speaks in most eloquent terms of the situation, and it is not necessary for me to comment on it any further, but I should like to point out that this fear of diversion of trade is not something new. We have heard it discussed in this House of Commons many times. I have heard Mr. D. King Hazen, the former member from the city of Saint John, bring this matter to the attention of the house. Hon. members will recall that in 1948 there was a possibility of our losing certain ships from Halifax and Saint John- in fact, we did lose some. Mr. Hazen brought the matter up as a result of a statement made by Mr. R. C. Vaughan, who was then president of the Canadian National Railways. Mr. Hazen at that time quoted a statement by Mr. Vaughan, and said:
To give the story from the beginning I want to refer to an Associated Press dispatch from Portland, Maine, dated July 23 last, which quoted Mr. R. C. Vaughan, president of the Canadian National Railways, as saying in an interview that the C.N.R. has "a big stake" in Portland, and that "we're going to do everything we can for the port of Portland."
That was what precipitated Mr. Hazen's remarks at that time. I might add that there had been a number of telegrams from the municipalities of Saint John and Halifax. The mayors of those cities as well as the boards of trade had written or wired in to the Minister of Transport.
I wish to bring out particularly that in reply to a wire from the mayor of Saint John complaining about the loss of ships to Halifax and Saint John, the minister sent the following wire, as it is set out at page 944 of Hansard for 1948:
I have your telegram referring to statement alleged to have been made by R. C. Vaughan, president of Canadian National Railways, which I have not seen. Please let me assure you that statements of policy always emanate from the government or one of its ministers.
He was not so definite at that time that it came from the government, but said it emanated either from the government or from one of its ministers. The telegram continues:
The policy of the government is to encourage and assist its national ports to the fullest extent, further, to use the facilities of our national ports to the maximum and to increase those facilities when required.
I call attention to that statement, that it is to increase those facilities when required.
The Address-Mr. Brooks That is exactly what we are asking at the present time. There can be no question that further facilities are needed. All we are asking is that, since they are required, the minister and the government see that they are furnished. The telegram continues:
In evidence of this the government has spent from 1936 to 1946, for capital and reconstruction of our national ports, approximately $18 million. This year's estimate for the port of Saint John contains initial appropriations which will mean eventual expenditure within a year or two of approximately $3 million.
As I said before, f am certain that $3 million was spent for the rebuilding of facilities that had been burned. Then, continuing the quotation:
National harbours board informs me surveys are under way for further expansion. All of which is an indication that government has very much in mind the development and expansion of facilities at the port of Saint John.
I am sorry the minister is not in his seat, because I should have liked to ask him, in connection with the last part of this telegram, what is being done at the present time. It will be noted that he says that the national harbours board had informed him that surveys were under way for further expansion, and that this was an indication that the government had very much in mind the development and expansion of facilities at the port of Saint John.
There can be no question that, through the national harbours board, the government is well aware of the situation in the harbour of Saint John. Upon reading the telegram of the minister in 1948, there is no doubt in my mind that surveys have been made and that, so far as this government is concerned, all that is required at the present time is to vote money to develop these much needed facilities in Saint John, and to carry out the plans which I am sure the harbours board must have at the present time.
I do not think it is necessary for me to argue the point at greater length. The situation is obvious. It was obvious to the forty members who went to Saint John last year from this House of Commons. It was the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) himself who pointed out certain piers that were in a bad state of repair, to the point of being useless.
We have the record from the board of trade and from the press that ships cannot find berths in Saint John, and that as a result they are being diverted to other ports. We learn that the longshoremen are losing their wages and their employment, and that in all probability this business is going to the United States.
542	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bruneau
Halifax and Saint John are always recognized in times of war. In two world wars they have played a great part in the defence of this country. No cities in Canada have done more for the defence of the country and of liberty than have Saint John and Halifax. In times of peace they should not be forgotten. I can recall that during the last two wars there were always bottlenecks at Halifax and Saint John, so far as shipping was concerned. We are spending billions of dollars on defence. I say a proper defence of the country requires that we should have ports from which we can readily ship our supplies overseas in a time of need.
The repairing and building of ports is not like the making of tanks or aeroplanes. If a war comes, then we have these ports we can use; and when the war is over those facilities remain and can be used for the development of the country in times of peace.
I am sorry, as I said, that the minister is not in his seat this afternoon. I do hope however that he will listen to the pleas of the people in the old port of Saint John, and see that justice is done so far as that port is concerned.


Mr. Raymond Bruneau (Prescott):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was deeply interested in the historical facts given by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. George) with respect to his riding.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted also to extend my sincere congratulations to my friend, the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier), on his splendid description of the natural resources of his county.
(Text):
At the beginning of this sixth session of the twenty-first parliament, history is in the making. We are now mourning the loss of our beloved sovereign, George VI, who with his charming wife toured our great country in 1939, leaving everywhere a deep-rooted impression that he was indeed our king, the king of Canada. We shall long remember him, not as an important personage, but as a great king and a good citizen. His passing will be regretted not only here in Canada and in the British empire, but in all free countries of the world.
To the members of his family, to the queen mother, to Queen Mary, to Queen Elizabeth II and to Princess Margaret Rose I
[Mr. Brooks.)

wish, in the name of those whom I have the privilege of representing in the house, to extend my heartfelt sympathy.
To our gracious sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, we wish to give the assurance of our loyalty, while expressing the hope that hers will be a fruitful reign. It seems only yesterday that we had the opportunity of greeting her in our country as the heir to the throne. As in the case of her parents, her visit strengthened the bonds that bind our people to the British queen.
Among the outstanding events that have taken place recently is the departure of the former governor general, Lord Alexander of Tunis. When he left our shores we had the impression that we were losing one of our own. We are thankful to those who made him a member of the privy council. About two years ago when Lord Alexander paid a visit to our riding he was cheered by the people of Plantagenet, Alfred, L'Orignal and Hawkesbury. When in his farewell speech he spoke of his deep and sincere love for our country my constituents, among others, really understood his sympathy for and the attachment to those whom he had so faithfully served during his term of office in Canada.
Another important event which will long be remembered in Canadian history was the appointment of one of our native sons as the representative of Her Majesty in Canada, the Right Hon. Vincent Massey. As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) explained so ably in the house, this appointment of a Canadian to represent the British crown will in no way weaken our attachment and loyalty to Queen Elizabeth, the queen. It was thought that to entrust these functions to one of our own was to express a deeper and closer bond to the sovereign of Canada. I am sure no happier choice could have been made. The fact that His Excellency the Governor General presided over the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences undoubtedly places him in a better position to understand our position.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Cote) upon his appointment as Postmaster General. I wish also to congratulate my colleague, the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), upon his recent appointment as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe).
During his recent visit to Ottawa the Right Hon. Winston Churchill stated that our Prime Minister had played a major part in enacting the North Atlantic treaty. The meetings recently held at Lisbon have made clear to the whole world the determination of free countries to work together in perfect

harmony for the safeguarding of our democratic liberties and for the welfare and prosperity of the peoples of the North Atlantic pact.
The courage of our boys of the 25th brigade, our men of the navy and of the 426th squadron of the R.C.A.F., at present in service in the Pacific, undoubtedly testifies to the determination of our people to hold a place among those great nations who willingly lend a helping hand to oppressed countries. Among those, let us not forget the soldiers of the 27th brigade which has now taken its place among the armies of the NATO countries in Europe.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent here what I think is one of the most interesting ridings in the eastern part of the province of Ontario, the county of Prescott, halfway between the metropolis and the capital, in the midst of what is known as the golden triangle of the Ottawa valley with its rich farmlands.
Prescott is the largest cheese producing county of the British empire. In view of its geographical position, between the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa rivers, we are expecting a great industrial impetus from the development of the St. Lawrence seaway. I should like to add, as has previously -been stated, that my riding offers great possibilities to those who are anxious to set up industries in our region, thus helping to implement the program of industrial decentralization.
Our farmers, like those of other rural ridings, rely on government assistance to maintain production at a peak. With the price of pork now at a very low level, the agricultural associations are most anxious that the right hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) set a minimum price at about $30 per hundredweight. Far from being opposed to subsidies granted to the western farmers, I feel that they need: every bit of assistance we can give them, but I should like to make sure that the dairy farmers in the eastern part of our country are given their good share so as to enable them to maintain the stability of Canadian economy.
I should like to remind the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) that there are two airports in our riding, one at St. Eugene and the other at Pendleton, which could, I am sure, serve a better purpose. Quite a number of young men were trained there during the last war under the commonwealth air training plan. I would appreciate very much if the minister would have a few experts in his department look into the possibility of reopening those airports.
The Address-Mr. Bruneau
I would also like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) a matter which is of primary importance to the people of my riding. The Nation river will soon, as in previous years, create havoc over a considerable area in the southwestern tip of Prescott county. I am given to understand that if a channel of about an acre's length, 7 feet deep by 180 feet wide, were dug near the C.P.R. bridge, close to the railway station at Plantagenet, this flood could be kept in check, because the Scotch river and other tributaries emptying into the Nation at that point would follow this channel, which would be deep enough to hold the excess water. Large blocks of ice carried by this water and left on the fields also cause considerable damage. I am told that several years ago one of the farmers of that region suffered a loss of about $3,500 because of such a flood.
I hope that the Minister of Public Works will take good note of the precarious situation in which the farmers of the Plantagenet area find themselves and will see fit to allot the funds required to undertake this work which would certainly not be so very costly.
My people are grateful to the government for the social security measures passed by this house. Last year, two such bills were enacted: the Old Age Security Act for all people of seventy and the federal-provincial old age pension scheme for those between 65 and 69, with the means test. I think we legislators would be well advised to add to such social security measures another form of assistance, that is, pensions to invalids.
Since the beginning of this parliament every time it has been possible I have advocated such a pension here in this house. Every time we have to cope with the problem of a handicapped person who is unable to provide his own means of subsistence, we have to explain to him that there exists a form of assistance for a good many people but that in his case there is no means of providing for him. I sincerely hope that it will be possible during this present session to attend to the needs of those unfortunate people. Just as we are helping our older citizens, likewise should we also help the invalids.
It is also our duty to lend a helping hand to our young people, the citizens of tomorrow. I would like to see studied the possibility of setting up a committee, the main purpose of which would be assistance to our young people on a federal scale. I should think that while implementing the recommendations of the royal commission on arts, letters and sciences, something could be done in the way of helping our young folk who are certainly not without possibilities,
544	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles but who lack the necessary funds to achieve the cherished ideal which would enable them best to serve their country.
Events are shaping every day and little do we know of what can happen while we are here legislating. Let us ask the help of Divine Providence so that we may each, in his own way, make a better country to live in and help to the utmost the people living in countries where the government is no longer for the people by the people. Let us spare nothing so that those who are persecuted, those who are living behind the iron curtain, may one day see a ray of light. Nor let us forget those at home, the disabled ones who are entitled to a place in society. In this way we, the representatives of the people, will have fulfilled the task we had set ourselves and feel the satisfaction of a duty well done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the matters that have brought me back into this debate, I should like to say a word of commendation to my hon. friend the member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk) for having drawn the attention of this house to the plight of many of the fishermen in his province of Nova Scotia and in other parts of the maritime provinces as the result of unusual storms this past winter. To him and to the other maritime members who have joined with him in asking that some special consideration be given to these fishermen by the federal government, I wish to say that in my view they do not need to apologize at all for making that request. As a westerner, I am happy to give them my support and to express the hope that before this debate is concluded, or certainly at an early date, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) or someone on behalf of the government will deal with this matter and suggest to the house some steps that the government might be prepared to take.
In various parts of our country these things do happen which, though local in their effect, are in a sense national emergencies. I feel that it actually draws our country together and it has a unifying effect when, on a nationwide basis, we pitch in to help out any of our citizens who face a particular problem which is beyond their capacity to deal with. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because as a Canadian from the west I feel that we should be interested in the welfare of Canadians in any part of our country. I suppose it is also to be admitted that one of the reasons I am interested in the plight of the fishermen of the maritime provinces is that I would not be true to the memory of my Nova Scotia ancestry, Shelburne county in particular, if
[Mr. Bruneau.l

I did not evince that interest. Having mentioned Shelburne county, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say-on behalf not only of myself but of the members of this group and indeed of all members of the house-that we were sorry to learn of the illness of the hon. member for Queens-Shelburne (Mr. Smith) which has made it impossible for him to be with us at this session of parliament. We extend to him our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
I have been interested also, Mr. Speaker, in the increasing number of members who, as they speak in this and other debates, have something to say about the plight of incurables and invalids. I was glad to note that the last speaker, who on former occasions has referred to this matter, referred to it again this afternoon. I earnestly hope that the increasing interest in the need of these people will result in some action being taken at an early date to provide pensions or some really worth-while help to these of our feEow Canadian citizens who have the misfortune to be permanently disabled.
Having mentioned that, before I turn to the two subjects that have prompted me to get back into the debate again, may I say again that I also hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will pay close attention to the growing demand in this country for action in the field of health insurance. We are still disappointed that, so far as the speech from the throne would seem to indicate, nothing is to be done at this session. The need is there and the time for action on health insurance is now.
The particular reason why I felt I must get back into this debate relates to the fact that no clear statement has yet been made with regard to the making of recoveries from the estates of old age pensioners who were in receipt of the old age pension up to December 31, 1951, under the former Old Age Pensions Act. Let me indicate that in respect of certain groups of people the picture is clear. It is perfectly clear that there are to be no recoveries with respect to pensions paid under the Old Age Security Act. They are completely free of any means test, any debt, any recovery, or any lien of any kind. That applies not only in the case of those who have come on the new old age security pension since January 1, 1952, but it is also clear that, in the case of a person who was on the former pension prior to December 31, 1951, and has been transferred to the new pension, there can be no recovery against his estate with respect to the amounts of

money he is receiving now or any amounts of money he has received since January 1, 1952.
There is another group with respect to whom the picture is clear, namely those who receive pensions under the Old Age Assistance Act, or in other words the pension paid to those between 65 and 69, on a fifty-fifty basis, with a means test and all that. Despite its other shortcomings, that pension does not involve the attachment of any property in any way. There is no debt due either to the provincial or federal governments so far as that pension is concerned. No liens are placed against any property and no recoveries can be made out of the estates of any persons who have received that pension, which likewise began as at January 1, 1952.


An hon. Member:: Quite right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear someone on the opposite side of the house saying "quite right". I am glad to know that what I am setting out is perfectly clear. But there is one group of people whose position has not yet been made clear. I refer now to those persons who were on the former pension prior to December 31,
1951,	and who are now on the new pension. As I say, their position is clear with respect to the money they are now receiving, but it has not yet been made clear that their estates are free from any recovery for moneys that they received up to December 31, 1951, under the former act.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


David Arnold Croll: I understood the minister to say that they were clear and that there was not any question about that at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend is no doubt referring to the statement the minister made to me when I questioned him on March 12,
1952,	as reported at pages 356 and 357 of Hansard. I was coming to that matter in just a moment but, since the hon. member has asked that question, I will reorganize what I was starting out to say.
Last June when we were discussing the Old Age Assistance Act I asked the minister specifically whether those on the former pension would be free from recoveries after the end of December, 1951. As recorded at page 4587 of Hansard for June 23, 1951, the minister replied:
That Is a matter that will have to be decided in the future. I cannot decide it now.
On the basis of that, and on the basis of discussions of this matter that to my knowledge have taken place in at least some of 55704-35
The Address-Mr. Knowles the legislatures, I raised the matter during the course of my remarks earlier in this debate, on March 10. Having discussed the matter at length on that occasion, I followed it up on March 12 by putting to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) the question to which the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) now has reference, and the minister's reply was:
I can only say that the whole matter is one that is governed by the existing law.


David Arnold Croll: May I put another question to the hon. member? A speaker for the government in the Ontario house has indicated that for all purposes the debt was wiped out following what the minister had said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right. We are making headway, and I appreciate the assistance the hon. member is giving. He draws attention to what has been said in Ontario. I know too that the responsible officials in Saskatchewan have taken the view that they are not obligated to make any further recoveries under the former act, but the minister of health and welfare in the province of Manitoba, when asked on the floor of the legislature not only to cancel liens as Manitoba has done-and I commend that government for doing so-but to cease making recoveries, said they had no alternative but to continue making recoveries under the terms of the agreement with the federal government, made under the provisions of the federal act. I know from consultation with some legal friends of mine in Winnipeg-and I do have some legal friends there-that there are cases right now in which recoveries are being made because this position has not yet been made clear. The statement which was made in the legislature of Manitoba is reported in the Votes and Proceedings of the legislative assembly of that province for Tuesday, February 12, 1952. The statement was made by Mr. Schultz, minister of health and welfare, and part of it reads:
In regard to the collection of claims against the estates of deceased pensioners in this group, the legislation of the federal government and the obligations under the agreement submitted for signature by the federal government compel this province in accordance with similar agreements with every province, to collect from the estates of deceased pensioners where the estate is over $2,000 net. Neither Manitoba or any other province has any option in this matter at the present time.
It was precisely because of that position being taken by the responsible minister in the province of Manitoba-


Mr. Martin:: Of course Mr. Schultz knows that is not a correct statement, as does my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to get further assistance from the Minister of National

The Address-Mr. Knowles Health and Welfare. Perhaps before we are through he will make the statement I asked him to make when I put my question to him on the orders of the day on March 12. This is what I asked:
Has the federal government received a request from the government of Manitoba, and possibly from other provinces as well, that the provinces be relieved forthwith of the necessity of making recoveries from the estates of persons who were paid pensions under the former old age pensions act up to December 31. 1951? Will the government advise the provinces that henceforth they need not-
Then Hansard records some hon. members as saying "Order paper", and I never did get out the rest of that question. That is a common practice here, of course. It is obvious what I was seeking to ask, namely that the minister make a clear statement to the effect that the provinces are under no obligation to make any further recoveries with regard to pensions paid prior to December 31, 1951.


Mr. Marlin:: Does my hon. friend wish me to deal with that now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly, so long as I still have the floor.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that neither the federal government nor the provincial government nor the minister can do that. There is the existing law; and until that law is repealed no one can take that position. I can tell my hon. friend that I have written each of the provinces on this matter-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What did you tell them?


Murdo William Martin: I am sure my hon. friend will realize that until I have heard from them as to the course I have suggested, I cannot take any action. This is a matter that does not depend, as Mr. Schultz has erroneously said in Manitoba, upon the federal government. This is a matter determined by existing law and on the basis of agreements between the federal and provincial governments; and until we know the attitude of all governments in respect to this matter we cannot take any action with regard to the existing law. Surely that is the situation, and I should think my hon. friend would be the first to agree that I have correctly stated it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will agree that in part what the minister has said indicates the situation, but it does not tell the whole story. The minister suggests that the federal government has no responsibility at all for this. In the first place the whole problem of recoveries against estates arose out of a provision in the federal act. It was in the first act that was drawn up back in the middle twenties, and it was in the new version that
fMr. Knowles.]
we got in 1947. The provincial authorities are acting on the basis of what they believe to be the interpretation of that act and of the agreements they signed. Some of the provinces take one view of that agreement while some take an opposite view.
This is not the first time this issue has come up. It came up back in 1943 and 1944 in particular. I know whereof I speak; I was here at the time, and I had something to do with it. At that time Mr. Ilsley, as Minister of Finance, was responsible for old age pensions. Together with others I was pressing him for an end to this policy of making recoveries from the estates of deceased old age pensioners. As a result of those efforts and as a result of representations made to Mr. Ilsley by some of the provinces, the federal government finally took a stand. That stand was expressed in a letter written on March 23, 1944, and addressed to each of the provincial governments. On the same date the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who was then parliamentary assistant to Mr. Ilsley, answered questions I had placed on the order paper, and in so doing told us what the government had done. I am looking at Hansard for March 23, 1944, pages 1742 and 1743. The questions are in my name; they relate to the filing of liens and the making of recoveries. The answer given by the then parliamentary assistant was rather lengthy. In it he quoted subsection 3 of section 9 of the Old Age Pensions Act, which said in part:
A pension authority shall be entitled to recover out of the estate of any deceased pensioner, as a debt due by the pensioner to such authority, the sum of the pension payments made to such pensioner-
Then the present Minister of Finance went on to say this, which is extremely significant:
There has been some legal doubt as to whether this clause was mandatory or permissive in its effect. For some time the dominion has followed the legal opinion that the section indicated an intention of the part of parliament that recoveries should be made and that as a matter of sound administration, it should be regarded as a statutory direction to the pension authorities to make recoveries in the ordinary course.
Now listen to this:
More recently we have been advised that while the drafting may leave some legal doubt, nevertheless the subsection is, strictly speaking, permissive. The provincial pension authorities have, as indicated in the answer to question 1. followed different policies, some have refused to follow the administrative requirement of making claims against the estates of deceased pensioners, others have suggested that it might be desirable either to discontinue making claims in all cases or to limit claims to the larger estates. In view of this situation, the provincial pension authorities are being advised that whether or not recovery should be made from estates where the net value does not exceed two thousand dollars will be left entirely to their discretion.

As I say, that was the answer given in this house to my questions as recorded in Hansard for March 23, 1944.
I now have in my hand sessional paper No. 89K, dated June 13, 1944, which was brought down in response to a motion of mine dealing with this matter. It includes a copy of a letter from Dr. Clark, the deputy minister of finance, to every province. I am sorry to tire the house with a good deal of the language I have just quoted, but it is important to get this matter straightened out. This letter says in part:
There has always been some legal doubt whether subsection 3 of section 9 of the act was mandatory or permissive in its effect. This department has, for some time, been following the legal opinion that the subsection indicates an intention on the part of parliament that recoveries should be made and that for administration purposes it should be regarded as statutory direction to the pension authorities to make recoveries in the ordinary course. Recently we have been advised that while the drafting may leave some legal doubt, nevertheless the subsection is, strictly speaking, permissive although the principle of sound administration may involve an obligation to make recoveries in the cases covered by the subsection.
Then, the last paragraph goes on to repeat much of what I have just quoted from the answer given in Hansard, which indicates that the federal government reached the conclusion that since the wording of that section was permissive rather than mandatory it was therefore saying to the provinces, "so far as we are concerned from now on you do not have to make any recoveries from estates where the value is less than $2,000." If the wording of that section of the federal act was found to be not mandatory but permissive, and on the basis of that situation it was possible for the federal government to say to the provinces, "you can ignore that part of the agreement, on estates of less than $2,000," I say that the federal government could say the same thing to the provinces today with respect to all estates.
The wording of the act is quite clear. In its original form, as it was enacted back in 1926 or 1927, it said:
A pension authority shall be entitled to recover out of the estate of any deceased pensioner . . .
and so on. It was thought for a time that that provision was mandatory, but it was finally ruled that it was permissive. The act was rewritten in 1947, and the phraseology was changed slightly. It was made to read along these lines.
An agreement made pursuant to section three of this act shall include an undertaking by the province that the pension authority will be authorized to recover out of the estate of any deceased pensioner . . .
It is mandatory that there shall be this provision in the agreement, but the provision 55704-35J
The Address-Mr. Knowles in the agreement is a permissive one, namely that the pension authority will be authorized to recover-authorized, but not compelled. I shall go along with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) this far, in that I think Mr. Schultz has put too strict an interpretation on the section in the act and the section in the agreement. I suppose what he is relying on is that letter received in 1944 telling them what they could do with estates of less than $2,000. He feels that until he gets a ruling from the federal government, he must abide by that ruling. Nevertheless, I feel that Mr. Schultz is not under any obligation to continue making these recoveries and I believe the minister agrees with me.
The whole section in that act was permissive, and the agreement under it was permissive. The legal opinion, as set out in Dr. Clark's letter of March 23, 1944, confirms the fact that it was permissive. I know from contacts I have had with members in different legislatures that in some other provinces the opposite view to the one taken by Mr. Schultz is being taken. In the meantime a great many old age pensioners in Manitoba are greatly worried. I think there should be the feast possible delay in clearing up this position. I am glad to know the minister is having this correspondence with the provinces. He might have told me that when he answered my question on March 12. Just telling me I had made a fine speech on the subject on the previous Monday was not a great deal of help, true though his comment may have been.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did I say that you made a fine speech?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister now say that I did not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not saying whether or not you made a fine speech, but I am doubting whether I said that you made a fine speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just to have the record clear, what the minister did say is recorded on page 357 of Hansard for March 12 as follows:
I can only say that the whole matter Is one that IS governed by the existing law, as the hon. member so well pointed out in his speech on Monday last.
All I am asking now is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare point out with equal clarity, and in the strong way that he can when he wants to, that so far as the federal government is concerned it does not expect any further recoveries from estates of persons who were receiving pensions prior to December 31, 1951, regardless of the value of these estates. I know that it is a cause of deep concern to many of our people in

The Address-Mr. Knowles Manitoba, and I hope the minister will make such a statement to this house, to the country, to the provincial governments, and to Mr. Schultz in particular, at the earliest possible opportunity.
I should now like to speak on another matter. There has been a sharp [DOT] debate between the Liberal party and the C.C.F. during the last couple of weeks with respect to NATO. I do not wish to extend the debate on that question at this stage of our proceedings, but I believe it should foe pointed out that there is a great deal of unhappiness and uneasiness in the country over the secrecy that enshrouds the commitments made by NATO at Lisbon as well as at earlier meetings of that body. A good deal of the difference of opinion that has arisen in the course of this debate seems to stem from the fact that we do not yet know what the commitments were that this house allegedly supported a year ago, nor do we yet know the commitments that we will foe called upon to support at this session.
The minister has suggested to us that we supported such and such last year, and he frankly states that we have not yet been told what it was that we supported, particularly in terms of manpower. We now come to the situation this year, and when we question the advisability of the figure of $300 billion that is NATO's proposed military expenditure, he asks us where we got that figure. He knows that we got it from responsible newspapers which are being permitted to suggest that figure as the NATO goal. He questions it, yet he will not tell us what the precise goal is. I call upon the minister of external affairs to break through this secrecy. He owes it to this house and he owes it to the Canadian people to take us into his confidence and tell us what it is that is being planned so far as NATO is concerned. We feel that we have this coming to us in order that we might know precisely what is envisioned before we vote our share of any financial commitments, and also in order that we might be able to discuss the merits of one division or another as between money spent on military preparedness and money spent on economic aid to other countries.
I plead most strongly with the minister that he break through this secrecy and give us precise information about NATO just as soon as he possibly can. He must be aware of the fact that we are not the only ones asking for that information. He must be aware of the fact that members of all parties in this house are hoping he will give full details. He must be aware of the fact that

newspapers and magazines, even some periodicals that are critical of the stand we have taken, agree with us that we should have full information before we are asked to make commitments, and also in order that we may assess the division as between military preparedness and economic aid.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs knows quite well that we in this group support the principles of NATO; the house knows it; the country knows it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, even the Winnipeg Free Press knows it. I mention the Winnipeg Free Press in particular because of a gross distortion in which that newspaper indulged on its editorial page on March 15. I do not have the page before me at the moment, but I have read it and I know what is there. We in Winnipeg are never surprised at any ideas that the Winnipeg Free Press may express in its editorial columns; but it is a matter of real amazement to me that on its editorial page the Winnipeg Free Press could run down those three centre columns material which it entitles "The Record", allegedly setting out clearly the statements that have been made by the various parties that have been discussing this matter, and yet so distort its presentation of that material. When you read something under the heading "The Record", you presume that if tells the whole story. And yet as one examines those three columns of material which are supposed to contain the record he finds, for example, that the statement issued by the C.C.F. national council has been decimated. The reference to our continuing support of NATO is deleted, our references to the need of economic aid, of what we are prepared to do in that field, are all wiped out. True, the Free Press protects itself by putting in a series of little dots here and there wherever omissions are made, but the end result is to completely distort the statement issued by the C.C.F. national council. As a matter of fact, the Free Press did the same thing with the remarks made in this house by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). They quote just part of what he said. They show by a few dots that they have left out something else that he said, but, as a matter of fact, to do so is to distort the impression that was given by the leader of the opposition to this house. It did the same with the remarks made by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Again, great sections are omitted and little dots are put in to indicate that to the reader of these three columns. That, I say, is a distortion of what is called "The Record", and I say to Mr. Grant Dexter, I am amazed that he has resorted to distortion

of that kind. I hope that at the earliest opportunity he will correct that, at least so far as this party is concerned, by reprinting on his editorial page in full the statement issued by the C.C.F. national council.
As I have already indicated, and as the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows, we support the principles of NATO. We accept the responsibility that it is laid upon us as a North Atlantic nation, within the framework of the United Nations, to build up defensive strength and at the same time to make arrangements for economic aid to the other members of the North Atlantic community, as well as to other countries throughout the world, with a view to achieving and establishing permanent peace. But surely it is our responsibility as members of this parliament, the parliament of one of the member countries of NATO, to consider very carefully the extent to which huge commitments for armaments and defence preparations might have a bearing on the economy of our country and of the other countries concerned. Surely it is up to us to discuss the extent to which we should spend money on armaments, as compared to the extent to which we should spend money on economic aid. Where we differ with the government, where we differ with the present NATO proposals, is in that division. We believe that too much is being spent on military preparations, and not enough on-economic aid to needy countries.
Now that the smoke of the smears and the slanders has been cleared away, we are asking that this house be given an opportunity to discuss this issue on its merits. I earnestly hope that in the debate on external affairs, which it is anticipated will commence as soon as this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is over, the minister, in his very first statement, will take the house fully into his confidence and give us the facts so that we can deal with this important question in its proper light.
I want to say that although the minister's offer to hon. members who wish to have the figures at their disposal, to see those figures in confidence, was a thoughtful gesture on his part, I do not think it is the proper approach to this matter. I do not agree with the suggestion made in some newspapers that we should have a secret session. Rather, I think that any information that we are entitled to, on the basis of which we as members of this parliament should make our decisions, should be information available to the country as a whole, and I hope that something along that line will characterize the debate on this aspect of external affairs when we reach it after the end of this debate.
18, 1952
The Address-Mr. Knowles
Surely it is clear to all of us, Mr. Speaker, that the nations which belong to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have had laid upon their shoulders one of the greatest responsibilities that has ever confronted any group of nations in the history of mankind. We have been called upon by events over which we have no control to go in for huge defence preparations. We have asserted that in building up these defence preparations it is our aim that they shall be purely and only defensive. We know, however, that never in the history of mankind has it been possible to build up huge armaments and prevent the outbreak of war. To avoid- such an outbreak is our task, and that is. the job that is laid at the door -of this nation and of all the nations that comprise the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We must find a -balance between the amount of military preparation that will be defensive, and effectively defensive, without going so far as to cripple the economies of our nations and invite attack, and without establishing a military set-up that will provide the kind of provocation that leads to the war we seek to avoid.
Let us not forget that that is the aim of NATO: defensive preparation, but with it the idea set out in article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty, which calls- for the full use of that other weapon against aggression, which calls for that other means of building peace, namely, economic aid.
I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the other ministers of the cabinet paid some attention to what their Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said in his speech over the week end. We were all interested in the simile that he drew upon when he said that NATO was a matter of insurance against war and that we should be prepared to pay the premium for such insurance. The Secretary of State for External Affairs kn-ows as well as we do-he has said it time and time again-that you do not fight communism only with bullets. You have got to fight it also with ideas; you have got to uproot the conditions that lead to communism; you have got to spread economic well-being throughout the world. That is one of the premiums that we have got to pay. How much willingness has this government shown to pay that premium? What support is the Secretary of State for External Affairs getting on that aspect of the matter, from his colleagues, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)? So far as the proposals that he brings forward are concerned, it would look as though he is not getting any support at all on that score. It appears to us that his colleagues are not prepared to pay that part of

The Address-Mr. Courtemanche the premium for the insurance that we seek. But unless we do pay that premium the peace of the world is in jeopardy.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a subject of importance second to none to all of us in Canada and to the whole world. I believe that the discussion which has arisen out of the statement made by the C.C.F. national council and the speeches made thus far by my leader, the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar, will in the end serve well the cause of peace, for what we are doing is asking that there be a critical examination of the whole situation, and in particular a critical approach to the whole question as to how we should divide our resources between military preparations and economic aid. We believe NATO's present spending is out of balance. At any rate, let us go into this question fully here in this parliament. Let us be met not with cocksureness on the government side that everything is right, particularly when we are not being told the full details of NATO's goals. Rather, let us have an honest consideration of the points we are making.
As I said before-and with this I close- we support the principles of NATO. We believe that it is the function of the North Atlantic treaty nations within the framework of the United Nations, within the framework of a world community, to do everything possible to prevent an outbreak of military hostilities, but we also believe it is their duty to go further and to build those social and economic conditions which will make possible the establishment of permanent peace.
(Translation):


Mr. Henri Courtemanche (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, not long ago, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, a body representing Canadian businessmen, industrialists, merchants, and heads of business concerns, submitted a brief on taxes to our government. Their brief, directed chiefly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), was a protest against the disheartening level of income and corporation taxes, as well as against those excise taxes which, for some time, have been a main cause of the rise in the cost of living.
I do not know if the government experts will take heed of those protests. I say government experts because our public affairs are more and more in the hands of ministers who blindly follow the advice of so-called scientists who are in fact but mere theorists isolated in their ivory tower of pretentiousness and half-science. These advisers, who

in. many cases have taken refuge with the federal government after having failed in their own endeavours, will not stop at simple, practical and logical reasoning. They would rather resort to involved theories that have never been put to test, theories which have resulted in budget surpluses 25 or 30 times greater than the amounts forecast.
I am not sure, therefore, if these allpowerful gentlemen will give heed to the warnings of those who have to work and struggle without any respite to prevent their business concerns from being crushed by the burden of federal taxes, requirements and restrictions. These technicians, whom the mayoress of Ottawa has denounced in no uncertain terms, usually hold in sovereign contempt those who, not being learned enough to be constantly devising new taxes, are good only to pay those taxes to Ottawa, to the tune of millions of dollars. I am afraid, therefore, that these recommendations and warnings from the chamber of commerce will too soon be forgotten.
And yet the situation is serious, very serious indeed. It was Thomas Jefferson who said that the power of taxation is also the power of destruction. We do not seem to realize that taxes have reached a point where they can only become destructive.
The Bell Telephone Company sought recently to obtain an additional $7 million in order to meet increasing costs. But because of income tax, the company was compelled to ask $15,765,000 from its subscribers which was more than double the amount necessary. One need not hold university degrees in economics to realize that we have gone beyond the limits of common sense and that we have reached the point, as Jefferson said, where taxation becomes destructive.
Talk with the head of any business concern. You will find that he has lost all enthusiasm, that he has forsaken certain projects or that he looks after his business only halfheartedly, having been taxed and overtaxed by the government to a point where it becomes ludicrous and tragic.
We, who sit in the House of Commons, who have accepted to defend and to protect the nation's interests, must not forget that prosperity was brought to this country by those business heads who had generally started in a modest way. Those men were not afraid to work or to take risks. They built up business concerns which gave work first to a few dozen, and later to hundreds and even to

thousands of Canadians. What does the future hold in store for them? These leaders in the economic field are now convinced that the government wants to take all they have, or that the state wishes to punish them as if they had committed some odious crime.
It is obvious that the workman, the small wage earner, the small depositor, know that their fate is closely related to that of big business, to the destiny of the businessman. But we must, moreover, admit that they too are already suffering from excessive taxation by the federal government. I shall even go as far as to say that they are suffering very much more from it than the businessmen I just mentioned.
Today, some people have to run into debt in order to pay the taxes that are demanded of them. Personal income tax has a most disastrous influence. Why not frankly admit that, nowadays, each and every one-including the members of this honourable assembly -tries to resort to tax evasion?
Is it taxable? As a general rule this is the very first thing one is inclined to ask oneself when confronted with a possible new source of revenue. One should therefore not be surprised if that question is foremost in the mind of those who try to increase their revenues without paying more taxes. Let the sociologists discover what state of mind will spring from all that! Today the workers are no longer interested in putting in working hours; they know very well that if they are uncautious enough to work a little longer than usual, the taxation department will not lose any time in grabbing at their pay-envelope and appropriating a few extra dollars. So that it is not advantageous any more to work hard. If however, one is obstinate enough to indulge in hard work because he likes it, or because he is ambitious, or again because he hankers after success and wants to accomplish something useful, the revenue officials will step in and punish without remorse the fellow who still dares to believe in work and thriftiness. If we continue to bully and penalize the elite of our citizens, what will become of Canada? I dare scarcely think of it.
There is nevertheless something more iniquitous again than this orgy of taxes and surtaxes and that is the means taken to hide them.
I would hardly be surprised to learn, one of these days, that among the advisers to the Minister of Finance or to the Minister of National Defence there has been found a camouflage expert from the second world war.
18, 1952	551
The Address-Mr. Courtemanche
Last year the Minister of Finance had led us to believe that he was expecting a surplus of revenue over expenditure amounting to some $30 million. This surplus now amounts to approximately $700 million. As we have seen, several Liberal members, including the Minister of Finance himself, rejoice at this state of affairs and go so far as to find it most encouraging.
Let us not forget, however, that this extraordinary surplus conceals, camouflages an amount of at least $650 million in overtaxation. Dollar by dollar, the government have taken $650 million away from the people, quite often from small wage earners or worthy farmers. These $650 million could have been put to good use, for savings or investment or simply for the purchase of essential goods the public is deprived of uselessly and without reason.
The Minister of Finance knows very well that so large a surplus cannot but harm the nation's economy. We do not want to believe that, deliberately, just for sport, he has sought to overtax the Canadian people by some $650 million which he knew he would not need. If he did so unwittingly, he has been clumsy, very clumsy. His employer, the people, will certainly not be able to give him a certificate of competence for his foresight.
He should simply admit that he was wrong and not try to hide his mistake by making it appear as a service to the country, which is, besides, quite the opposite of the truth.
Camouflage is also resorted to with regard to personal income tax, a tax which is abominable, harmful, depressing and immoral in many respects. Formerly, as the first of May drew nearer, the taxpayers unanimously rose up against the government which, not being satisfied to dig in their pay envelopes each week, required, at the close of the year, another small ransom representing the difference between the amount already paid and the total tax payable.
The Minister of National Revenue, a great psychologist I admit, now proceeds differently. He is even more exacting each week but when the time comes to settle with the income tax division-it is by no means easy to escape this settlement-instead of requiring an extra amount from most taxpayers, he hands out a reimbursement to two taxpayers out of three. We see some poor chaps brimming over with joy because the government owes them money. They tell us that the government will give them money. The trick is simple enough but one had to
552	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Courtemanche think of it. This is called painless taxation, but it is a mere illusion since one way or the other the huge appetite of the treasury is eventually satisfied. It is camouflage at its best but also a practice of dubious ethical value, one, anyhow, which is extremely costly to the country.
Let us think but one moment of the work, the red tape, and all the expenses made necessary by these refunds, which will be more or less general. It is worth mentioning that Ottawa does not pay interest on the money it has thus been able to use, money which the taxpayers could have used themselves much more profitably.
Would you like another example of camouflage? Take this whole string of hidden taxes on a large number of necessities of life. When you buy a cake of soap you have to pay, I understand, some 150 different taxes before you pay a single cent to the manufacturer or pay to the retailer his legitimate profit. If we were to extract from the cost of all commodities we purchase the series of well hidden taxes involved, we would sometimes be in for quite a surprise. Today the case of cigarettes is well known. There is the sad example of an industry being ruined through excessive taxation. I could mention the case of all those commodities, all those appliances necessary to any household today, which are classified as luxuries for taxation purposes, whether they be a refrigerator, a washing machine or something else.
And what is most unbelievable in this matter is that the Minister of Finance pretends to levy taxes in order to fight inflation, whereas the more he adds to taxation, the more he promotes inflation and the more he increases the cost of living.
I very much admire some people's knowledge, but I would like them to come and convince my electors that by increasing the price of all sorts of goods and by levying new taxes, they are trying to prevent a rise in the cost of living. I believe, anyhow, that the cost of living index in its almost steady climb has proven how false and dangerous were the theories propounded by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and their experts.
Let us, for instance, look into the unemployment situation. For months on end, the number of unemployed has been increasing. Because of the taxes I just denounced, industries have to lay off workers. This takes place for instance in the tobacco industry, for the sales of Canadian cigarettes are decreas-


ing constantly. It is the same in the field of textiles, because the authorities refuse to protect this vital industry against dumping or semi-dumping practised by some foreign nations. Confronted with those facts, what explanation does Ottawa offer? "Seasonal unemployment"! They speak of seasonal unemployment in industries where seasonal fluctuations are not experienced. Could anything be more tragically ridiculous? And can one really believe that the public will accept this type of explanation merely because it comes from some high official, or even, for that matter, from a minister?
We realize that the government is in a rather difficult situation. They open the doors of Canada to an ever-renewed influx of immigrants. But, once in our midst, those people are unable to find work to support themselves and the Canadian taxpayers have to pay their living expenses. On the other hand, if the immigrant finds a job it so happens that he often replaces a Canadian workman, who does not find this at all to his liking. In brief, nobody is satisfied, neither the immigrant nor the Canadian.
Moreover, at St. Paul 1'Ermite, near Montreal and at Ajax, in Ontario, there have been riots and hunger strikes. Stalin's picture has even been displayed. All this is disquieting, all the more so since, on the one hand, there is talk of a certain racket as far as Italian immigration is concerned and, on the other hand, of corruption among the employees of the Canadian department of immigration in Germany.
All the while, moreover, we hear an evergrowing number of protests against excessive immigration originating from labour unions. I do not think that we are entitled to overlook them entirely. I know that in Montreal, on the very same evening, that is on January 10, 1952, two different organizations, the central council of the national syndicates of Montreal, an affiliate of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour and the Montreal labour council, affiliated with the Canadian Congress of Labour, adopted resolutions against too large an influx of immigrants into Canada.
The latter organization, it was stated in Le Devoir of January 11, 1952, protested against the fact that too large a number of immigrants are now being brought into the country. It voted in favour of moderate immigration, but it feels it is unnecessary to bring to this country people who will have to undergo hardships worse than those they left in their own country. The council is

also of the opinion that the arrival of too many immigrants can only increase unemployment in this country and worsen economic conditions here.
In Montreal again, emergency measures had to be taken to assist certain French immigrants who were unable to find any kind of a job.
A few weeks ago, I was walking down St. Catherine west, in Montreal, in the department store district, when I noticed a crowd assembled at a street corner. I walked up and there, on the snow-covered grounds of a church, I saw a man carving in the snow and ice a moving biblical scene, the descent from the cross.
I stood there for several minutes admiring the cross, the tomb, the well and, more particularly, the figures, Christ, His mother, the apostles, all carved in a manner bearing the hall-mark of genius. Near the sidewalk, the artist had carved a nice little angel holding out to the interested spectators a little collection-box for their offerings.
The following day I read in the newspapers that this sculptor was a German who had come to this country a few weeks ago and had been unable to find work. Now penniless he had conceived this idea of carving in public out of the snow and the ice scenes from the Bible, in order to get enough money to go back to Germany!
I know that there are plenty of sound arguments in favour of immigration. But nobody can furnish me with a sound argument when it comes to immigration which is carried out in an irrational way, without any system, in a haphazard manner, as it is carried out by the government of this country.
This man who left his country because he had been told what a brilliant future this country held in store for him, this man who was compelled to beg in a disguised way in order to obtain enough money to go back home, what impression will he have of Canada? And what will become of those who cannot even raise the funds to go back to their native land?
Some may say that I am exaggerating. I would be only too happy if it were so. I am afraid, unfortunately, that this is an understatement. If our ministers took the trouble to discuss the matter with the labour union leaders, they would find out some pretty things about the consequences of our immigration policy. Our cattle are now affected by foot-and-mouth disease and all indications are that this disease was 55704-36
The Address-Mr. Courtemanche brought to this country by immigrants. There is talk about fumigating the clothes of these newcomers, etc. But why is that not done when the immigrants leave their country or arrive here? Must we conclude that our officials overseas carry out no inspection, that they show a lack of carefulness?
Again I say, why this immigration at all cost, at the cost even of aggravating our economic problems, of bringing about unemployment? Why bring here people for whom we have no work, no jobs? I feel, Mr. Speaker, that we should revise thoroughly our immigration policy with a view to fulfilling our needs first. It should be practised with great care so that the immigrant coming into our country will be glad to live with us and will not curse the day he fell for the line handed out by some publicity agent of the immigration service at work in Europe either for the Canadian government or for some private concerns which are apt to benefit from large scale immigration.
I am glad to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) back in Canada. He probably played an important part in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization conference, and is even said to have refused an important post in that organization, in order to devote himself entirely to his duties as minister of external affairs. I congratulate him, but I am nevertheless worried about the cost of our commitments with the United Nations Organization and NATO. I am, however, pleased to see that we are now playing a prominent part on the international stage.
But I wonder why Canada goes on ignoring the existence of the Vatican, where the other great nations of the world, nations which sometimes only count an infinitely small minority of Catholics, make it a point to be represented by an ambassador or other official envoy.
Last October, answering a question asked by the member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) the minister of external affairs stated that the government was studying from time to time the problem of the representatives Canada might send to those sovereign states which have no diplomatic ties with our country; he said that among those sovereign states, one should naturally include the Vatican. That answer appears in Hansard of October 24, 1951. But what has been done since? Do we plan to remain
554	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dube forever in the background, with the sole intention of appeasing the clamours of a handful of sectarians, clamours to which our gracious queen paid no attention whatsoever since, some months ago, she visited the Vatican and was officially greeted there by the Pope.
We spend millions in our attempt, as we say, to foster the cause of peace. But, according to Pius XII, quoted by the L'Action Catholique of Quebec, on February 18, 1952: "The Vatican is the bastion of peace and of reconciliation". Nobody is afraid of its army; the territory of that state is but an invisible speck on the map; but it might be truly said that its influence is unrivalled in the whole world.
I adjure our government to do as our queen did, to disregard the fanaticism of certain people and to act according to logic if we want to continue taking some part in international affairs.


Mr. P. L. Dube (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, it is a very great pleasure for me to take part in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for having been so kind as to honour my province, New Brunswick, by requesting the member for Westmorland (Mr. George) to move the address in reply. I also congratulate this young member for having acquitted himself so well of that duty.
I must also congratulate the member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) for having so well discharged his duties as seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, since I have had the pleasure of sitting here, I have noticed that, at the beginning of each session, we express the sorrow we all feel at the fact that one or two seats are left empty through the death of their occupants. This year the member for Victoria-Carleton. (Mr. Hatfield) and the member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Gosselin) have left our midst. To their bereaved families I extend my most heartfelt sympathy.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is my duty, during the present discussion, to deal with a matter of concern to quite a number of retired railway employees. For years, these men have sacrificed a part of their wages to contribute to a pension fund. Their pension, at a time when the cost of living was lower, could then be considered to be sufficient. Today, however, when the cost of living

has officially doubled and when, as a matter of fact, it is even three times what it was, these people are in a very unfortunate position. The pension which, in 1935, would have enabled them to live decently, if not in luxury, is not enough today even to pay their grocery bills. Because of their age, these people are often unable to go back to work and yet they must live.
However, there are people, who draw from this pension fund sizeable amounts, from $450 to $500 a month and even $800 a month. Our pensioners list includes a group of 450 persons who receive a pension of $30 to $50 a month and another group of 650 who draw a pension of $50 to $90 a month. In my opinion the head of a family who does not receive more than $100 a month nowadays cannot possibly meet the necessary living expenses for his family.
May I be permitted to request the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to kindly investigate whether it would be possible to increase the minimum pension to $100 a month, in order to compensate those employees who have been ignored, since they retired, when bonuses or other raises in wages were being granted.
While I am dealing with this matter, I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Transport to the fact that in New Brunswick we have much difficulty in securing our share of promotions from the Canadian National Railways. Would it not be possible to require that each vacant position be filled by employees working in the division concerned instead of being filled by men from other divisions? It is a fact that in our city of Edmundston we have never obtained our share of the promotions. We can prove on the other hand that we have the necessary qualifications to hold those positions as officers.
Two positions of assistant to the superintendent are filled by men taken from the head office of the Atlantic region. I want to show that we have at home employees much better qualified to hold those positions than those who have been chosen through favouritism.
I would ask the Minister of Transport to make an inquiry about certain appointments which have been made without due regard for some of the most faithful employees of the company. If I protest so strongly against those appointments it is because I have

received many requests to do so. I hope that in the future we shall fare as well as employees of the other terminals.
I must add that we had with us a young engineer, a graduate of l'Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, who was attached to the engineering section in Edmundston. The chief engineer and his assistant did everything they could to get rid of this young man. The reason was, in my opinion, they feared that in the space of only a few years, that young man would have enough experience to fill the position of chief engineer of one of the divisions of the Atlantic region. They made life so unbearable for him that he was compelled to resign. That was unfortunate, for he liked his position very much. Marine Industries Limited offered him a position which he accepted. He has been employed by that company for only two years and already he has been promoted twice, which is tangible proof that this young man would have been a valuable asset to the Canadian National Railways.
Last year, I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to give careful consideration to the complaints and representations of the farmers of my county in order to secure subsidies for their potato crop. I regret to say, however, I received no satisfaction in this regard.
A delegation from New Brunswick came to Ottawa in order to ask the competent authorities of the department for subsidies to assist the farmers who were unable to find markets for their products. After some lengthy discussions, the department decided to pay a subsidy of $300,000 to those farmers who would deliver their potatoes to the starch company. But, I am sorry to say, only a few farmers were favoured. A farmer who had failed to buy his fertilizer from that starch company was unable to make them accept his product. He was therefore deprived of his share of the federal grant meant for the protection of New Brunswick potato growers.
I therefore ask the Minister of Agriculture to make representations to that firm, so that justice may be rendered to all those who were unable to market their products.
Moreover, all potato growers were to benefit equally from the generosity of the government, which had earmarked a rather large amount to assist them and alleviate their losses.
I think I am also duty bound to draw the government's attention to another shortcoming. I am speaking of the Canadian
55704-36^
The Address-Mr. Blackmore National Railways, when the time comes to haul the goods. It has always been difficult to persuade the railway company to make available enough cars to ship those perishable goods. I am inclined to believe that the officials of the Canadian National Railways do not study the problem seriously enough or that they are not endowed with sufficient ability. I also think that one should put an end to a shortage for which it is hard to account, when one considers that numerous complaints are filed every autumn. The foot-and-mouth disease is by no means the only scourge which rages in Canada. We may boast of a great many varieties. The western provinces have the knack to attract the pity of the government each time they incur some misfortune. But the people from New Brunswick are left aside and treated like poor relations. Do we not have to pay taxes like everyone else? Last year, the Restigouche river went on a rampage and the victims of that flood were mostly those Restigouche county people whose farms border on the river. They were obliged to erect retaining walls at their own expense, especially in the parish of Charlo. I wonder if an investigation by engineers from the Public Works Department is not called for in this instance so that appropriate measures may be taken to protect the properties of these farmers who, each spring, are threatened with serious damage.
I therefore request the Public Works Department to be so kind as to correct this state of affairs so as to assist those farmers; as a class, they certainly deserve the attention of our people.
(Text):


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to discuss the question of getting the maximum of Canadian security out of Canada's NATO defence dollars.
First, in order to get clearly before us the situation with which we are confronted I should like to quote from two or three documents. One of those is a statement which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on February 23, 1952. It is headed, "Anti-Red Arms to Cost NATO $300 Billions". The article reads:
Lisbon, Feb. 23-The Atlantic allies lay down today a carefully drawn plan to tap western taxpayers for $300 billion for anti-communist arms-a sum they believe can be scraped up without bringing economic ruin.
The cost will be spread over the three years ending with 1954 and is equal to $750 apiece for each of the 400 million people in the 12 original Atlantic treaty nations.

The Address

Mr. Blackmore
The council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, under chairmanship of Canada's external affairs minister, L. B, Pearson, is expected to give final endorsement to the plan today.
Months of intense study by economic experts- the so-called 12 wise men-went into its preparation. All the governments involved were consulted repeatedly.
The plan forms an economic tightrope for many of the hard-up European nations. Many had to increase their arms spending, and the 1954 armament goals were reduced slightly, to make ends meet under the plan.
It set down ways and means to finance an army that is meant to include 30 front-line divisions and 20 in immediate reserve by the end of 1952, with planned expansion to some 88 divisions by the end of 1954.
Included in the plan is a network of air bases reaching from the Arctic to the equator, communications, ships, tanks, guns, ammunition, uniforms, barracks and the like.
The plan also provides:
NATO governments must put airfield construction ahead of many other budgetary items to make sure the nearly 200 air bases in west Europe are finished on time.
Arms production is to be speeded.
There has been a considerable amount of disagreement, at least implied, in the house because of the assumption which the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the C.C.F. council apparently made based on this report. I think it is fitting that this report should appear in our records so that we shall be able to keep the record straight.
What is the over-all seriousness of this NATO proposal? Whether or not we assume the position the C.C.F. took or whether we assume the position the minister took, we must be prepared to face that; otherwise, we are going to be irresponsible in this parliament.
In order to help us get some idea of the over-all effect of this proposal, I believe it is fitting that we should read into the record an article appearing in the Ottawa Journal on March 17 at page 10. It bears the heading, "Harold Wilson says that U.S. putting pressure on Europe." It reads:
London, March 17-(Reuters)-Harold Wilson, a leading left-winger in the Labor party, Sunday accused the United States of putting pressure on Europe to adopt rearmament programs beyond her economic capacity.
He said American aid depends too much on approval of her military leaders, that the U.S. does not appreciate Britain's position as a member of the commonwealth and that some Americans would like to see the sterling area broken up.
Wilson, an economist, resigned his cabinet post as president of the board of trade last year to support rebel Aneurin Bevan's opposition to his party's official approval of the big rearmament scheme.
"Marshall aid was one of the most statesmanlike decisions undertaken in international trade", he said. "Practically the only strings attached to it were strings necessary to ensure the object of selfhelp. Now you have American aid almost entirely military and given only in conditions which the Pentagon approves."

The U.S. has two obligations as a creditor country -to make it easy for other nations to earn currency by a policy of low tariffs or no tariffs at all and to lend on a considerable scale, he said. Britain carried out these obligations in the 19th century, but one factor causing present world economic troubles is that the U.S. does not do likewise today.
Wilson was speaking on Anglo-American economic relations at a national peace council conference.
Now, there are several rather serious statements in that news item. It says that the United States is putting pressure on Europe to adopt a rearmament program beyond her economic capacity. That seems to speak for itself. Then, Mr. Wilson says that American aid is granted only to those who obey the Pentagon, which I understand is the higher military command in the United States. He goes on to say that the United States does not appreciate Britain's position as a member of the commonwealth, and that some Americans would like to see the sterling area broken up. I believe that statement is well founded. While I have no desire to offend any particular officials in the United States, I do feel bound to suggest that public men charged with the responsibility of conducting the affairs of the United States must banish from their minds attitudes of that sort if they are going to be characterized by the responsibility men ought to be characterized by in the position they occupy.
Mr. Wilson says that some people in the United States would like to see the sterling area broken up. We have had too much evidence since 1942 that this is true. United States administrators, and I believe our minister of external affairs, have a responsibility to face up to that situation and to demand that adjustments be made in United States policy which would remove all suspicion of any ulterior motives on the part of United States government officials to destroy the British commonwealth.
Another passage, I think, is worthy of note; that is the one in which it is said that the United States, as a creditor country, has two obligations; one, to make it easy for the other nations to earn currency by a policy of low tariffs or no tariffs at all, and the other to lend on a considerable scale. Britain carried out those obligations in the 19th century.
I believe that one of the serious factors in our present international situation is that our government officials are failing to recognize these two obligations of the United States, her failure to honour them and the dangerous world consequences which result from her failure. All through the planning of the United Nations Organization, and all through the planning of the Bretton Woods agreement, there was a complete disregard of that element of United States responsibility

for either buying goods from other countries or providing them with the United States moneys with which to buy United States goods, that is, in effect, the responsibility of lending on a large scale to other nations.
At some future time I shall probably discuss this matter in greater detail. It is ijot my purpose to spend much time on it today, but therein is to be found one of the fundamental fallacies underlying the whole attitude which nations are taking to the international situation today.
When Great Britain was the world's banker, and was the leader in world trade and was carrying the responsibility of policing the world, Great Britain accepted goods in almost any quantity from almost any nation in the world. The result was that it was possible for peoples to obtain British pounds, and that made it possible for those peoples to live.
United States has thrust herself into the position which Britain formerly occupied, and she refuses utterly to accept goods from any other nation unless she sees fit to do so. The goods which are offered for sale to the United States which would compete seriously with United States products are shut out of the United States market. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. I believe the United States is acting soundly when she does it. Where the United States is making her ghastly blunder is in assuming that she is able to protect all her producers and at the same time to function acceptably as world banker. It is this assumption which is rendering it utterly impossible to carry on the financial and international trade agreements which United States leaders deem necessary in the world.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I had been discussing how Canada should proceed in order to get the maximum security value from her defence dollar. In order to give a general picture of the situation which confronts us, I had read two newspaper reports, the second one of which I gleaned from the Ottawa Journal of March 17, 1952, at page 10, a statement made by Harold Wilson of Britain. I had read several excerpts from that passage. One of these I will read once more. He says:
The United States has two obligations as a creditor country-to make it easy for other nations to earn currency by a policy of low tariffs or no tariffs at all and to lend on a considerable scale, he
18, 1952
The Address-Mr. Blackmore said. Britain carried out these obligations in the 19th century, but one factor causing present world economic troubles is that the United States does not do likewise today.
Now, any ordinary individual in charge of a nation like the United States will say: Can we afford to import any given product such as cheese which competes with the product which our own producers are manufactur

ing? And the answer, I believe, by almost every intelligent person will be: No, you cannot afford to do that. If that is the case, and the United States is now in the position to produce practically all of her needs of nearly every commodity that she requires, will someone tell me how in the world the United States can make dollars available by reducing tariffs or having no tariffs at all? It simply cannot be done, which simply means that the United States and the world face a situation which, according to the principles which men have put into practice for centuries, is utterly impossible of solution. At the same time the world needs United States dollars. The United States needs to have the world have her dollars. United States can better afford to give dollars to nations abroad, with which to buy her goods, than she can afford to import foreign goods to compete with her industry and put her producers out of business.
The next question is: Can she afford to tax money from her people, with which to give dollars to enable other people to buy her goods? And the answer, I believe, by every realistic individual would be: No she cannot. Well, then, how is the United States going to discharge the responsibility which Britain discharged for a hundred years and do so under the conditions which face the United States?
Britain was a "have not" nation, a manufacturing nation. She could afford to import almost any kind of goods from outside countries to pay for her own manufactured goods, and she profited both by the import and the export of goods. Britain was in a position altogether different from the position the United States faces today. Now, as Harold Wilson indicates clearly, here is a contradiction, a fallacy, which faces the world, which must be overcome or the world is headed for inevitable disaster: how to get United States dollars into the hands of people who need the dollars and whom the United States needs to have obtain her dollars to buy her goods when the United States cannot afford to import their goods to let them earn dollars, and she cannot afford to tax her people for enough money to let them have the dollars without importing goods. If we want to know why it is that we are getting into financial difficulties of the very first

The Address-Mr. Blackmore magnitude today in the world, there lies a potent reason. Harold Wilson states it clearly. May I read the words again? They mean far more than 99 per cent of the people on the American continent realize. He says:
One factor causing present world economic troubles is that the United States does not do likewise today.
First, she does not render United States dollars available by buying outside goods; and second, she does not render dollars available by granting foreign loans.
I believe hon. members will be pleased to read the introduction to a book called "The Washington Loan Agreement" by L. S. Amery, one of the greatest economists in Britain. This book was published in 1946 and dealt with the Washington loan, which the United States advanced to Britain under very difficult conditions for Britain. I am going to read a considerable portion from the book because I believe it sets forth the difficulty that was forced upon Britain better than it is set forth in any words I have ever read. I am reading from the introduction:
My purpose in writing this book has been to draw attention to the gravity of the issues raised by the conditions which the United States administration has seen fit to impose on this country as the price of a loan. I am not concerned with the question of our moral claim to consideration for the sacrifices which we have made to the common cause, sacrifices which are necessarily continuing long after the last shot has been fired. Business is business, between nations even more than between individuals, and we shall be wise to regard the loan itself as a purely business transaction. As such it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable bargain both from the point of view of this country, which urgently needs many things that America can most easily supply, and from that of America which, in the present world situation, can only export her goods if she herself, whether through public or private channels, advances the dollars to pay for them.
The terms of interest and repayment are in themselves moderate. I see no reason why we should find any serious difficulty in paying it off, and, indeed, in far less than fifty years, provided we remain a free people, retaining control of our own monetary and trade policy, free, in co-operation with our partners in the empire, to develop our common resources, free to make businesslike trade agreements with foreign countries.
What we are entitled to object to are the conditions attached to the agreement. They are conditions which have nothing to do with the loan itself.
And may I point out here that the "conditions" he mentions are the fundamental basic causes of the troubles in which the world finds itself right now. I go on:
They amount to an attempt to force the whole life of our country and of the British commonwealth into a pattern dictated by the out-of-date theories of the present American administration and by short-sighted American exporting and financial interests, and to compel our government to join, as satellites, in the task of persuading other nations to fall into line. The object of American policy is perfectly simple. It is to clamp upon the
IMr. Blackmore.]

world, and in particular upon the British empire, the obsolete economic system of the last century. It is to set up, once again, money and money power outside national control as the dominant factor in world economy.


An hon. Member:: Is the hon. member reading his speech?
"Mr. Blackmore: The hon. member is reading from a book, which the hon. member who interrupted should have known, if he had had his ears open, and if he talked less and listened more. I am trying to read material which is of the utmost importance to members of the house and the country right now. It continues:
It is to reduce to a minimum all those measures to regulate mere price competition which the nations have found essential in the interest of stability of employment or of social and national security. It is to forbid any trade agreements between nations based on equal reciprocal advantage. What is more, this veto on all really fruitful and expansionist international co-operation is to be applied to our family relations within the British commonwealth. It is a retrograde policy which is bound, if adopted, to be disastrous to the world and, above all, disastrous to this country and to the whole British commonwealth.
This is not the first time that the attempt has been made to resuscitate the internationalist economy of the nineteenth century with its rigid gold standard cramping productive expansion and its most favoured nation clause forbidding all fruitful co-operation between nations. It was done after the first world war with lamentable consequences for all concerned. The European nations, tied hand and foot to the gold standard, forbidden, in the name of non-discrimination, to help each other, were dragged down to disaster by the American speculative slump and the deflation which followed. Europe was forced to save itself by some very drastic economic devices. But it did save itself. We were in a happier position. Thanks to our cutting adrift from the gold standard, thanks to the unrealised strength of the sterling area, thanks to our belated use of the tariff, thanks to the extension and consolidation of empire preference by the Ottawa agreements, we of the British empire made a more rapid and complete recovery from the world depression than any other group of nations. We did so with less interference with world trade than any other country. The worst sufferers, throughout, I might add, were the United States. I have told fully in a series of chapters the story of how the irresponsible fluctuations of the immense dynamic power of the American economy brought disaster on the world, and of the measures by which we and others saved ourselves, as its lessons have a direct bearing on the attempt to reimpose a policy which must inevitably, if adopted, lead to the same results.
There is one quarter, at any rate, where the lesson of those events has never sunk in and where, on the contrary, by a strange inversion of cause and effect, precisely the wrong deduction has been drawn from them. That is in the leading political and economic circles in the United States. In that quarter the one conclusion from the disaster of 1931 has been that it was caused by the measures which we and others took, and took successfully, after the disaster, to remedy the situation, and that what we and the world need is a stronger dose of the poison which so nearly finished us off. This time we are to have international laisser faire in a strait-jacket. In 1931 we were free to cast off completely from the gold standard. We were free to abandon

the foolish pedantry of free imports. We were free to develop empire preference which had already stood us in such good stead. That freedom we have now been ordered to abjure. We are to sacrifice sterling, the finest monetary system yet devised, in order to hand over all control of our monetary policy to an international committee sitting in America, from whose decisions there is to be no appeal. We have been forced to pledge ourselves to bring to a "successful conclusion" a doctrinaire internationalist commercial scheme which is to deprive us of the invaluable stand-by of imperial preference, of all prospect of fair bargaining with foreign nations, and of any effective control of our own home market. I am bound to ask my readers to consider who and what are the influences that have rammed down our throats so unwarranted a reversal of our national economic policy.
No one can doubt, for a moment, the necessity of Anglo-American co-operation and friendship for the peace and prosperity of the world. But cooperation must be based on mutual interest and friendship, on frankness as between equals, on telling our friends where we believe them to be mistaken, in their own interest as well as in ours, not on shirking vital issues. So, in true friendship, I propose to write with complete freedom. There are two elements in America, separate, though to some extent overlapping, which have come together on this policy and are trying to force it upon us. In the forefront are those statesmen and economists, generally known as New Dealers, who, brought up in the isolated economic and social environment of the United States, genuinely believe that the policy they advocate is good for everybody. They think, in fact, as we thought just 100 years ago in an utterly different world. They have persuaded themselves that the world depression was caused by the trade and exchange restrictions which were subsequently imposed by the various countries to save themselves from its effects, and that the mere removal of those regulations will automatically bring about an era of world-wide expansion. They apparently believe that the Ottawa conference of 1932 was a principal cause of the world crisis which came to a head in 1931. We must all respect their sincerity, for they include many of our best friends in the United States. But we are entitled to question their economics and their history.
They are not, however, the real driving and deciding force in this business. That, as poor Lord Keynes discovered when he began talking about our sacrifices for the common cause, is supplied by the "tough guys" in congress and outside. It is supplied by the big industrial interests clamouring for an unlimited outlet for their immense surplus capacity. It is supplied by big business eager to finance exports and secure world-wide control. Our idealist friends may admit that their policy will only work if America, now a creditor country, becomes, on balance, an importer and not an exporter. So far as the tough guys are concerned, that is all theoretical boloney. They are for exports and more exports and yet more exports. They want to supply the needs of every country, not only in goods, but in air and sea transport and finance- exports visible and invisible. And there are other tough guys, more concerned with the home market, who will see to it in congress that any reductions in the American tariff are not going to spoil their business. As for the balance of payments, the financiers can see to keeping that balance going for the present-and never mind the theorists who point to the inevitable eventual crash.
I would beg the pardon of the house for having read so long a passage; but hon. members will find that the more thoroughly
The Address-Mr. Blackmore they read and digest that passage, the more daylight will be let into their minds with respect to the trouble we are now facing, even in connection with NATO.
I wish now to proceed with some further comments I had intended to make. Canadians cannot possibly afford to permit Great Britain and the British commonwealth to be weakened, either as individual nations or as an organization of nations or as a vital, cooperating and prosperous group of people working together in the world.
There are two reasons why we as Canadians simply cannot allow Great Britain or the British commonwealth to be weakened. The first of these reasons pertains to our defence. The second pertains to our economic survival or security.
In the first place, let us take a glance at the economic situation. Where did Canada sell her goods between 1941 and 1949? I suggest that hon. members might consult the Canada Year Book for 1951, page 896, plate VII, and read there the figures indicating where we sold our goods. It will be found that a fair majority of our goods were sold to Britain, while a considerable amount of the remainder were sold to members of the British commonwealth. If we weaken Britain or the British commonwealth to such an extent that they will be unable to buy our goods we shall have much difficulty in finding markets for the ever-increasing production which we are capable of bringing into being.
In respect of the defence question, it was said by our fathers that "a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush". Britain is a bird in the hand and I think she is worth at least ten birds in the bush like the one called NATO. That is my own simple opinion. If we make Britain and the British commonwealth as strong as we can make them, if we can co-operate with Britain, if we can get the United States off her back and keep them off, Britain and the British commonwealth can offer communism far more successful opposition than any conglomeration of nations such as we have in NATO. I am not opposing NATO; all I am arguing is that the very first thing we should do is to make sure that Britain and the British commonwealth are strong.
Britain has been tried and the commonwealth has been tried. Britain and the commonwealth ruled the world with admirable success for a hundred years, I believe with greater justice, with greater security and probably with greater comfort than the world is enjoying today, generally speaking. Why should they not be able to do the same thing in the future? It is not a question of
560	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore imperialism; it is just plain common sense in guaranteeing to our children and our children's children something like the chance for good things that we have had as our heritage.
Suppose the NATO front line of defence should be broken through? What would then have to become the second line of defence for America? Unquestionably it would be Britain and the British empire. If we want a strong second line of defence, surely we should take every measure to see that the British commonwealth is strong. We should not permit if we can possibly help it the outrageous things that are being done to Britain and the British commonwealth by the United States in the name of non-discrimination.
This brings up a serious matter which I have advocated several times in the house and which I hope to advocate again. The best thing that Canada could possibly do to make Britain strong for defence as well as to provide markets is to advance her a line of credit, and I have suggested a billion dollars a year. It may be asked what bearing this has on NATO. I suggest to our minister of external affairs that when he next meets the high command of NATO he should say to them very much what I have said here tonight.
He should say to them that if we want a strong NATO we should have a strong Britain and a strong British commonwealth. He should tell them that if we are going to have a strong Britain and a strong British commonwealth there must be a complete reversal of the policies which have been followed since 1942. He should tell them that they should talk straight to the United States so that that nation can understand that. If the Americans do not understand that, if they do not make- suitable modifications in their policies, they will be the worst sufferers in the long run. What they are going to do is to have the nations of Europe on relief. When the nations of Europe are once definitely on relief, if they are in the position where they no longer can pay their way, then the United States will have to carry the full weight of those nations and then the Americans will be in real trouble.
If they run into the same difficulty they had in 1928 and 1929 they will go down into a depression. The great depression of the thirties was due to natural causes. In 1922, after the smoke cleared away from world war I, the United States found that she could not possibly sell the surplus goods which were coming off her assembly lines and which she thought she had to sell. She resorted to 

foreign lending, mainly through private channels, to the countries of Europe to enable them to buy American goods. That policy was continued for six years and she lent billions and billions of dollars to European nations for the purchase of United States goods.
Then it began to dawn on the best thinkers in the United States that they were not going to be able to take the interest on the money they had loaned. Moreover they were not going to get the money back because if they took either the interest or the money it would have to be in the form of European goods which would come into the United States market and compete with United States goods and would therefore do much harm to the United States economy.
Then the United States leaders decided that they could not afford to proceed with this foreign lending business and they discontinued that in 1928. Inside of one year they were slipping into a depression. They did not know how to stop themselves from sliding into that depression. Exactly the same thing will happen this time. The only thing that has prevented the United States from descending into a depression during the last few years has been Marshall aid, which meant the advancing of money to people in Europe with which to buy United States goods.
Now they have a form of security aimed at exactly the same objective, the supplying of money to foreign nations with which to buy United States goods. Obviously that policy cannot be indefinitely continued. Let us ask ourselves what the United States will do when she realizes that politically it will not be possible for her to continue foreign lending, either under the guise of Marshall aid or urfder any other guise. Then what will happen to the United States? Inevitably she will sink down into a depression. Along with her, we will go. Surely we can face this situation realistically and do something about it.
We have made two terrible mistakes within the last few months. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) left to go to Britain he said that he did not think he would give Britain any aid. That was the worst thing he could have done because aid was exactly what Britain needed, what she had to have. Then when he got over to a recent conference, according to a press report we read the other ' day, in which he was characterized as the "skeleton" at the feast, when he got there, he advised all empire countries not to be discriminatory. In other words, if they could not buy from dollar countries such as Canada and the United States, they should not buy from anybody. If you can think of anything

more foolhardy under the circumstances than that I believe you would have to be in a nightmare. I think the minister must have been in a nightmare. I would hate to suggest that he was doing the bidding of a group of men in Wall street, which is the natural suspicion one would have of a man as intelligent as he is who would advocate such absolutely absurd policies.
We must adopt measures which are designed to save us from further progress into disaster. Therefore I suggest once more to the minister of external affairs that the first thing he should advocate is that Britain and the British commonwealth be made strong. Britain should be granted sufficient aid so that she can employ all her people, keep them at a high standard of living and fight the very best fight she is capable of fighting. Then let him urge the United States to withdraw those restrictions which have been placed upon her by trade agreements at Geneva, Havana, Annecy and Torquay, every last one of them based upon the fundamental principle of non-discrimination. Withdraw the restrictions, allow the British to use imperial preferences just as far as they desire to use them. Allow them to trade just as freely as they wish, just so long as they keep up their trade. Do not interfere with imports and exports to such an extent that you destroy the prosperity of the world. If those things are done then I think we shall find that next year we shall have a far better chance of facing the future with real confidence than we have today. If we want to know how to get the greatest amount of defence value out of the Canadian dollar,
I suggest that we adopt the policy which I have mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


John Horne Blackmore: Let us make the British commonwealth strong, by gifts of dollars if need be, and by allowing them to -co-operate with each other in order to make a great and powerful ,co-operative union, strong enough-


Some hon. Members:: Time.


John Horne Blackmore: Let us urge the United States to withdraw all restrictions.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, this being the first occasion on which I have taken part in the debate so far this session, at the outset I want to pay tribute to the wonderful contribution which our late sovereign made to the world. I
18. 1952
The Address-Mr. H. O. White also want to express the hope that m the years that lie ahead in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, history will repeat itself and we shall again know an age of peace and prosperity. That is the hope of the world. I also want to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John), of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Since the opening of this session, and probably before, some discussion and criticism at NATO have taken place. Let me say at once that it is the hope of the world that we have a strong North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Having said that, I want to point out some of the weaknesses which I hope we can correct-and that in the near future-during the ensuing years in order to strengthen and to improve the work that NATO is attempting to do.
We know full well that agreements and arrangements arrived at between nations are fairly easily broken these days. In fact, we have only to look at the Geneva agreements to find examples. Now we find that the United States of America, in prohibiting the importation of Canadian dairy products to the United States, has broken the spirit and the letter of those Geneva treaties. We find our own dairy industry in rather difficult circumstances. It is a peculiar world. I have here in my hand a little clipping taken from tonight's Ottawa Journal. The heading of it is "Women Trampled in Stampede for Butter" and it reads as follows:
Sydney, Australia, March 18-About 11,000 people went to McDowell's store here yesterday to buy 2,000 pounds of butter advertised for sale. Twenty-two women fainted and others were trampled in the rush.
Sydney has had a butter famine for most of the last six months due to falling production.
As I understand it, we imported 15 million pounds of butter from New Zealand; yet here they are with their next door neighbour short of butter. We are certainly living in a confused world. A dairy conference has just been completed in Quebec. The cheese industry and the butter industry are greatly worried as to what the future holds for them here in Canada.
To come back for a moment to NATO, may I say that we have made commitments of men and money to this North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We find that in Europe there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of men who are idle and who might better be employed in the European army. Yet from a small nation numerically, here we are sending troops to Europe. Then we find that we are bringing immigrants to Canada from that

The Address-Mr. H. O. White very same Europe, and that we are doing so in the face of considerable unemployment in most of our cities.
I also wonder whether we are in some cases abandoning the substance for the shadow. During many long years of Britain's history she maintained the peace not through war but through a balance of power. She maintained1 peace in the world. Now that the British empire has in a sense fallen apart, we have rushed into this NATO alliance in an attempt to fill the vacuum created by the disaster of two world wars. In Canada I think we find ourselves in a rather peculiar position. We now find that it is hardly in good taste to mention the Dominion of Canada. Thanks to the present government it is even more taboo to mention the British empire. In certain places people are even reluctant to mention the commonwealth. Having fairly well scuttled all connections with the greatest political and economic union for the preservation of freedom and trade in the world we are, as I said before, now trying to fill this vacuum with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
What have we under NATO? We have difference in currency, difference in custom, and difference in economic and cultural experiences; in fact, we have not a great deal in common except a common foe and a desire for freedom. Each of these NATO nations is desirous of retaining its national sovereignty, however, and I am wondering how effective NATO will be over a long period of time when certain nations may have the feeling: "We are contributing too much" or "Such and such a nation is not treating us as we should be treated." This also brings the United States into the picture. Within the British commonwealth of nations we have a common tongue that united the Englishspeaking world. That is something we do not have under this other organization. We have the problem of building up a military alliance among these fourteen nations, but they are not united by the bonds of trade and commerce and their economies are not bound together. I think we should attempt to weld these nations together by making it possible for them to trade with one another. I do not believe we are going to be very effective militarily unless our economies are maintained in a strong position and we are able to deal with one another. As I understand the NATO agreement, clause 2 emphasized the necessity for economic co-operation. So far the military aspect has been overemphasized and the need for trade and commerce between these countries has been placed in a very secondary position, to say
[Mr. White (Middlesex East) .1
the least. As I said before, trade and financial barriers separate them in many cases.
As long as I have been in the house there has been talk of standardization of equipment. Standardization seems to be just as far away as ever. We cannot carry out our commitments to NATO if our economy should falter. With surpluses piling up on the one hand and on the other nations needing our food and manufactured products yet not able to buy them, we are finding ourselves in rather difficult circumstances. I am wondering whether in our haste to proclaim our freedom we have cast in our lot with a more costly and more remote alliance from which we will not be able to extricate ourselves merely by changing governors general.
Now to come to some of our domestic problems, of course the one every constituent of mine is interested in is taxation. I read the other day that the average citizen has to work about eighty days to pay his federal, provincial and municipal taxation, before he has anything for himself. Of course you can compare that with some of the totalitarian countries where they work all the time for the government; but we have reached the point where we are working almost one-third of our time, and I do not think we can go much further along that line. Fifty years ago we read about people being exploited by big business and cartels. Today the biggest business in the country is the government, and it is continuing to exploit not only the masses but all business, both big and small. They are all being taxed practically to the limit. I think the government should remember before it is too late that prosperity can be taxed to death; and then what have you?
I am going to mention just two or three of the so-called nuisance taxes, though they are not nuisance taxes to those engaged in these businesses. The taxation of tobacco has boomeranged. You can no longer put in a telephone call for five cents, or buy a five-cent cigar. For fifty years the soft drink industry was a five-cent business, and now it is being taxed out of existence. Inflation and taxation have been such that right now it is necessary that the amount of loans under the National Housing Act be increased, otherwise people will not be able to build the houses they need so desperately. I understand, and I hope it is true, that at this session the war veterans allowance will be increased. When that increase becomes law it should be made retroactive to the first of this year, the same as pensions for the older people.
Now for a moment I should like to touch on the foot-and-mouth disease in the west,

the announcement of which has had a most serious impact on the Canadian economy. I was rather amused to see in the press today that there was a suspected outbreak of this disease at Shelburne, Ontario, but apparently within about twenty-four hours they were able to ascertain that it was not foot-and-mouth disease. It took them three months to find the facts when it happened near Regina.


Mr. McCusker:: That shows you what
experience does.


Harry Oliver White: It takes you a long time to learn. We were told seven veterinarians were called in, and they were all wrong. It would be interesting to ask implement dealers across Canada how many contracts for the purchase of machinery have been cancelled since the outbreak of this disease; and that is only one class of business. This is going to be a very serious matter before it is over. Animal diseases have wrecked the domestic market, and we have also lost our export market, though we hope only temporarily. Hundreds of millions of dollars in purchasing power have been wiped out just like that; and what about price support? Hogs are being sold at below the so-called price support level. No assurance has been given that when surplus beef comes on the market it will be bought and sent to Britain or other needy countries. If the prices support act is ever to be made effective, it is a case of now or never.
In his speech the other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was very optimistic; but if he had been one of the 3,000 unemployed in the city of London he might have felt differently. While I am dealing with his department I might mention the question of steel control. In London we were attempting to build a hospital, but steel was difficult if not impossible to obtain. Three times the Ontario fruit and vegetable terminal at Toronto has been denied steel necessary for construction. At the same time steel was released to a biscuit company and a grocery warehouse, but not for the industry of agriculture. I think a board of review or a court of appeal should be set up to examine all the requests for steel, instead of having them go into a corner and make a deal with each individual applicant for steel so that no one knows whether or not he is getting justice.
Coming back to taxation there is the taxation on real estate, which is becoming a very serious problem in the cities. The costs of education have mounted, and pretty well all those costs are imposed on real estate, on the ownership of property. The cost of civil
The Address-Mr. Parent defence has been placed at the municipal level; consequently the burden must be carried by the property owners. Now that unemployment has continued for quite some time the benefits are being exhausted, and the municipalities find themselves with an increasing number of applications for relief. I have here on my desk a series of resolutions from the city of London, of which I am going to read only two or three:
Whereas full employment of all employable persons appears to be and to have been a national policy concurred in by all governments;
And whereas such persons and others not entitled to unemployment insurance are applying in increasing numbers to the welfare offices of municipalities for assistance by way of direct relief.
And whereas municipal revenues are derived almost entirely from real estate taxation and are unable to bear the burden of such relief;
And whereas sources of revenue available to the government of Canada through taxation and unemployment insurance contributions are such that it alone should be asked to assume this burden.
Therefore be it resolved:
1.	That the council of the city of London do urge the government of Canada to assume full responsibility for the complete cost of relief of unemployed employable persons and for the administration of such relief and the cost of such administration and to institute promptly appropriate measures in this regard.
2.	That the government of Canada be urged to have unemployment insurance benefits increased immediately in proportion to the increase in the cost of living since the amount of such benefits was last fixed.
(Translation):


Mr. Charles Parent (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of detaining the house for any length of time.
(Text):
It is not my intention to delay the house, because I know hon. members are anxious that a vote be taken. It was my intention to address the house in French, but I hope I shall be excused if my English is not of the Shakespearian style. I should like to call the attention of the house to a problem which at first might appear to be one of provincial rights but which I believe has a national aspect. It is concerned with the youth of this country who participate in our national sport, hockey. I should like to commend the member for Kingston City (Mr. Henderson) for calling our attention to this important subject. I am happy to be able to follow up on this subject, because I have here a statement issued by the dean of the Anglican church in the city of Quebec, the Rev. R. L. Seaborn. It reads as follows:
I have read with Interest the articles presently appearing in the various newspapers in regard to placing young hockey players on the negotiation list of professional hockey clubs, without their prior knowledge or consent in many cases. I am glad to see that protests have been made against this practice by the Hon. Gerald Martineau, Mr. 564	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. MacNaught Charles Parent, M.P., Mayor Bourne and the prime minister of this province, the Hon. Maurice Duplessis, and Mr. Mark Drouin, Q.C.
As long ago as 1949 the general synod of the Church of England in Canada passed a resolution condemning "the modern exploitation of juveniles through the medium of juvenile and junior hockey leagues, and that this general synod condemns this modern form of exploitation of our Canadian school boys."
It seems that an even greater control over the freedom and well-being of hockey players of all ages is now in prospect. And I feel sure that the subcommittee of the social service council of our Anglican church, which has this whole matter under careful study, will be encouraged to know that more public support is now forthcoming in its endeavours to safeguard the welfare as well as the civil rights and liberties of these young men.
R. L. Seaborn
This morning my attention was called to a declaration by the general manager of the Canadiens hockey club in Montreal, who suggests the amount that is to be paid in each league for a player. It is suggested that the limit in the national league be $10,000; in the American league, $7,000; and in the Pacific league, $5,000. Surely if we have a law in this country which will authorize the Minister of Justice to say that, under the combines act you cannot fix the price of a product in previous convention, then certainly we should be able to say that you cannot sell the youth of this country for any sum like $5,000. If the player does not accept, he will not be allowed to play hockey. This is not only a question of provincial rights; it concerns the right of the federal government to investigate, under the combines act, this national sport of hockey or the syndicate that runs it.
In the Ottawa Citizen today I read that the United States government is taking action under the anti-trust laws against a group of magnates who control boxing through the Madison Square Garden and the International Boxing Association. The United States judges this matter to be important enough to justify the intervention of the federal government. What do we see? James W. Norris has been called an anti-trust violator. He controls the Detroit hockey team, the Chicago hockey team and the New York Rangers hockey team. What would you say if one owner in a horse race had three horses registered under three different names, but running for the same interest? What racket would that be? Well, we are at that point in our great national sport, and I think the time has come that in this national forum some voice must be heard on that question.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house any longer. It is a question which transcends the limits of my province and of my home town. However, I want to do my humble


share and through the few remarks I just made in the other official language of the country, I want to bring about some relief to our young sportsmen. I want our youth, in all provinces, to be in a position to say, as the poet would, that "in the field of hockey, be there millions of slaves, I, at least, am a free hockey player."
(Text):


Mr. J. Waison MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I do not intend to delay the house at this stage of the debate more than two or three minutes. My purpose in rising at this time is to correct an erroneous impression that may have been left by a statement made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) in this debate on March 14. If I do not make the correction now I will be precluded from doing so after this debate is terminated.
The hon. member for St. John's East referred in this house on March 14 to the Newfoundland Grand Banks as follows, as reported at page 457 of Hansard:
On a number of occasions we Newfoundland members have asked the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) questions with respect to the depletion of the Grand Banks, and he has assured us on different occasions that there is no evidence of depletion, or at least no evidence to warrant any conservation measures.
The hon. member then referred to a report purported to be made by Dr. Templeman of the fisheries research board, and he purports to quote from Dr. Templeman's report as follows.
He says that the shrinkage in haddock exports from 5,700,000 pounds in the first six months of 1950 to 1,300,000 pounds in the corresponding period in 1951 shows quite clearly what a great danger we are facing in the depletion of these Grand Banks.
Dr. Templeman made no such statement. His report does refer to the decline in the Newfoundland exports of haddock in 1951, but indicates this was due to several factors, including a diversion of fishing effort by Newfoundland trawlers from haddock to other fishing. Dr. Templeman ascribed the decline in haddock abundance more to the failure of the 1943, 1944, and 1945 broods of haddock, and mentions that the 1946 brood, now entering the fishery, will probably improve this year's haddock catch. In short Dr. Templeman's remarks have been somewhat misinterpreted. It should be made plain too that haddock catches form a very small fraction of the Grand Banks fishery-less than 5 per cent, as a matter of fact-and there is no suggestion of general depletion on these banks.
The government's keen desire to prevent depletion is shown by the active part it has.

played in the establishment of the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries. That is an attempt to bring about conservation by international action. Already increased research is under way by our fisheries research board, such research being the first step towards assessing the danger of overfishing and of suggesting the means of preventing it, should it threaten.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: May I ask
the hon. gentleman a question? Is he aware that the trawlers were coming into St. John's last summer without any haddock? They could not find any on the Grand Banks.


John Watson MacNaught: I am not aware of such a fact.


William Joseph Browne: You should look it up.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Sinnoli:: Mr. Speaker, I assure you I will not be long.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Up to
a certain time we were following a list, when all of a sudden, no member rising, I asked whether the house was ready for the question. At that point the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) took the floor and made a speech. Now, if we are to carry on with this list, I shall have to see the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a speech at this hour; I can assure the house of that. But there are one or two matters to which I should like to draw the attention of the house. I doubt whether I would have taken part in this debate at all were it not for the statement made the other day by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), in which he referred to the fruit-growing industry of the Annapolis valley, and said that during the past ten years the fruit growers of that valley had received assistance to the amount of over $20 million. At the time the hon, member was speaking he said he was quoting from the record entitled "Agricultural Assistance, War and Post-War", which had been brought up to date. I attempted to get a copy of this revised volume, Mr. Speaker, and I was informed by the Department of Agriculture that the last edition was in 1949 and that there had been no revision since. It is possible of course that the hon. member had access to information which was not available to me, from which he gave this round figure of $20 million, which he said had been paid out in the last ten years.
The Address-Mr. Nowlan
I would refer him and other hon. members to the fact that the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk) last year obtained a return of the expenditures made on the Annapolis valley from the year 1940 to the year 1951, and they amounted to only $16 million. Where this figure of $20 million comes from, Mr. Speaker, I do not know.


An hon. Member:: A round figure.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is a very round figure. If it can be substantiated in any way I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is determined by the fact of including possibly certain cold storage subsidies which were paid to cold storage plants in Nova Scotia. Of course these subsidies are paid to cold storage plants in the constituency of the hon. member for Charlotte and in the constituency of every hon. member of the house, because they are paid under the act. They are fixed by statute and they have no reference to assistance whatsoever.
I suspect that the exact amount paid was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $14 million, instead of $20 million. Of that $14 million account must be taken of the fact that much was paid out for processed fruit, which afterwards was sold by the government and certain values reclaimed. In other words, the figure of $14 million is the gross figure, and the net amount paid by the Dominion of Canada on that account would be substantially less.
Then again account also must be taken of the fact that this expenditure was made for the benefit of the farmers of the valley. Of course they received the money. They received assistance, and they appreciated it. There is no gainsaying that fact. It also must be remembered, and I am sure the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, who is here, and other farmers from Ontario, recognize the fact that this money was paid out in part to prevent the destruction of the markets in Quebec and Ontario, which otherwise would have followed had the apples of the valley not received any assistance and been shipped up here to be sold at whatever price could be obtained. When you take these figures and take that situation into consideration, Mr. Speaker, I do suggest that at least it is hardly fair-it is not accurate and, in fact, it is entirely inaccurate-to say, first, that $20 million or anything like that sum was paid to the fruit growers of the valley. Secondly, whatever amount was paid was subject to the deductions to which I have referred, and the net balance would be very much less.
Upon rising to take part in the debate I forgot to do what is perhaps a conventional

The Address-Mr. Nowlan task, but one which in my case I am very happy to do. I extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply. I would refer particularly, of course, to the hon. member who comes from one of our maritime provinces, but I do congratulate both of them because they maintained the high traditions which have appertained to this procedure throughout the years in this and other parliaments. They maintained those traditions, and reflected credit upon themselves. I am sure their achievement in that regard augurs well for other successful efforts on their part in the future.
Much reference has been made in the debate to the fishing industry of the maritime provinces. We have witnessed the unique experience wherein not only members from the maritimes supporting the government have risen to ask the government to do something for this industry, but also our friends of the Social Credit party and our friends of the C.C.F. party have expressed their desire that some assistance be given to this industry. It is rather encouraging to find such a situation ensuing. Sometimes those of us from the maritime provinces feel that when we speak about maritime problems we are looked upon as parochial politicians whereas if one speaks on behalf of the grain growers . or the wheat growers, or the prairies of the west, he is regarded as a statesman.
It is a matter of satisfaction to know that, whether we be parochial politicians or statesmen, we do have the support of members of all groups and of all parties in this instance. There can be no question that the fishermen have suffered very severe losses from the storms along the Atlantic seaboard which, during the past few months, have been devastating. I know that never in our history has the fishing industry suffered as severely as it has during that period of time. And as was pointed out the other day by the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk), these men are not in a position to recoup their losses. They are not in a position to go back into the industry. In my own constituency along the bay of Fundy there have been many who have suffered similar losses. It is encouraging to see these members stand in their places in the house and ask for this help. It is encouraging to see government members urge that this action be taken. It is encouraging to see the parliamentary assistant from the province of Nova Scotia endorse this matter, and we do hope that when the estimates come down we will find that provision has been made for these men who have suffered such heavy loss.
IMr. Nowlan.]
But, Mr. Speaker, there is more involved in this than the mere recouping of temporary losses. I was interested to hear the parliamentary assistant speak a moment ago about the failure of the run of haddock at certain points on the Atlantic coast. I did not catch clearly the particular place to which he referred. However, I hear the same complaint in my own constituency.
I noticed in the press the other day that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) and, I presume, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) had recently negotiated a treaty with the United States dealing with fisheries on the Pacific coast. I can tell you that those of us on the Atlantic coast would appreciate the negotiation of treaties with the United States, in so far as the fisheries of the bay of Fundy are concerned. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs, upon searching his records, will find that there has been an open question as to the status of the bay of Fundy, that is as to whether it is high sea or whether it is not. At the present time we are suffering from inroads by American trawlers coming into the bay of Fundy and failing to comply with the regulations to stay three miles off the coast line. The only way this can be rectified is by negotiation between the Secretary of State for External Affairs in conjunction with his colleague the Minister of Fisheries, and the American government. In St. Mary bay we see inroads of the smaller trawlers. These are matters which require attention of the department, as well as recouping of losses suffered during the storms.
Then we must consider the status of the fishermen generally. The provisions in connection with the sick mariners fund are not satisfactory to the fishermen, and do not give sufficient protection to them. There could and should be some statutory enactment whereby something approaching a workmen's compensation act could be made available for all fishermen. Some such act should be considered by the Department of Fisheries. Then, later on, when we are in committee of supply and are dealing with these estimates, I would hope that the Minister of Fisheries would be in a position to indicate some relief in this connection.
The fishermen down in Digby neck, as we know it, have lost much of their equipment in their processing plants because of the storms. And, more than that, the fishermen of Digby county are suffering from transportation facilities so inadequate that, it is said, they were able to move their fish more satisfactorily 75 years ago than they can

today. There is a crying need for the installation of piers by the federal government and a ferry by the provincial government whereby those fishermen can transport their products to market. It is a crying shame that in this day and age, with the progress we have made, they actually face transportation facilities which, as they say, are more inadequate than those with which they were confronted 60 or 75 years ago.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer. I noticed that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) was in his seat a moment ago. I have had some little experience with the Income Tax Act, as it affects farmers and fishermen. There is one section in the act which enables primary producers, whose chief sources of income are derived from farming or from fishing, to average.
It has developed that, despite the fact that they have qualified, and despite the fact that they have fulfilled all the terms of the act, they must fill out the forms or they have been deprived of this privilege afforded them. I know of farmers who, because they were not conversant with the act, did not fill out their applications for averaging until the first day of May, one day after April 30, and they have been deprived of that privilege. If the privilege of averaging is open to these farmers and fishermen, then why should they be deprived of that right because of a technical failure to file an application? I suggest the act should be amended so that automatically they would be given that opportunity, provided they had filed their returns on time, and otherwise complied with the act.
The act also refers to their principal source of income. What does that mean? Is a farmer who has had a complete crop failure to be deprived of his right to average, because of that loss? I am thinking of one farmer who operates a large farm and who has a substantial gross income from it. He also is employed as manager of a small co-operative farmers' packing plant. Over the years his chief source of income has been from his farm; but because a year ago or two years ago he had a total crop failure, an absolute failure-he spent $15,000 or $20,000 for his crop and did not get a cent back-because of that, and because he received a few hundred dollars as manager of this packing plant, the Department of National Revenue ruled that he could not average. He has lost his whole privilege under the five-year scheme because his principal source of revenue for that year came from salary rather than from the farm.
I say that that is an administrative legislation, and is not in accordance with the
The Address-Mr. Nowlan statute. The act says "income"; it does not say "net income". If one wanted to carry that case to the exchequer court, it is possible that the farmer would be able to average. But he cannot do that. I suggest to the house and the minister that some attention should be paid to this situation, and that the farmers and fishermen should have their rights under the section safeguarded in the future.
There is one other point I should like to mention. I am not going to embark upon any discussion of the foot-and-mouth disease. I do not profess to be an expert on this matter, but we had a somewhat similar situation in Nova Scotia to which I wish to draw your attention. Within the last few months there has been an outbreak of Newcastle disease, a disease affecting poultry. This matter has been debated within the last three days in the legislature of Nova Scotia and was referred to by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on Friday last.
What happened there? On the advice of the experts in the Department of Agriculture the proprietors of these flocks were advised to inoculate against Newcastle disease. They obtained vaccine from the Department of Agriculture but the flocks which were inoculated with that vaccine developed Newcastle disease. The result was that thousands and tens of thousands of birds had to be destroyed.
We had the unique situation where proprietors of flocks followed the advice of the departmental experts, obtained serum or vaccine, call it what you will, from the department here with which to inoculate their flocks, and yet those same flocks developed the disease. There has been a suggestion of carelessness in this branch of the department in connection with foot-and-mouth disease, and I suggest that there is a real ground for charges of carelessness in this connection.
The farmers have been told and they believe that instead of sterile vaccine being sent down, the department sent down live vaccine. Instead of this vaccine protecting the flocks against the disease, it infected them with the disease. Speaking in the Nova Scotia legislature at Halifax on Friday night the Nova Scotia minister of agriculture, speaking for a Liberal government, charged the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa with being responsible for this disease and with never having attempted to deny it.
That is the situation, yet the proprietors of these flocks have had to accept the commercial value of the birds. That would have been the case with animals slaughtered in
5E8

The Address-Mr. Sinnott the west had we not amended the act. I repeat that these men were paid only the commercial value despite the fact that these were breeding flocks, despite the fact that large amounts had been spent on buildings and equipment which had to be destroyed. Many of these men have been, put out of business.
When we come to deal with the estimates I hope it will be found that the government has given some attention to this matter and a formula similar to that adopted in the west will be applied in this case. Instead of being paid the market price of old fowl, these men should be given enough to enable them to re-establish themselves in business. This vaccine did come from the department here and it would appear that it is more responsible in that case than it may have been in some of the others we have discussed.
These are some of the local matters to which I wished to direct the attention of the house at this time. There are no others which I intend to mention at this time. However, since Your Honour is in the chair I would like to say that we regret the fact that, the committee which was appointed last session to deal with the rules of the house having made its report, we are not going to follow certain of its suggestions, particularly the one with respect to the ten o'clock closing hour. Apparently we are not going to follow out that particular suggestion. I do not think it is fair to this house or to hon. members to ask them to sit until eleven o'clock. It just cannot be done.
When this debate is completed I trust that the necessary measures will be taken to provide that at least that part of the suggestion, in which I think there is substantial agreement, will be brought into effect. Otherwise some of us who are getting older are going to wonder just what we will have to do to attain those closing hours.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the house that I shall not take too long because I know that it is intended to vote on the amendment tonight. However, I do want to join with other hon. members in congratulating the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think they did very well.
There is one matter in particular with which I would like to deal tonight, and I refer to the statements that have been made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). Before I get on to that I should like to pay a tribute to an hon. member from Saskatchewan who while small in stature appears to have the courage of a lion. He made a statement in the house the other day

in regard to agriculture and I think he was right in practically everything he said1. However, a couple of members of the C.C.F. saw fit to criticize some of the things he said. I always contend that just criticism is welcome, but unjust criticism is not.
Some of the statements made by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Hetland) were twisted by certain members in the opposition in an effort to make people believe that the hon. member for Humboldt was against labour unions. There was nothing in his speech to indicate that he was against labour unions, and I just wanted to make that clear.
Many of us remember the speech delivered by the hon. member for Moose Jaw last year just prior to the time the government brought down its resale price maintenance legislation. It is funny to note what the hon. member had to say at that time, what he had to say later and what he is saying now. One would hardly know that it was the same man who was speaking. I should like to quote what the hon. member said on November 6, 1951, as reported on page 747 of Hansard:
Therefore I think all hon. members can only conclude that the legislation forecast is like a stillborn child, dead before its birth for this session at least.
Why has the government changed its mind? Why is there this about-face? In the past few weeks I think we have witnessed perhaps the most powerful lobby on any one issue ever seen in Canada. The government and members of parliament generally have been literally bombarded with petitions and protests against the proposed legislation by organizations such as the chamber of commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers Association and various retail organizations. Some of the charges which these groups have made have been pretty startling. They have suggested that the small retailer is going to be ruined, and that monopolies may be fostered if this legislation becomes law. They have suggested that men will be thrown out of work. Some have even contended that ultimately the consumer is going to lose. I believe that most of these charges are, exaggerated, and some of them are nonsense. I feel, nevertheless, that the government has been deeply shocked by the opposition their proposal has met from Canadian, business generally. This afternoon they are beating a hasty and none too skilful retreat from that opposition.
The hon. member then went on to say that the real reason why the government had yielded and set up a committee was the pressure exerted by big business lobbies. The hon. member continued:
The recommendations were perhaps not too bad, but they were sent to parliament a few days before adjournment, and that was the last we ever heard of those recommendations. The committee thus wasted its time. I say that from past experience, opposition members have seen committees used to sidetrack issues too often. The government finds itself today in somewhat the same position as the boy looking after the sheep who called "wolf" once too often. They are trying to tell us that a committee is really needed. But surely the minister cannot blame opposition members if they are a

little bit suspicious. Personally I am somewhat doubtful about the motives of the government in this case. Nevertheless, I am going to support the motion to set up this committee, and I am going to do so for two specific reasons.
What does he say as a retailer of great experience? He had this to say as reported at page 748.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That was before the committee sat.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: This was after the committee sat. He said:
Probably the most disturbing of those arguments which have been advanced is the contention that this legislation might let the big retailer ruin the small retailer. This is not the time to go into the pros and cons of the legislation; but as a retailer myself, I feel that these charges are exaggerated. I should be greatly surprised if 8 per cent or, at the very outside, 10 per cent of all goods sold in Canada are subject to resale price maintenance.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That was before the committee sat.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: He continues:
I therefore find it exceedingly difficult to visualize many men being put out of business.
Then we heard the statement from him yesterday, and I see a big headline in the paper today which reads: "Says Trade-Ins Making Credit Curbs a Farce." Then the article goes on to say:
Mr. Thatcher said the abolition of the fixing of retail prices by manufacturers had brought temporary help to consumers. But hundreds of small dealers were faced with bankruptcy. Experience would show that consumers would suffer when competition disappeared.
"The small dealers were the first to be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency by a government seeking a scapegoat for its own failure to deal with inflation", said Mr. Thatcher.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Now we will go on. That is the statement he made to the house. Let us see how he behaved on the committee. He forgot all about his long experience as a retailer and agreed with big business who lobbied the opposition. In fairness, I may say that the other C.C.F. members did not continue to support the opposition by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) but sat here until the conclusion of the debate and voted for it while the hon. member for Moose Jaw scooted away home.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Despite what he said and
despite this Tory opposition that we faced here after Christmas this past year, this was not a stalling bill, as mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). The government was following their conviction and following it right down to the last letter; and we all know today who is getting the benefit of it.
The Address-Mr. Sinnott


An hon. Member:: Time.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Only yesterday the hon.
member quoted reductions on hardware in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Montreal. At Vancouver he said they were getting $150 for a cup and saucer and in some places they were getting $40 for an icebox and so on. He said that the size of the reductions shows how big profits must have been under price fixing. When he mentioned the cups and saucers that the dealers were giving $150 for in Vancouver-


An hon. Member:: Empty?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -and what they were doing in Edmonton and so on and in other places, I wonder how much of real value on a trade-in the hon. member for Moose Jaw gave the customers in Moose Jaw. I wish he had put on the record the price paid for his trade-ins.


An hon. Member:: You put it on.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: After all, the cry of the C.C.F. party is not for profit but for use. If he
practises what he preaches in the house, I am sure he does not belong in that party.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member wants to be fair. He read the first speech that I made on the subject; but I want to say that it was made before the committee sat. After seeing the way this matter was rushed through in the committee without adequate consideration, I changed my mind-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I repeatedly stated the
same opinion in the committee as the one which I put forward yesterday. May I say this in conclusion? I can understand the hon. member's ignorance about business matters, but I cannot understand his inflicting his ignorance on this house.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You do not have the courage of your convictions.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken, I propose to refer to the amendment and to explain the reasons why it is our purpose to support this amendment. In view of the fact that the debate seems to have had so little relation to the amendment for some time, and that the amendment is fairly brief, I think perhaps I should read it before making the further comments that I propose to make. The amendment upon which we shall vote reads as follows:
That the following be added to the address:
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

The Address-Mr. Drew
(b) To provide lor the economic marketing and distribution of whatever part of our food production may become surplus.
It may well be pointed out that this amendment is in general terms and does not say too exactly what inducements are suggested or what methods are to be employed for the marketing and distribution of whatever part of our food production may become surplus. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this amendment strikes at the question that should be in the mind of every one of us at this time. Having regard to the words that were employed by the hon. member who moved it, I understand it to mean that we are called upon to express our opinion on the proposition that adequate inducements should be offered for the essential expansion in the production of foods in Canada and that economic provisions be made for marketing those foods.
I do not see how any hon. member can quarrel with that proposition. On the contrary, it seems to me that right now is the time for the members of this house to say that something of this kind must be done. We are now, I believe and I hope, concluding a debate which has been conducted for some days in an atmosphere of complete and utter unreality. At this time the people of this country are greatly concerned about five different problems that affect the life of every Canadian in one way or another. They are the high cost of living, overtaxation, inflation, unemployment and our export markets. Under these five headings come most of the subjects that are causing the utmost concern to the people of Canada at this time. To the extent that the debate on the speech from the throne is intended to deal with those things that are at present in the minds of our people, I submit that these are the things that our people are asking to have dealt with and not simply to have these subjects passed over with the generalities that we have received from the ministers who have entered this debate.
I ask the hon. members who sit on the other side of the house whether they are not hearing requests within their own constituencies that representations be made with regard to each of those five subjects. If they have not had such requests, then it seems to me that resolutions must be prepared only for distribution amongst those members who do not belong to the party from which this government is at present formed. Every other hon. member of this house has received from responsible organizations, right across Canada, resolutions dealing with these subjects and asking for urgent consideration of the problems which the people face under these different heads.
The high cost of living is not something to be passed over with the comment that everybody would like to have living costs lowered. It is not something to be passed over with such statements as were made here, that representations which are being presented to the government come from pressure groups. Surely if one examines it carefully he will come to the conclusion that one of the most humorous speeches made in this house- and, if we are to take the words at their face value, one of the most naive-was that of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). He read us a letter obviously relating to a campaign on behalf of a group of people who are conducting a legitimate business in this country, the automobile dealers. It set out certain ways in which they hoped to arouse the interest of members of parliament. Then the minister read the suggestion that members of parliament liked publicity, and that the association would provide the means by which publicity might be given the speeches of members. That, it was suggested, was something that carried an almost outrageous implication as to the independence of the members of this house.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the members of this government do not like publicity, tomorrow they should get rid of that horde of publicity agents they are employing at the present time, at immense cost to the people of Canada. If ever a government was in a strange and anomalous position in coming before this house and suggesting that hon. members might not like some publicity as to their views, it is a government that spends millions of dollars on publicity, not just in relation to reports presented by departments but on publicity to place before the public in palatable terms the various things different departments may be doing from time to time. The high cost of living is made up of many of these things. The Minister of Finance tells us that these are only the representations of pressure groups and that the objections in regard to the cigarette taxes are prompted by the tobacco companies, but I must confess I was under the impression that a great many Canadian smokers were objecting to the excessive taxation which makes their expenditure on cigarettes a very heavy item.
I do not think this subject should have been dismissed in the way it was. We all thought we had left behind the day when the action of government would encourage lawlessness, as it did in the days of prohibition. Bootleg liquor became not only a commodity in very general supply; it also encouraged people generally to break the law, not because they wanted the alcoholic beverages so much, perhaps, as because the very system under which it was being distributed

brought disrespect for all laws. We heard that statement over and over again. It is not just the breach of the liquor laws; it is the fact that the breach of those laws encourages the breach of all laws. Now we have excessive taxation on cigarettes to the point that we have bootleg cigarettes in this country on a scale never before known. Since for some time I have been following the advice of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), perhaps on this occasion I may be absolved from any suggestion that I am speaking from a personal desire to buy cigarettes at a lower price. Nevertheless the fact remains that a great many people throughout this country have become accustomed to smoking cigarettes and other tobacco products to the point where they are in daily use to such an extent that a limitation of this kind is encouraging lawlessness on a scale that is causing disrespect for all laws. It is not only the people who are smuggling cigarettes; it is not only the stores handling smuggled cigarettes. It is the ordinary, law-abiding citizens who object to being charged the excessive taxes they are called upon to pay and who become purchasers of these cigarettes. By that very lawbreaking they themselves are encouraging disrespect for all laws. This is the result of a tax imposed last year over the warning of members of this house that this would be the result; and, incidentally, that it was quite unnecessary.
Since we have had other letters read in the house perhaps I might be permitted to read at least one which indicates that there is not unanimity on the part of those dealing in cigarettes in regard to these matters. Since it was addressed to me with the obvious indication that the name might be given I propose to read this letter simply as one of a number written to me by those actually handling cigarettes. This comes from Magog, Quebec, under date of March 13 of this year, and reads:
Dear Sir:
If Mr. Abbott and Mr. St. Laurent are willing to have the letter from Mr. Slaven admitted to record, I am certain they will not oppose to have also this one recorded. Would you be so kind as to read it for me.
I am really amazed to see a man like Mr. Abbott to attach so much importance to a single letter (Mr. Slaven's) to save its face, when he knows very well hundreds like myself, wholesale dealers, could write and tell him that such a fact is false; we did not lack any cigarettes from the Imperial Tobacco Company, but hundreds like myself, though, could very well tell Mr. Abbott that through his mistakes our sales have dropped 50 per cent. I cannot understand it, and I am certain no one else can. How
The Address-Mr. Drew one man can make such a mistake, with Mr. St. Laurent and the other Liberal deputies approval. We the public know that the opposition leaders tried in vain to prevent them.
Yours truly,
Roger G. Hebert,
Magog, Quebec.
Then there is a postscript over the same initials:
If Mr. Abbott wants to help the American cigarette manufacturers he could perhaps vote them a few hundred million dollars. He seems to have more than he can handle. Why not help the Canadian people first?
I was invited to read this letter and I have done so. It is from a man in business in the province of Quebec who is expressing his opinion in regard to the same subject about which another letter was presented to this house.
The question before us is not whether cigarette smoking is good for us. It is whether by excessive taxation we are going to encourage bootlegging and lawbreaking of this kind, and incidentally the transfer of employment from Canada to the United States to the extent that these bootleg cigarettes are sold here in this way; and this all comes to that other problem which is of concern to our people.
Now may I speak of inflation, which we are told is the result of the heavy pressures created by purchases for defence requirements. Undoubtedly any time a nation must start expending large sums of money for defence requirements inflationary pressures do arise. There are different methods of dealing with those inflationary pressures. There is one way this government has not attempted, by which it can deal with inflationary pressures better than by any other method at this moment. That is to stop this overtaxation. Some $721 million of overtaxation in the first nine months is $721 million taken from the pockets of our people which has added by that much to their expenditures. Let it not be said that a substantial part of this is represented by corporation taxes. No one knows better than the Minister of Finance that if firms are to stay in business corporation taxes are going to be passed on to the consumer, and they always will. Every hon. member in this house knows that no other method can be employed under a system which seeks to retain some measure of profit as an alternative to bankruptcy. All this is paid by the people, and has been taken out of their pockets.
We are told it is a splendid thing-those are the words-because after all if the people had had this money they might have spent it recklessly. It is their money. They have

The Address-Mr. Drew earned it, and they know what it cost in effort and in work. But no, this government can do much better in handling their money for them. Let us end nonsense of that kind. There are many things that the people of this country want to buy, things that Canadian workmen can produce. There are raw materials for these things that are being held back, first of all by this overtaxation, which is directly inflationary, and also by the unnecessarily severe restrictions on credit. I can only repeat that, since no attempt has been made to deal effectively with that subject, there is a difference between restraining of credit and that measure of restraint which actually paralyses certain types of production and creates unemployment by the stalling of purchases in particular lines.
We have seen that happen in the automobile industry. We have seen it happen in many household appliance industries, and today Canadian workmen are looking for work in a way that they did not have to look for work in the thirties. This is due to the burden of taxation imposed by this government. Not one hon. member who listened to the speech of the Minister of Finance would have thought he realized there are men walking the streets looking for work in many cities across Canada today. Their families at home are waiting night after night in the hope that these men will return with word that work has been found. There was not a word of hope to those who are out of employment as a result of the direct impact of taxes and restrictions of that kind.
Then, we come to the problem of unemployment which I have mentioned as growing out of this taxation and these restrictions. The member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) made one of the most thoughtful, accurate and convincing speeches that I have heard in this house during this session-in fact, I would add for some considerable time. In exact detail he gave us a report on what is happening to the textile industry of this country, one of the great sources of employment in Canada. Yet all that we received was an explanation from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) as to why, in his opinion, the government really could not do anything about it. The minister skidded very quickly over one provision in the act which does make it possible for the government to deal with this problem. He did state that there is a provision in the act under which it is possible for the government to fix an arbitrary price for imports of that kind. I am

quoting from what he said on March 12, as reported at page 359 of Hansard:
There is special provision in section 43 of the Customs Act for the fixation of arbitrary values for duty purposes when authorized.
That is clear, and that is definite. This authority in the act was employed on earlier occasions, in fact by the government which preceded this government to prevent dumping which was threatening a number of industries in this country, including certain branches of the agricultural industry. I hope the government will not suggest that they disapprove of that method, because if they did it would be necessary to explain why the arbitrary valuations placed on fruit and vegetables by the preceding government are still maintained by this government as being fair protection for the people engaged in certain types of agricultural production., Since this government has continued to employ that section of the act for certain purposes, then in principle they cannot object to employing it wherever it seems proper to do so.


Mr. Mclvor:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


George Alexander Drew: I would be very happy to have it.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Would it be possible for the hon. gentleman to deliver his splendid oration without turning so far to the left?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) that on this occasion I am speaking to an amendment by the Social Credit party which, no matter whether I agree with all its political views, so far as I am aware has not been regarded as a party of the left. I had hoped that my voice was carrying to the member for Fort William, because if it is not I shall turn in his direction. I would not wish to speak in a way that carries my voice to one part of the house and not to the other.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.


George Alexander Drew: I may simply add that I would be very happy if the hon. member for Fort William would come over here and sit immediately to my left.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It is quite usual to address the Speaker.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I know that all hon. members will be very appreciative of the profound remark just made for their information.
I was speaking about the possibility of dealing with this whole problem under section 43 of the Customs Act, and pointing out that the minister had referred to that section.

The problem raised by the importation of textiles is not one which could be disposed of simply by suggesting that this is a passing problem. There are whole communities in this country today where unemployment is general as a result of this situation. There are communities in the different provinces of Canada where a more serious situation will arise when the term of unemployment insurance expires. I am not going to enlarge upon the human aspect of this beyond saying that people have been coming to see me about this problem who have told me that, even during the thirties, they continued to be employed in certain mills not far distant from this place. This is the first time they have been confronted with the possibility that they cannot continue employment in that industry. It is the human factor in this problem which must be regarded. In this particular case there is a need for immediate action to protect an industry which is operating efficiently, and in which scores of thousands of Canadians find their employment. I believe that employment should be preserved in their interest, and in the interests of Canada as a whole.
Let us not forget that on other occasions we have seen the same thing done by devices which bring into this country goods manufactured at costs below our own, for reasons that are sometimes forgotten. There are countries today that are manufacturing things that are being sent into Canada which are not carrying in those articles the burden of taxation that our industries are carrying for the purpose of paying for Canada's defence of freedom. Some of the countries behind the iron curtain, which are now being permitted to send things into Canada, carried forward no debts at all. They declared bankruptcy, and those articles come in here carrying practically nothing in the way of taxes, and in fact are probably heavily subsidized as well so that they can invade our markets.
Strange things are happening in this respect. Not only are we failing to place valuation upon the real cost of production, but also we are doing other strange things. I think most hon. members will agree that a publication known as U.S. News and World Report is highly regarded for the accuracy of its articles, and particularly for its reports from foreign countries. In the issue of December 21 last there is an article on page 23, which deals with the question of industrial production in France. The article was written from Paris, and I should like to read these words from it:
A textile manufacturer in southern France has had to turn down an order from the Canadian army for shirts and overcoats because he simply could not produce the high-quality woollen cloth that was demanded.
The Address-Mr. Drew
I am not reading this to raise any question as to whether they can or cannot manufacture cloth of standards equal to ours. I was under the impression in fact that French textile production was of a very 'high standard, and certainly in some lines it is perhaps the highest in the world. I am referring to this because it points out that, at a time when textile plants in this country are finding it difficult to give employment to itheir workers, if this report is correct, the Canadian army was seeking textiles for military shirts and overcoats in France.


David Arnold Croll: That was denied in this house by the minister, on a question by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), I believe.


George Alexander Drew: The statement that I read was published in a very responsible publication.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Denied by the minister.


George Alexander Drew: I will mention something very much more striking, since the hon. member seems to question this extraordinary statement. Presently we are to have a debate on external affairs, after they have had several previews. At that time it is hoped that in the debate which follows, and in the debate on defence and defence production, complete information will be given to us without our having to bring it out piecemeal. I hope that full explanation will be given of why it is that Canada alone is paying for the armed forces that it maintains in Germany. It seems to me that perhaps Canada is in no better position than the United States to pay for its armed forces in Germany. It seems to me that perhaps the fact that Britain and France have provision made with Germany for their armed forces suggests reasons why we might have sought some similar arrangement; but there are other aspects to this which relate more directly to what I have just been speaking about. Surely we should have an explanation as to why, for example, canned salmon from Russia is being served in the Canadian messes in Germany instead of canned salmon from Canada, which we thought was the best in the world.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: There are members in this house who can verify that in the messes of the 27th brigade in Germany they saw Russian canned salmon. I think our own canned salmon, as well as other products from this country, should be served to Canadian troops wherever they are. I think that they should be served in preference to products from any other country, where it is the same kind of product; but most certainly I fail to understand why units that are in Germany for no

The Address-Mr. Drew other purpose than to form part of a combined force which seeks to prevent the possibility of Russian aggression should be consuming products from Russia, and in that very process assisting the economy of Russia by the acquisition of those products.
These are simple instances, which can be multiplied, of the strange things that are happening, which suggest ways in which workmen in Canada could be protected in their employment without any restriction on legitimate trade of any kind. That brings me to the question of inflation.
Inflation today is not something that is past, as the remarks of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) seem to suggest. We have inflation on a very heavy scale. As a result of inflation, those who put their money into bonds, into insurance, into bank deposits, or into other securities, in the period immediately prior to the war, now have a promise to pay in terms of dollars that are worth 52 cents on the dollar that they actually paid. That is what inflation means today.
Do not let anyone suggest that this is simply put forward as an argument to embarrass the government. I hope that hon. members noticed what happened in North Bay just a short time ago. The council of North Bay, which is not made up entirely of those who support the policies represented on this side of the house, voted-


Mr. Garland:: The hon. member had better confine his remarks to something with which he is familiar.


George Alexander Drew: May I express my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that we have heard a new voice in this debate.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No; he shut up the C.C.F.
speaker.


George Alexander Drew: I hope that if the hon. member has any question about it, he will explain to us why it was that the newspapers carried the report that the council of the city of North Bay had decided to sell their government bonds and had decided not to buy any more, if in fact that was not the case. At any rate that was carried by a great many newspapers and commented on editorially.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They were government of Ontario bonds.


George Alexander Drew: That action by the council of North Bay was simply expressing the concern that is felt by many Canadians about the extent to which inflation has destroyed the savings of the people of this country. Certainly this is a problem that affects many nations; certainly it is not a problem that is peculiar to Canada alone. But this government has ways in which it can tackle that

problem. This government has ways in which it can tackle the problem, without any artificial devices of any kind. It can tackle the problem, first of all, by stopping overtaxation and, secondly, by cutting non-defence expenditures, which it has not attempted to do in any serious way up to this time.
Now we come to the situation with which we are confronted in regard to trade. After all, there is not a member in the house who is not aware of the fact that Canada, in proportion to population, has resources unequalled by those of any other country in the world. Hon. members in the house, of all parties, are convinced of the great future that lies ahead of Canada. But there are members in the house who do believe that some of the figures of export trade at this time are misleading, and that some of the figures of export trade at this time contain very dangerous implications.
We have had reason to know over the years that the safest and steadiest market for Canadian products was in Great Britain. The reason for that was a straight matter of business. Do not let anyone suggest that this is merely sentiment. By all means let us not forget the value of sentiment; but at the same time let us recognize that this is a straight business proposition.
Great Britain, a world trader, needs the things we can produce. On the other hand the United States produces most of those things we produce, with the exception of certain specialized raw materials such as nickel and asbestos. Over the years the United Kingdom has been the market to which we have sold our wheat. Over the years that has been the market to which we have sold our cheese. Over the years that has been the market to which we have sold our agricultural products of all kinds. That is the country which has offered a steady market, one which has not suddenly imposed barriers, until very recently. It has not imposed barriers such as those we encountered some years ago which prevented making sales south of the boundary of many agricultural products upon which great herds in this country had been built up.
Let us see just what has been happening. In 1921 our exports to the United Kingdom amounted to $308,866,000 while to the United States they were $323,101,000, or very close to the same amount. Then, in 1926 our exports to the United Kingdom amounted to $459,223,000 and to the United States $457,877,000. In 1931, to the United Kingdom they amounted to $170,597,000 and to the United States $240,196,000. Then, in 1936 our exports to the United Kingdom were valued at $395,351,000 and to the-

United States $333,916,000. In 1941 the exports to the United Kingdom were $658,228,000 and to the United States $599,713,000. In 1946 the exports to the United Kingdom were valued at $597,506,000 and to the United States $887,940,000. That, it will be noted, was the first year in which the great spread came. In that year we find a spread of nearly $300 million.
Then, let us see what happened in 1950. In that year the exports to the United Kingdom amounted to $469 million and to the United States $2,020,987,000. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said: Yes, but last year, in 1951, exports to the United Kingdom increased from $469,910,000 to $631,460,000.
That is true; but the exports to the United States increased as well, and we are seeing this constant increase taking place. In 1950 exports to the United States were valued at $2,020,987,000, while last year they were $2,297,674,000.
One point that must be examined in regard to these exports is the extent to which they are made up of resources that are not in manufactured form. True, we can sell the rich resources of this country, just as any person with a hoard of gold can continue for some time to live at a very high level. We are selling not only resources in a great many cases at their lowest possible figure, but we are selling future employment in this country.
Already we have statements of experts in many lines that new discoveries are not catching up with the exhaustion of our resources. The time has come to examine these exports carefully, and to realize that many of them are not sound in their ultimate effect upon Canada. Rather, we should encourage the greater manufacture of the products from those resources right here in this country of ours.
But, above all, we are now confronted with the impact upon Canada of the barrier imposed by the United States because of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. We are confronted with its effect upon the export of livestock and animal products to the United Kingdom. Those products are of immense importance to the people of Canada. Yet, at a time when we are confronted with a loss of these markets in the United States, we find the government of the United Kingdom announcing that it has been compelled to cut further the imports of products we would wish to sell there.
We are also confronted with the fact that, as every hon. member who read the press of yesterday will know, the dairy industry in
The Address-Mr. Drew this country is seriously threatened by the effect of that barrier which has been placed against the export of animals and animal products to the United States. At this very time we are also in a position where, because of the difficulties they are encountering in the United Kingdom in purchasing requirements from us, we are unable to sell these same animals and animal products to them.
That brings us to the suggestion that was made the other day, a suggestion that has been made over and over again, that this government should take the steps that are necessary to convene a commonwealth trade conference in order to find some way in which to open up those stable markets, particularly now that we find the markets for these particular lines closed in the United States. Much though we might hope that it would be otherwise, it is most difficult to expect that there will quickly be a change in the situation. Unless steps are taken without delay to find other markets a very serious situation may be created in this country which will affect people other than farmers once the impact is felt right across the country.
I am supporting this motion, not merely because it puts forward a sound proposition as I see it in regard to the encouragement of production and the marketing of our products but because I read into the motion an opportunity to say to this government at this time that one of the ways to encourage production and provide markets is to have a conference of the commonwealth countries so that we may find some way of opening up the markets of the United Kingdom and other nations of the commonwealth. Yes, and if we do that, markets in other sterling areas as well.
A few days ago a question was asked in the house as to whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) would initiate such steps. The minister said he would refer it to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) as he had just been over to London. The Minister of Finance then dealt with the financial conference he had attended. He was then asked whether trade matters had been discussed at that conference. He did not say that trade matters as such had been discussed; in fact it will be recalled that when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) suggested that that was the reason why the Minister of Finance was going to London, according to press reports the Minister of Finance stated in London that that was not the reason he was there, that he was there to discuss financial matters. Consistent with that he made it

The Address-Mr. Drew clear the other day that that was the reason he was in London. When he was pressed he simply said that to the extent-


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be permitted, the Minister of Agriculture never at any time said anything different from what the minister said.	1 g|!


George Alexander Drew: This would not be the first
time that the Minister of Agriculture had expressed extremely optimistic expectations which were not justified by subsequent events.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was not one of those occasions.


George Alexander Drew: Whether the Minister of Agriculture was correctly or incorrectly reported, the Minister of Finance was in London to deal with financial problems. When he was asked the other day to explain that, he said that only to the extent that financial problems or a solution of financial problems would solve the trade problems could it be regarded as being a trade conference.
That kind of conference is not the kind of conference we need at this time, and without delay. This is an urgent matter. As has been pointed out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, grain is piling up on the prairies. Unless the situation improves, feeders are not going to be shipped to the east. Unless the situation improves, markets for cattle are not going to be available. The whole method of conducting that type of agricultural activity is going to have to be changed unless some other markets are found, and without delay. The suggestion does not relate to that phase of agriculture alone; this whole subject is urgent and calls for immediate attention.
For more than one hundred years Canada has produced a considerable amount of the cheese Great Britain has required. For over one hundred years exports to Great Britain have been the very foundation of the cheese industry in this country. So far as information is yet available, no orders for cheese have been placed this year. At the same time we realize that the cheese industry here is threatened by heavy exports into Canada of cheese from the United States. These are things calling for immediate attention. These are things which do suggest that we should no longer accept the soothing kind of speeches made by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). To hear them speak, there is no cloud on the horizon, or perhaps just a little cloud which any ordinary wind would blow away. Yet there are many people across Canada who see dark clouds indeed. As we gathered from reports


over the week end, experts in this one particular line see very dark clouds. They said so, and they have been saying so. That is one reason why we should get out of this atmosphere of unreality and insist that this house be given the facts and that there be taken action consistent with those facts to stimulate trade. That is the only thing that will create employment in this country. No single country in the world is so dependent on export trade as we are. A third of every dollar earned in Canada, a third of all work that is done, results from our export trade. If barriers, either through pressure in congress or for other reasons, are placed against our exports to the United States, then we will be in a very serious situation with the loss of markets in the sterling area.
Do not let anyone tell us that nothing can be done about this. Are we going to sit back and simply say: it is sterling and we have dollars and nothing can be done. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture will question my statement when I say that he made an excellent speech in London and suggested that it should be possible for Canadians and the people of Great Britain to find some way to unlock the dollar-pound problem. That is the problem that needs to be solved. The trade that would come from the solution of that problem is something that we all should work for. Some way can undoubtedly be found of solving this problem if it is really tackled.
Surely this is the time to come out of the ministerial dreamland which has been created by some of these speeches we have heard, speeches which intentionally made facts obscure and were supported by the highest publicity experts who in many cases may have been the real authors of the speeches because there seemed to be a striking similarity in the expressions used.
Members of this house are willing to support this government in positive action to open up trade which is necessary to give employment. Let us remember that one-third of the employment in Canada depends upon export markets. We have seen evidence that we are losing our export markets and we know that there is unemployment as a result. In tackling unemployment, in expanding production which provides the one longterm cure for inflation, in trying to meet the problem of taxation, much depends upon high production. An effort should be made to find export markets.
Let us not look entirely to the United States. In the United States and Canada there are perhaps 170 million people, but let us remember that outside of the countries

behind the iron curtain there are 1,500 million. It is true that all those people do not have high individual incomes, but among them are people who do have high individual incomes in terms of their own currencies. Let us look to that 1,500 million which largely employ sterling as currency. If we can get into that market we can continue not only to export at the level that we should but to extend our exports both of agricultural products and of manufactured goods as well. I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that instead of a house stagnant with frustration-and that has been apparent in the attendance during the speeches in this debate-we shall now really get down to the reality of this problem. I hope the members of this house will accept this amendment as a request to the government that, without further delay, in order to stimulate trade and to stimulate production in all lines, a commonwealth conference be called at the earliest possible date so that this dollar-pound problem may be solved, and that we may regain and expand those historic markets which over the years have been found to be the most stable and secure.


Mr. W. J. Major (Glengarry):: Mr. Speaker, may I first express my congratulations to my two good friends, the mover (Mr. George) and the seconder (Mr. Gauthier, Lake St. John) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They carried out the responsibility and acquitted themselves splendidly.
When home over the last week end, I had occasion to discuss with my constituents various problems relating to farm production. They are much concerned as to whether they should decrease their production considerably or whether they should continue to produce at the same level, in the hope that prices of farm products will soon adjust themselves to the cost required to produce these products.
The matter of obtaining farm labour is a serious and difficult one, and the wages that have to be paid for efficient labour are away out of line with the price received for the products produced. Last summer a number of our farmers, through the employment bureau, obtained the services of Italian immigrants for farm work, but these proved to be highly unsatisfactory. Not having any intention of fulfilling the contract that they had entered into, most of them left at midseason, thus leaving the farmer to carry on as best he could and with great difficulty, after having planned on this help to carry him through the season of extra work. It is to be hoped that this year the farmers will be more fortunate in the help that the employment bureau will be able to obtain for them through immigration.
The Address-Mr. Major
Another matter that my constituents have a hard time to understand is this. After each release made by the bureau of statistics on the cost of living much stress has been laid on the price of farm products, in an effort to show that they were greatly responsible for the increase. Farm prices not being stabilized, they fluctuate down and up according to supply. When farm prices were recouping themselves, it was noticeable that a great effort was made to show that they were considerably responsible for the rise in the cost-of-living index; but generally, little mention was made of them when the index was again higher, though the prices of farm products had dropped.
My constituents pointed out to me that the relative prices of farm products have less to do with the increase in the cost-of-living index than we are generally led to believe it has. They also stressed the fact that during the last several months the price received by the producer has been reduced some 30 per cent for hogs, 20 per cent for cattle, 33 per cent for poultry and 46 per cent for eggs, while the cost-of-living index was reduced but by a little more than one point.
It would appear that with regard to the increase in the cost of living, much stress has been laid on the wrong producer. I know that it is a discouraging situation and that it is impossible to produce when you obtain for the product that you produce less than the over-all cost of that product. That is why the farmer is now reluctant to continue on at the same level of production as that at which he produced during the last year. Should the farmer be forced to decide to curtail his production as a result of insufficient return for his product, not only shall we be faced with short supply within a short time but our consumer will be called upon to pay a much higher price than he would have to pay if prices of farm products were not allowed to decline disproportionately.
Another matter that has been brought to my attention is that of farm loans from the farm loan board for young prospective farmers, especially for young men who were brought up on the farm and who, through lack of a loan to establish themselves, are forced to leave our rural districts and to take up work in the cities to which they are often lured by a 40-hour week and all the mirage of leisure that goes with it.
I can recall my own case quite well. Had it not been for the agricultural development board of the day I possibly would never have been able to establish myself on the farm, to enjoy the space, the freedom, and the long hours and to take part in the production of food for the Canadian consumer.

The Address-Mr. Major
If we want to put a stop to the continual decline in the rural population and if we want to keep our boys on the farm, we shall have to consider increasing the amount of the loans made by the farm loan board to prospective young farmers. We should also consider the rate of interest that is now being required, if we want these boys to meet their commitments. The amount of a loan that would have been sufficient to establish one on a farm some years ago is now entirely inadequate when consideration is given to the price of the farm itself and to the tremendous increase in the cost of machinery and equipment required to operate a farm.
My constituents brought to my attention their concern over the production and sale of margarine. With the persistent clamour for butter substitutes, they feel that the entire dairy farm economy will suffer. They also brought me statements showing that they were not receiving the floor price of $26 for their hogs. They were anxious to know why a reduction of 25 cents was being made by the packing plants. I note in the announcement made on February 16, 1952, by the Acting Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Winters), that the program is designed to provide a price of not less than $26 per 100 pounds for grade A hogs at the public stockyards in Toronto and Montreal. I would think that there might be a distance of several hundred feet from the stockyards to the killing plant, and that the packers are making deductions to walk the hogs this distance. If the truckers were to charge the farmers proportionately for taking these hogs to market, I am afraid that they would require more than the price of the hog to cover transportation.
Throughout the dairy districts there is great concern with regard to the unfortunate outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease from which we are suffering in the Regina district, coupled with the bans and restrictions that have been applied against our exports of beef and dairy cattle, as well as our dairy products. In my district dairying and dairy cattle are among the main productive assets along with hogs and poultry. A large number of dairy cattle were produced for export to the United States, and now these extra dairy cattle are shut out from the market they were intended for. They will either have to be shipped for beef or kept on the farms, requiring extra labour; and when the price of labour is compared with the possible returns that may be received for the by-product you can understand the hesitancy on the part of the farmer to keep these dairy cattle.
Last year we had a cheese contract with Great Britain which took care of the surplus milk through the cheese production we had

available for export. This year it looks as though Britain under her austerity program is not likely to enter into a contract for the purchase of our cheese. Unless these cattle are sent to market for beef, a purpose that they were not intended for, they will add to our export cheese production with no market in sight. Added to this our dealers have already imported New Zealand cheese, and it would appear that an additional quantity is on its way to the Canadian market.
It does not seem logical that we should sell our cheese to Great Britain taking payment in dollar currency in return and then turn around and import cheese from New Zealand, thus depriving Great Britain of the advantage of purchasing this New Zealand cheese herself and paying sterling currency for it. I also understand that we have a duty of 11 cents per pound on butter imported from New Zealand while we have a duty of only 1 cent per pound on cheese. To me this seems abnormal, and I would ask that either the tariff as regards cheese be equalized to that of butter, or that a ban be placed on cheese imports from New Zealand while this emergency exists.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. George) agreed to on division.
55704-37i
The Address-Division


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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


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


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to say that tomorrow and Thursday are private members' days. On Friday, according to rule 28, when the order for committee of supply is called the Speaker leaves the chair without question put. We have been endeavouring to arrange to have a time set aside for a debate on external affairs, and the suggestion has been made that on a government day I move that the house resolve itself into a committee of supply, and that in support of the motion the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) make a statement on external affairs, setting forth the policy of the government in that regard, and that we might have a debate on that subject before any other subject is broached on that motion.
If I had the unanimous consent of the house I would suggest that I be permitted to move now that for Friday of this week standing order 28 be suspended so that we can move the motion and have the debate with Your Honour in the chair.
If there is no objection to that being done, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) could table his estimates tomorrow and have them referred to the committee of supply, and on

Business of the House
Friday we could at least start on this debate. If it were not concluded it could then be adjourned to Tuesday, which would be the next government day, and proceeded with on that day.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I hope there will be unanimous consent, because this will provide the opportunity to proceed with the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to give unanimous consent to the motion moved by
the Prime Minister and seconded1 by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I move that the house do now adjourn. Tomorrow we will proceed under standing order 15, it being a private members' day.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.

Wednesday, March 19, 1952