1952-11-24

THE MINISTRY


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table order in council P.C. 4553 passed this day, which reads as follows:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence and under and by virtue of the powers conferred by section 5 of the National Defence Act, is pleased to designate and doth hereby designate the Solicitor General of Canada as a person who, in addition to the Minister of National Defence, may exercise any power or perform any duty or function that is vested in or that may be exercised or performed by the Minister of National Defence under the National Defence Act, provided that such exercise of power or performance of duty or function shall not depart from the manner in which the Minister of National Defence may have previously determined that such power should be exercised or such duty or function should be performed.
Hon. members will have noticed that legislation was forecast in the speech from the throne to provide for an Associate Minister of National Defence. Provision is made in existing legislation for associate ministers in time of war, but no provision now exists for an appointment in peacetime. The government might of course have made such provision under the Emergency Powers Act, but it was felt preferable to ask parliament to make the provision in regular statute form, and if that is done it is my intention, which I have already communicated to the Governor General, to submit to him a formal recommendation for the appointment to this post of the present Solicitor General. Meanwhile it was felt desirable to use the power vested in the governor in council by parliament under section 5 of the National Defence Act to empower the Solicitor General to perform the function, which would, in due course, be attributed to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
The Solicitor General was, until he became a member of the ministry, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence, and there is a real need not only for continuity but for the assumption of an increased share of responsibility for the heavy burden of that department. This is particularly desirable at this time as it is going to be
necessary during the course of this session for the Minister of National Defence to attend a meeting of the North Atlantic council in Paris, and while he is absent the Solicitor General will be Acting Minister of National Defence, and it is important that he should have adequate background in the meantime.
As hon. members know, a number of countries at the present time have, in addition to an over-all minister of defence, a minister for each of the three services. That is the situation in the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Australia. We have, however, considered it preferable in Canada to stress the unification of the services for purposes of administration under the control of a single minister, a single deputy minister and a single department. We believe that our system has demonstrable advantages and that the appointment of separate service ministers at this time would be a retrograde step.
As the defence program developed, it might have been expected that the volume of work required of the minister would have become lighter. That has not been the case. Unfortunately the prolonging of the conflict in Korea, the build-up of our forces in Europe, and our relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as well as greatly increasing the responsibilities of administering the department, have also made it necessary for the minister to be absent from the country from time to time.
That is why the Minister of National Defence and I have, for some time, been considering the possibility of making some division of the work of the Minister oi National Defence. In view of the developments I have mentioned, we came to the conclusion that it is desirable here, for the time being at least, to have an associate ministei as a full member of the cabinet who woulc participate, with ministerial authority anc responsibility, in the supervision of the more immediate matters of administration whicl would leave the Minister of National Defence with more time for matters of general policy consideration of defence planning and relation: with the defence forces of other countries.
No attempt has been made in the order ii council I have read to delimit precisely thi functions of the two ministers, and it i probable that no attempt will be made to di so in the legislation to be submitted later ii

Gold Mining
the session. Obviously, a relationship of this sort can only be successful if there is the com-pletest mutual confidence and co-operation between the ministers, and there is every advantage in having the arrangement as flexible as possible.
It is intended that the present arrangement under section 5 of the National Defence Act will be continued until such time as the house has had an opportunity to consider the legislation to be introduced to provide for an Associate Minister of National Defence, under that designation.



COINAGE


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to table two copies of order in council P.C. 4525 dated November 19, 1952, revoking the amendment passed under the Emergency Powers Act authorizing the minting of the five-cent coin of steel. Perhaps I might add that that order is being passed concurrently with the orders under the new Currency Act which provide for minting new coins with the effigy of our new sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II. Proclamations to that effect are today or tomorrow being issued concurrently in London, Ottawa, and other capitals of the commonwealth.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, since I do not expect to be in the house for some little time after today I should like to make a statement regarding the proposed amendment to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Hon. members will recall that during the last session legislation was approved extending the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to cover the calendar years 1952 and 1953. This legislation was brought forward by the government because of the continuing special difficulties of the industry as a result of rising costs and a fixed price for the industry's product.
During 1952 the industry's costs have continued to rise. At the same time the appreciation in the exchange rate for the Canadian dollar has meant that for most of the year the mines have received a steadily decreasing return from their sales. A number of mines have been forced to close and others are being placed in a position where they might soon be compelled to take this step. During

the last month the government has received representations from both the gold producers and the municipal authorities of the principal communities affected setting forth the special difficulties which face the industry at this time. The government has now decided that, in order to prevent the further closing of mines and the consequent hardship which this would cause to communities largely or wholly dependent on them, adjustments should be made to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act with a view to assisting the industry in meeting the special difficulties with which it is confronted.
In view of the desirability of giving advance notice of the conditions upon which gold mining assistance will be paid during 1953 in order that the industry may be able to plan its operations for the new year, I desire to announce that the government has now decided to introduce legislation amending the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act effective as from January 1 next. The proposed amendment will broaden the formula for the calculation of assistance payments during the calendar year 1953 by changing the method of calculating the rate of assistance element in the formula. The act in its present form defines the rate of assistance as one-half of the excess of the cost of production per ounce over $22, with a maximum of $11.50. The proposed amendment will change the definition of the rate of assistance to one-half the excess of the cost of production per ounce over $18, with a maximum of $13.50. No change will be made in the other component of the formula; the new rate of assistance will be applicable to the number of ounces of gold produced by a mine in 1953 in excess of one-half of base year production, or one-half of 1953 production, whichever is the larger.
All I need add at this moment is that this modification in our gold assistance formula has been discussed with the international monetary fund, which has raised no objection. In conclusion, may I express the belief that this proposal will be of further assistance to the industry generally in meeting its special difficulties, and will enable the continued operation of many mines in communities which are dependent upon them.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: I
wonder if I might ask the Minister of Finance to clarify one or two points in connection with his statement. First, is it clear there is no provision for the industry in 1952?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has any progress been made toward raising the prices at which gold may be sold to the United States or other world buyers?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend is aware, that is a matter which really does not depend on the policy of the government.


Mr. Graydon:: Could you not make it apply this year?



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DIVORCE JURISDICTION


Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to provide for the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada in matters of divorce.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to promote fair employment practices in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUOTAS FOR DELIVERIES-PROSPECTS FOR MARKETING

[Stage Direction]
On -the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with increasing the quotas for wheat deliveries in the prairie provinces. I should like to ask him, too, what the prospects are for the marketing of the wheat that was in storage,
Inquiries of the Ministry not only in the line elevators but also the terminal elevators, so as to make room for wheat that is lying out in the fields.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was kind enough to give me notice of his question.
Hon. members are aware of the very real storage and transportation problems which have been created by the size of this year's crops. The latest estimate by the dominion bureau of -statistics indicates that 664 million bushels of wheat alone will be harvested in western Canada. The ten-year average 194050 western wheat crop was 350 million, so really we have almost two crops in one. It must be remembered, also, that perhaps 285 million bushels of grain were harvested this spring from last year's crop.
In spite of the scope of the problem, however, I am pleased to be able to advise the house that substantial progress is being made. The Canadian wheat board started out the crop year with a delivery quota for new crop wheat of 5 bushels per acre, and announced that this quota would be increased as circumstances -permitted. Today there are only 264 delivery points still on the 5 bushel quota; 913 points are on an 8 bushel quota; 377 on a 10 bushel quota; 178 on a 12 bushel quota; and 349 on a 15 bushel quota.
As is customary at this time of the year, the Canadian wheat board has been concentrating on a short-haul program to move the greatest possible quantity of grain to the lakehead before the close of navigation. This has tended to favour Manitoba and certain Saskatchewan points. After December 1, however, the board and the railways will be able to concentrate on the points which have the lowest delivery quotas and a policy of "equalization" will be followed. In view of the comparatively small number of points still on a five-bushel quota, it will not take a great number of cars to relieve the situation at those -points and I am confident that the month of December will see a still further reduction, and I think a substantial one, in the number of points still on the lowest quota.
Producers' marketings to date of all grains total 310 million bushels as compared with 265 million last year. The board advises me that there are good -prospects that a total of 400 million will be achieved by the end of December. That will represent, I think, very substantial progress even considering the quantities still to come.
Shipments from country points to date total 245 million bushels as compared with 210 million for the period last year, and a

Inquiries of the Ministry heavy movement continues. It is expected that approximately 40 million bushels space will be available at the lakehead at the close of navigation. In general, once that space is filled, and once storage becomes congested, further deliveries depend on sales. In this respect I am pleased to be able to advise the house that the volume of sales of wheat, oats and barley by the Canadian wheat board to date has been gratifying. The board has made very heavy sales commitments, which in turn will be reflected in heavy internal movement. Exports to date are well ahead of last year when, hon. members will remember, a new record was set.
Answering the latter part of the question by the hon. member for Lake Centre, I would say that a steady movement of grain from the farm to elevators will be continued, but the physical size of the problem must be kept in mind at all times. The board has announced, however, that for the winter period at least the policy wiE be not to raise quotas over 15 bushels at any delivery point. In that way, every opportunity will be given to raise the points with lower quotas until they all reach that figure, which must be regarded as the maximum for the time being.



LOSS TO PRODUCERS FROM INCREASED VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR

[Stage Direction]
On -the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: In view of the statement which the Minister of Finance has just made concerning the gold mining industry, I would ask the minister if he would give the same consideration to the wheat producers that he has indicated wiE be given to the gold mining industry, owing to the loss which wheat producers are suffering as a result of the increased value of the Canadian dollar.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The minister gives similar consideration to all groups of Canadians.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And does very Ettle for them.



QUESTION AS TO EXTENSION OF STORAGE FACILITIES AT CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question of which I have sent him notice. In view of the increasing difficulties of storing and transportation of grain in western Canada already indicated in a former question, is it the intention of the government to make immediate provision preparatory to the extension of storage space at the port of Churchill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps that question should be directed to the Minister of Transport.

However, I may say that the government is aware of the desirability of additional storage at the port of Churchill. Consideration will be given to the problem at such time as building conditions at that port return to normal.



QUESTION AS TO FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Can the
Minister of Agriculture say whether the $23 floor price for hogs, as announced on September 30 last, will be put into effect as of January 1, 1953?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the intention.



DAMAGE TO TOFLNO AIR BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence? Can the minister give the house any information concerning the fire at the R.C.A.F. station at Tofino last week, and the reason for the censorship and monitoring of conversations over the government telephones which followed that occurrence?


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: A fire occurred at the mobEe equipment buEding at Tofino, Mr. Speaker, on the morning of November 22. The cause of the fire is still unknown, but is being investigated. There was no censorship of any kind.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Prime
Minister? I am addressing it to him in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the Prime Minister say when the former Old Age Pensions Act will be repealed so that provinces Eke Manitoba, which are pressing needy pensioners to make repayment and which are stEl making recoveries out of the estates of deceased pensioners, can discontinue this practice?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not want to be unduly critical, Mr. Speaker, but during the last session I understood your ruling had been that questions should not be put to convey information, as seems to be the case here. The matter of repealing the Old Age Pensions Act is one about which -there is correspondence

between this government and the provincial governments. As that correspondence is being conducted on our behalf by the Department of National Health and Welfare, perhaps the parliamentary assistant would be able to tell the hon. gentleman just what stage it has reached at this time.


Mr. E. A. McCusker (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I want to thank the member for Winnipeg North Centre for giving notice of this question. A similar question was answered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) on June 24, page 3610 of Hansard, and on June 27 last, page 3833 of Hansard. It is the intention of the government to proclaim the repeal of the Old Age Pensions Act as soon as there is agreement from the provinces which co-sponsored this act that this should be done. Not all of the provinces have yet agreed on the desirability of repeal at this time, but it is hoped that agreement will be reached shortly so that the necessary proclamation can be made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the parliamentary assistant permit a supplementary question? Can he say which of the provinces have not yet agreed to that repeal?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: No, I do not propose to say.



PRISONERS OF WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister say whether consideration is being given to the granting of maltreatment awards to Canadians who endured undue suffering in German prisoner-of-war camps, similar to the awards being made to those who were in Japanese hands during world war II?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was a statement handed to the press on October 10 to the effect that the government is anxious that there be no delay in the payment of what may be described as automatic awards. Those arise out of the recommendations of the Ilsley report covering Canadians who were held in Japanese-operated internment or prison camps or in the hands of certain German organizations such as the gestapo and declared by the Nuremberg tribunal to be criminal organizations.
If the hon. gentleman wishes to have a copy of the order in council on which this statement was based, I will see that one is sent to him.
The Address-Mr. Drew SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. L. Deslieres for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposilion):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the members of this house will all warmly welcome the reference in the speech from the throne to the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen on June 2 next. At a time of great uncertainty and rapidly changing conditions throughout the world, this historic event will symbolize, not only for us but for all mankind, the long continuity of this particular form of democracy which is the cherished possession of Canadians and all the nations of the commonwealth. For us and for others the crown is a symbol of stability in this very unstable world.
We all remember as well the charm, spirit and vigour with which our new queen carried out her many duties during the time that she visited Canada only a few months ago with her gallant husband. The tragic death of her father, who sacrificed his life in the service of his people, brings to the throne a young woman, trained for her great responsibilities, and expressing both in her private and her public life those traditions of decency and human understanding which have preserved our monarchy through all the storms of recent years. As we look forward to the reign of the second Elizabeth, which will likely extend well beyond the lives of most of us here today, I feel sure that there is in the heart and mind of every one of us the earnest hope that the spirit of adventure and great achievement which distinguished the reign of the first Elizabeth may be renewed and may bring glory and renown to this new Elizabethan era.
In the speech from the throne there are several statements which will meet with general approval. I would particularly mention the announcement that it is the intention of the government to insert in all government contracts a provision that there must be no discrimination in employment because of race, national origin, colour or religion. I also welcome the announcement that legislation dealing with this subject will be introduced and that it will deal with all employment under the authority of the dominion government.
I am glad that the government has seen fit to act upon the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), when she introduced a bill

The Address-Mr. Drew calling for legislative action of this kind. I must say that it is a hopeful sign that the government has acted upon this important suggestion coming from a member of the opposition.
We all recognize that the speech from the throne is in fact prepared by the government. For that reason, every statement it contains is open to question and should be questioned if its intention is not clear.
We are told that "there are signs of a lessening of the danger of an outbreak of war on a global scale". I believe that the government will be performing its duty to this house and to the people of Canada by giving us the facts upon which such a statement is based. I believe that the government is in fact under an obligation to the members of this house and to the people of Canada to give us those facts. The need for this information is emphasized by the fact that it was only last Friday when the distinguished secretary of state for the United States made a speech in Ottawa, in which he appeared to say the very opposite. He was, of course, speaking for his own country when he said that there was great danger in the fact that people were being lulled into a false sense of security. Of necessity, however, his remarks apply with equal force to Canada. Every Canadian, and particularly those who have husbands, sons, brothers, relatives or close friends serving in Korea or elsewhere outside of Canada, would welcome this assurance if it is well founded, and all Canadians would be glad to know that such a statement is justified.
Because it has already been so freely interpreted in the press and elsewhere as an indication that there may be reason for lessening our defence efforts, I believe it is of supreme importance that the government leave no doubt about the facts on which this statement is based and also clearly indicate the inference that is to be drawn from this statement. I say that because every hon. member of this house will have read interpretations of that statement in the speech from the throne which convey the impression that it is a preliminary to an announcement that it would be possible to diminish our defence preparation. I recognize that the government is not responsible for such interpretations as may be placed upon any statement by the press of this country; but nevertheless I suggest that, since responsible newspapers have placed this interpretation upon it, it will be helpful if we are given further information.
We meet, in fact, at a time of increasing international tension. The decision to protect Southern Korea from communist aggression

was a great milestone in the long struggle to preserve peace and freedom by collective action. Heavy though the sacrifices have been, those who look to the free nations for protection have had their hopes and confidence sustained. It is likely that the firm stand of the western nations in Korea has removed doubts which otherwise might have led the men in the Kremlin to engage in dangerous adventures which could only result in a general war.
While Korea has drawn unexpectedly large forces from different parts of the world, and mainly from the United States, to hold a line which approximates the division which existed since the second world war between North and South Korea, the entry of China into that struggle has also engaged the activity of most of their well-trained troops who might otherwise have been embarking on further acts of aggression elsewhere.
A great principle has been upheld. The moral convictions of the western nations have been demonstrated. The communists have been left in no doubt as to the superior quality of the weapons and the military equipment produced by the western nations. On the other hand, this has been both a training ground and a testing ground for both Russia and China. Without sacrificing any of their own men in a war for which they are responsible, the rulers of Russia have gained useful information with regard to the fighting equipment with which they have supplied the Chinese and have been improving their own armament production as a result of that experience.
This has resulted in the re-equipment of the Russian divisions in Germany and eastern Europe with more modern weapons and machines of war so that the Russian divisions, which present a constant threat to western Europe, are much more powerful from a military point of view than they were at the outbreak of the war in Korea.
Thus the danger is greater if for any reason Russia should decide to embark on a war of aggression. It would be dangerous for anyone to assume, and it would be very wrong for anyone with direct knowledge of the situation to convey the impression, that the land forces of the Atlantic pact community have yet reached the point where they would have any chance at this time of withstanding a major offensive by the immense Russian forces and satellite divisions now deployed throughout eastern Europe.
While the danger has increased, the hope of peace has also increased. That may seem like an anomaly but I suggest that the two go hand in hand. That hope could always

be shattered at any moment by any rash decision, such as that which was made by Hitler in 1939. There are, however, two reasons of great importance why Stalin may not follow the same course, particularly when he remembers what happened to the man whose friendship he embraced in 1939 when he signed an agreement in terms of blood with Hitler in August of that year.
First is the fact that Stalin and the Russian leaders know that every city in Russia is within bombing range of bombs far more deadly and destructive than those which terminated the war with Japan in a matter of days. Russian armies might move forward, but their bases of supply would be destroyed and armies would become mere masses of hungry, fighting men, forced to prey upon the countryside. It would be a terrible prospect for the countries invaded by Russian armies, but it would be an equally terrible prospect for the people of Russia, and above all for the communist leaders, whose survival depends upon their ability to maintain organized military power.
The Russians suffered terrible losses in men and material against an enemy which possessed neither the aircraft nor the bombs to inflict even one-thousandth of the destruction which would now desolate the whole of Russia if they should be so unwise as to precipitate a holocaust of that kind. It would be a terrible war for the West, but it would be more terrible for the East. As long as Stalin and his associates retain any measure of sanity, the dreadful consequences of aggression may stay their hand.
The other reason that there is hope lies in the fact that Russia has achieved so much without war that she may still hope to achieve the objective of world domination, and the objective is nothing less, by the breaking apart of the nations of the free world. Unfortunately, there are unhappy indications that they are not without some reason to hope that this may happen at some time.
On either of these grounds there is hope for peace if the strength of the free nations is built up so rapidly and so effectively that even without the atom bomb, or any other bomb, Russia would not dare aggression. The hope of peace, however, is not based upon any lessening danger, but rather upon the increased danger of prospects so terrifying that the Russians themselves would not be prepared to accept the consequences of starting such a war.
Canadians are I am sure all ready to pay the taxes that are really necessary to defend our freedom. In spite of every argument that has been placed before the government, in
The Address-Mr. Drew this house and outside, the government still continues, however, not only to impose extremely heavy taxation, but also to overtax the people far above the amount actually authorized by parliament. Only last Friday it was announced that with certain reductions the surplus to the end of the last month amounted to $287,932,000. This amounts to nearly $20 in overtaxation for every man, woman and child in Canada. It means $100 for the head of a family of five in overtaxation, over and above the heavy taxes our people are already called upon to pay.
The government continues to refer to this surplus as though it were something in the nature of a surplus earned by a business of some kind and did in fact reflect some measure of business efficiency. A surplus earned by a producer is indeed a sign of good business. But this surplus does not come from production of that kind. It comes from the pockets of the taxpayers and from no other source. Every cent of that means overtaxation above and beyond taxes which the people already find far too heavy. It is no answer to say that surpluses of that kind are used to reduce debt. Certainly, if the government decides that it is a good thing to reduce debt, let them say so, and let them place before this house their estimate of the debts they propose to reduce; but if it is not the intention of the government to do this, then the government has no right to deliberately overtax for the purpose of finding money to reduce taxation if that in fact is their intention.
Apart from overtaxation, there is the heavy weight of taxation which many Canadians do not believe to be necessary for the real business of the country. The moment this statement is made there are those who immediately say "Well, do you want to cut down defence spending, or are you suggesting that you curtail social services?" That is a tawdry and time-worn attempt to divert attention from the real suggestion that has been made in this house over and over again. No one is suggesting the cutting down of social services. They are part of the social development of this country. Every party has supported them. To suggest that they are peculiarly the product of one party is an insult to the parliament of Canada and to the provincial parliaments within whose field of jurisdiction most of these subjects lie, and is also a cynical misrepresentation of the facts. In the 85 years since Canada became a nation the two major parties which have shared the responsibility of government for almost exactly the same number of years have each in turn interpreted the changing trend of social development and with the support of parliament have given effect to the will of the

The Address-Mr. Drew people. No responsible individual has suggested that we turn the clock back on the social development which has taken place in all democratic countries in closely related periods of advancement.
There is not a member of this house, however, who is not well aware of a number of places where savings could be made without reducing a single social service, or any other essential service of the dominion government.
One argument that is put forward is that the extent of our fixed obligations limits the possibility of economies. That, however, completely ignores the fact that there may be duplicating activity or costly overlapping between the dominion and provincial governments which afford the possibility of very great saving in the handling of those services without any reduction in the services themselves. We must always remember that the estimates of the cost of services include the very large sums which are required for the handling of the payments and that the amounts paid, either in the way of interest payments on debts or payments by way of social services, are far below the total figures given. It is within that field of administrative costs that great savings can be made by adjustment of responsibilities between the dominion and provincial governments and by a reorganization on a businesslike basis, which will expedite the business of the country and produce great savings.
It will be recalled that on numerous occasions we have presented a motion calling for an inquiry into the organization of the departments of government by a commission or committee made up of experts, including the highly competent civil servants who would be available for that task. It has been pointed out that a similar commission in the United States, under ex-president Hoover, made recommendations which it was estimated would have resulted in the saving of $5 billion a year. That was not related to waste or extravagance. It was related to the efficient and businesslike organization of government. It has been pointed out that on a proportionate basis if similar recommendations were made here it would result in a saving of anywhere up to $500 million a year. I know that this figure has been challenged, and it has been suggested that no such figure could be saved at any time. But even if $200 million or even $100 million could be saved, that in itself would be a tremendous saving, and it would also give evidence that the government was really trying to do the business of the country on a sound basis; and that would have a great effect on the attitude of our people to such taxation as may be necessary for defence and other purposes. In


voting against that proposal the government has been voting against the kind of examination which every large business would insist upon having from time to time, if it expected to remain solvent.
When it comes to waste and extravagance I find statements made from time to time that every example of waste and extravagance is immediately dealt with. I think it would be well for us just to look at some typical examples furnished by the Department of National Defence. Since that department is now spending nearly half of the total budget approved by this parliament, it is the department of government which must be most critically examined to determine the extent to which any real attempt is being made to establish businesslike methods and prevent extravagance and waste.
Some very revealing figures have been published recently which indicated how little real effort has been made' to bring defence expenditures under any clearly planned supervision. In the last few weeks articles have been appearing throughout Canada in some of the most responsible of Canadian newspapers, analysing facts and figures in regard to defence purchases, which are a challenge to every member of the house. They are the result of an examination of the reports of the government in regard to defence purchases. They are written by reporters whose high reputation is known to every member of parliament. Just let me refer to a few of the examples given.
Since these have appeared throughout the whole of Canada, they are the kind of examples which it would seem necessary for us to examine. During a single ten-month period orders for boots and shoes for the armed forces totalled $15,292,241. Even at the very high estimate of $15 a pair, which would indeed be a high cost for service footwear, this would mean more than one million pair of shoes for 100,000 members of the armed forces. The suggestion that orders of this kind are necessary for the reserves simply does not hold water, because plenty of shoes have been available for the reserve army for some years. Orders are still being placed, and are now well above 1,300,000.
During the last session it was found that orders have been placed for 1,150,000 neckties. Not satisfied with this incredible accumulation of neckwear, orders are still being placed for more neckties. One might well wonder what particular military service these additional ties are supposed to perform.
Then there was the remarkable order for 62,000 large serving forks, three for every five men in uniform. As a result of the

publicity directed toward this remarkable piece of extravagance, it was finally scaled down by different stages to 14,500, which some people would think would be a fairly adequate supply of service forks of that kind, particularly when one remembers that these figures include a great many people who were having their meals in their own establishments.
Then there was the very interesting order for 29,630 large aluminum teapots. These are one-and-one-half imperial quart aluminum teapots, which are bought in bulk at $2.97 each. One cannot help wondering if the habits of the Canadian armed forces have changed in recent years.
Since November 20, 1950, it is stated that clothing orders alone have amounted to some $142,150,000. The total strength of the three armed services just exceeds 100,000, which works out to approximately $1,400 for every member of the three services. That is not, of course, the amount which has been spent to provide uniforms for each of the members, because the department did estimate that the average cost of the kit of a soldier, sailor or airman is about $390. That seems high enough in itself, but the figures also show that orders are out of all relation to the number of those now in the services, or for the target figure of 115,000 which has been set for 1954.
As an example of how some of these orders are made up there is the fact that 15,000 raincoats have been ordered for the Canadian Women's Army Corps. We are told that there are six C.W.A.C. officers on full-time duty. Then, of course, it was explained to us the other day that the reserve is being kept in mind in the placing of these orders. Even if in this instance it was the reserve they had in mind, there are just over 900 officers and other ranks in the reserve. This does seem a fairly generous supply of raincoats.
Orders for rugs seem to be on a similarly free and easy basis. In less than two years the Department of National Defence has ordered $839,903 of rugs and carpets, which would provide approximately one square yard of rug or carpet for every two members of the active service.
We are still waiting to hear the details about the disappearance of the railway siding at Petawawa, as well as the theft of carload lots of refrigerators, stoves and other equipment. We are still waiting to hear details of the thefts which occurred in camps right across Canada during the past year.
Now, I do not know that it has any relationship to these disappearances, but there is one interesting item, a single entry, in one
The Address-Mr. Drew list under the heading "packaging of plumbing fixtures" at a cost of $147,232.
These are only a few of the figures which demonstrate the kind of extravagance which has been unchecked by any action of this government. When I say "unchecked", let it be remembered that, although the evidence that was made available to the committee which sat last spring was fairly limited, it was pointed out that this order for teapots was out of all reason; but by the time it was discovered the order had already been filled. These items are small, perhaps, in themselves, or from the standpoint of over-all expenditure; but they demonstrate beyond question that any system of supervision which permits this sort of thing is a system under which many millions of dollars can be wasted.
The suggestion that these matters were dealt with by the report of the special committee on defence expenditure is hardly worthy of any member of this house. The fact is that the opportunities for examination by that committee were severely limited. An opportunity to examine into the thefts at Petawawa was rigidly denied. But what is more important is the fact, which every member of this house knows but the public perhaps does not generally know, that the only report which can be presented is the majority report; and it should be remembered that the minority even brought in its report and excluded its members from any whitewash in regard to these inquiries which had been conducted.
This government has largely destroyed the effectiveness of the committee system established by this parliament for the examination of government expenditure, by permitting and in fact encouraging the use of a majority of government supporters on those committees to deny any real opportunity to conduct effective inquiries.
There should be an inquiry and it should be started immediately-not some time several months from now, but within the next few days, or certainly within the next two weeks. But this house has learned that there can be no assurance of a real inquiry under a committee of the house appointed by the present government. If the government really want an inquiry, then let them appoint a committee with powers similar to those of the special committee appointed last year, and make it a joint Senate and House committee. If they will do that and appoint Senator Crerar as the chairman of that committee, or some other senator who has demonstrated the kind of impartiality that he demonstrated, then the report of such a

The Address-Mr. Drew committee would enable the broadest information such as would be extremely valuable to the house, to parliament and to the people of Canada.
Nor is it in defence expenditures alone that it is possible to effect economies. The standing committee on finance of the Senate of Canada presented a report on June 23 last in which there are positive recommendations for a reduction in expenditure. And before we are told again that there is no evidence that any saving can be effected, may I suggest that any member who has that thought in mind might re-read the report of the standing committee on finance of the Senate of Canada, and see what is contained in that report.
As this report is available to the members of the House of Commons, I shall do no more than to refer to the fact that the committee made a positive finding that the practices in regard to the handling of public expenditure for buildings, rental and similar requirements of the different departments of government could "have no other effect than duplication and, overlapping and the inevitable general increasing in costs that is bound to result from this practice". At a time when such enormous sums are being spent for such vital purposes, there is the double need of a measure of supervision of both defence and non-defence expenditures for which there is no provision at this time. It is because of the impartiality of the Senate committee's report, to which I have referred, that I have suggested the name of Senator Crerar.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that the names of members of the other place should be brought into debate in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let them rest in peace.


George Alexander Drew: I now refer to the statement in the speech from the throne with respect to television.


Mr. Pouliof:: Why not suggest Arthur
Meighen?


George Alexander Drew: I cannot imagine a better appointee, and I think it would be an excellent demonstration of the impartiality of the government if it were to follow the same course as did the government of the United States and appoint the leader of another party, who has served in the highest office on another occasion, to this very high task.


Mr. Cruickshank:: We will give you a job some day.


George Alexander Drew: I now wish to speak about television, which is mentioned in the speech from the throne.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You do well there.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here comes the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann).


George Alexander Drew: The subject is one which it will be possible to discuss in detail when the bill comes before the house to interpret in statutory form the statement in the speech from the throne. However, I think it is appropriate at this point to mention two aspects of the announcement. On different occasions, when it has been urged that the government should take action with regard to some aspects of broadcasting or television, we have been told that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was an independent commission and that the government would not think of deciding how it should conduct its affairs. Nevertheless the speech from the throne explains that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) did indicate on an earlier occasion in Montreal that there were to be new television outlets and that it is as a result of that statement that we are now to be presented with legislation to carry forward that announcement. That does raise a question in our minds because, if the statement in the speech from the throne is correct, the answer that has been given on earlier occasions hardly seems to be consistent with the relationship expressed on this occasion.
The other point I would mention is that we now have an announcement that television stations are to be established in Winnipeg, Vancouver and Halifax. That still leaves a very large part of Canada without the opportunity for television and in somewhat vague terms it is stated that the applications of private television stations will be considered in those areas. The words used in the speech from the throne seem to leave no other interpretation than that there are to be no licences granted for private television stations in those cities which now have C.B.C. stations or those which are to have them. That means that we are to be denied the advantages of competitive stations which would greatly improve television broadcasting in this country, and it also suggests that the C.B.C. proposes to retain a monopoly in television in those areas which they regard as the most advantageous from the commercial point of view.
This is strangely inconsistent with the decision made just two weeks ago by the government of the United Kingdom which still retains a monopoly over broadcasting such as we have never had in Canada but which has decided that there is a difference between ordinary broadcasting and television and as a result is going to permit competitive private television stations to operate in the British Isles. I wish to recall to hon. members the explanation given just before we

adjourned in the early summer as to why this government was resisting private television broadcasting. It was explained that we did not want the kind of television broadcasts they have in the United States and that the purpose of the system envisaged for Canada was to protect our people from that kind of television broadcasting.
For that reason I was surprised to learn a little later that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had established a very expensive microwave relay system to Buffalo so that it could pipe in the very United States television broadcasts against which we were told they were going to protect us. Actually we are not getting those broadcasts because the United States producers refuse to give bargain rates to the C.B.C. for their television broadcasts. Consequently the source of great Canadian programs in Buffalo is still dry and the microwave relay is not operating although it has been erected at considerable expense.
The restrictive practices of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with regard to television, Mr. Speaker, have denied to most of the people of Canada the opportunity to see television for some years to come. We still have the extraordinary situation that taxpayers in distant parts of Canada are being called upon to pay taxes so that the people of Toronto and Montreal can enjoy television, if they in fact do. Moreover, there is also the fact that even with the new places where television will be broadcast it will leave fairly limited fields covered by the publicly-owned system, and again we will find that the distant taxpayers will be paying their money to provide television for five large cities in Canada.
If private television operators had been permitted to proceed through the experimental stages these places would all have been receiving television by now without a single cent of expense on the part of Canadian taxpayers. I submit that this is a good time for the government to review its course since it has indicated the close relationship that exists between the government and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on this subject.
In answer to the claim that there is great need for reduced taxation, particularly with respect to income taxes on small income- and this relates to television as to all other public expenditures-we are told that never was the average of wages so high as it is today in Canada. That may be true, but it is what the government leaves in the hands of the wage earner in the form of savings that counts and not merely the figure of total earnings. The present level of taxation, direct and indirect, is creating widespread hardship and discouraging initiative and
The Address-Mr. Drew thrift in a great many cases in Canada today.
I now wish to refer to the conference which is to take place in London later this month. I hope that members of the house will be given some information as to the intentions of the government with respect to that conference. It may well be that it will be one of the most important meetings of its kind that has ever taken place. From statements that have been made in Canada as well as in the capitals of the other nations of the commonwealth it is clear that trade and the possibility of expanding commonwealth trade is to be one of the subjects for discussion. The speech from the throne gives no indication of the course which the government proposes to follow. I agree, without any hesitation, that it might well be argued by the government that except for the definite statement that it is the intention of the government to do everything possible to revive and expand trade within the commonwealth, there could be reasons for not making any definite statement at this time in anticipation of the conference itself. I think that argument might well appeal under ordinary circumstances. The fact remains, however, that definite statements have been made by members of the government and also by anonymous spokesmen, and those statements have been fully reported in the press.
Canada's negative intentions at the coming conference have been stated on numerous occasions. They were stated by a member of the government recently in a speech in New York. The spokesman for the government on that occasion, announcing policy in the United States, did not however indicate what the Canadian government intends to do. He informed the people of the United States, and through the press the people of Canada, that the government was not going to do certain definite things. There have been repeated reports also that Canada is going to insist upon Britain taking certain steps to improve their position before Canada can make any effective arrangements with them. In fact, statements have appeared in the press within the last few days which indicate an attitude which hardly seems appropriate at this time when we are seeking arrangements which will make it possible to sell our agricultural and other food surpluses in Britain. This is not just a case of Britain finding out how to buy; it is a case of our finding out how to sell; and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has been very careful to emphasize that on different occasions recently.
I am sure that Canadians would be indignant, and I cannot imagine anyone would be more indignant than members of this government, if anyone in Britain Dresumed to tell

The Address-Mr. Drew the Canadian government how it should mend its ways before they could do business with us.
Before we presume to tell the government of Britain how it should conduct its affairs, it would seem appropriate that our own position should be examined. Undoubtedly there are things to be done in Britain, and from what I have seen they do not hesitate to admit it. They know, as we know, that it is essential that they speed up the date of delivery of heavy machinery, that they live up to their commitments for delivery dates, that they maintain a larger supply of essential spare parts here in Canada than has been the practice in the past, and that other problems which have interfered with sales should be carefully examined and solved. In large measure those difficulties have been due to the reconstruction of damaged buildings and machinery in Britain, along with the necessity of transforming their industrial production, which has been almost entirely devoted to the needs of war, back to the requirements of peace. Sometimes there are those who seem to forget that no nation engaged in the last war had so completely transformed its industrial production to war purposes as Great Britain, and that does not except Germany. They had a tremendous task of transformation and then, before that transformation was completed, the armament brought about by events in Korea and elsewhere imposed further strains upon their system. There is evidence, and convincing evidence, that they are getting over the hump and that they will be able to tackle these problems satisfactorily.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, before we adopt any such holier-than-thou attitude, such as has been expressed in some statements recently appearing in the press, we should examine our own position. Let us remember that every cent of overtaxation or unnecessary taxation is added to the cost of the things that we produce or sell at home or abroad. Let us remember also that to the extent that there has been inflation in this country that inflation has affected the cost of our production in terms of the money with which it must be bought abroad. Let us also recognize that every cent of waste and extravagance is also added to the cost of our products. Thus, high taxation, extravagance, waste and inflation are not only a serious burden upon our own people, but they very greatly affect our ability to sell some of the things which we need to sell to maintain the prosperity of our farmers and some of our other basic producers.
We are told of our mounting exports in terms of dollars. At a time when the United States, Britain and other countries need so
[Mr. Drew.l

much of our raw material for defence requirements, there has been no difficulty in selling those raw materials abroad. That is particularly true in the case of the United States, which has nearly exhausted many of its own supplies of raw material and must look abroad for the basic requirements of its industrial production in many cases.
Because of their stockpiling and other requirements, Britain has been buying increasing quantities in dollar value, but at the same time it has been necessary for them to stop buying food products for which they have been our stable market for generations.
In every part of Canada farmers are feeling the direct effect of the loss of our British market for bacon and other pork products. In every part of Canada our farmers are feeling the effect of the loss of our markets for beef products abroad. For the first time in considerably over 100 years we are selling no cheese to Britain, with serious consequence for our cheese industry in Canada. We are selling practically no poultry products, no milk products and no apples. We are, in fact, selling little of our surplus farm production to Britain except wheat and flour.
For some time we have been urging this government to take the initiative in calling a commonwealth conference to discuss this aspect of our trade. On occasion after occasion we have presented motions calling for the government to take the initiative in bringing together such a conference. The government has flatly refused to consider that suggestion. Now at this late date, when farmers all over Canada are feeling the impact of this loss of agricultural markets, representatives of the government are attending a conference not called at the initiative of Canada but called together by the government of Great Britain. That conference is going to be of vital importance to every Canadian but it is going to be of the utmost importance to the farmers and other food producers of this country.
Nor is it only the farmers who are concerned. For the first time in generations not a tin of Canadian salmon is being sold in Britain. Demands for our lumber are falling off. No matter what raw materials we may sell for defence or other requirements, that is not going to put money into the pockets of the Canadian farmer or other basic producer at this time who is feeling the pinch because of the loss of those markets.
Not long ago I went into a shop in London to buy a tin of salmon. The tin bore the name "Socra", which naturally immediately brought to one's mind the name "Sockeye", which is a great commercial salmon on the Pacific coast. That tin bearing the name

"Socra" came from Russia. It is a rather interesting thing that "Socra" spelled backwards is "Arcos". Arcos is the name of a trading organization which was expelled from Britain just before the war for its treacherous activities. It may be just an accident, but it would indeed be a remarkable thing if the letters transposed in that way had such an interesting similarity to the name of a company with a background of that kind.
In saying this, may I emphasize the fact that the people of Britain do not welcome this substitution of Russian products for our own. There are many people in Britain who are refusing to buy any of these Russian products although they may be the only products of the kind available in many cases. Our problem, as I have pointed out before, is to find a way to sell just as their problem is to find how they can buy.
Even in the face of this situation in regard to food products, and particularly the tremendous production of grain to which reference has already been made this afternoon, the government speaks with different voices at different times. Confronted with the largest wheat crop and the largest carry-over for many years, the attitude of some members of the government seems to be one of light optimism-not shared by the Minister of Agriculture, who is very directly associated with this problem.
As recently as October 27, the Minister of Agriculture had this to say about the situation, and I quote the words attributed to him by the Canadian Press:
In this country we now have 900 million bushels of wheat. At the outside, the whole world takes 900 million bushels in one year in international trade. There is also a considerable carry-over in the United States. Long before the crop is marketed our people will be wishing we had another four-year contract with Britain to take 40t) million bushels of our wheat.
In the centre of the great wheat-growing area of Canada, the Minister of Agriculture did not minimize the danger of our position unless we are able to re-open our markets for wheat as well as for other food products.
While I am speaking of the position created by the enormous carry-over of wheat this year, there is one point which should be mentioned, and which undoubtedly is affected by statements made this afternoon. Farmers are finding it impossible in many cases to deliver their grain to the market, we are informed, no matter what steps are being taken. The whole system of handling and distribution has broken down. The government, no matter what its explanation may be, has failed to take effective steps to provide for the handling of grain, in spite of the knowledge many months ago, and the warnings many months ago, that this
The Address-Mr. Drew situation was going to arise. In western Canada today there are many farmers, with huge quantities of wheat and other grains worth considerable sums of money, who are unable to get money at this time to cover their harvesting and living expenses because of their inability to deliver that grain to market.
This is a situation with which the government should deal immediately. It is urgent and calls for attention without delay. It must be remembered, however, that this is an incident of the whole situation which has arisen as a result of the failure of the government to take steps in time to assure markets for our surplus food products, of which the government was amply warned. It was asked to take the initiative in finding ways to sell these products, but it turned down our proposals every time they were presented.
I have been discussing this subject on different occasions, and I have left no doubt that I hope that every possible step will be taken at this conference to re-open and expand our trade with Britain, the commonwealth and the sterling areas. I have used the expression that the government of Canada should do all within its power to remove the roadblock which is preventing the normal movement of trade between Canada, Great Britain, the other nations of the commonwealth and the sterling area generally. I have stated in this house on earlier occasions that our objective must be a free interchangeability of currencies, which will make it possible to carry out trading arrangements in the way in which we always did in the past.
I could not help noticing the light, flippant way in which that suggestion was dealt with by certain members of the government. The other day in the press I saw, emanating from those anonymous but well informed sources, indications that the representatives of the government are going to seek that measure of interchangeability when they arrive at London. We do not know, of course, because names are never attached to these statements made on behalf of the government, such as that to which I referred.
I have read statements by the members of the government brushing this suggestion aside, and seeking to convey the impression that I was urging restrictive practices. There is no truth whatever in that suggestion. I am sure that those who have made it are fully aware of that fact. I have been urging the freeing of trade from the restrictions imposed by our inability to deal in the ordinary way with the currencies of the commonwealth and the sterling area generally.

The Address-Mr. Drew I have been careful to point out that there is no easy answer. But I would further point out that what I have said has also been said by the governor of the Bank of England, and that there is now a very strong movement on the part of those associated with the international monetary fund to find some way of dealing freely with the currencies which must be used if we are to get back to normal trading.
In emphasizing the vital importance of the British and commonwealth markets for food and other basic products, I am resting my arguments entirely upon the legitimate selfinterest of Canadians. I rest my case in no way upon sentimental grounds. In normal times the United States produces most of the things that we produce in the way of food and other products which we have been selling for so long to the United Kingdom. They grow the same things, and usually have a surplus for export themselves, just as the Minister of Agriculture has indicated they have a surplus of wheat this year. That means that our agricultural prosperity rests upon overseas markets, and the main market abroad is Great Britain. Their position as consumers of agricultural products is unique. Fifty million people live in a country which is only able to produce half of its food requirements at the same standard of living as we are accustomed to here. I make that reservation because they are producing more than 50 per cent of their food requirements on the present restricted level. That means that there are 25 million people to be fed by imported foods. Situated as we are on the shortest route across the north Atlantic, we have an unchallenged advantage in dealing with Britain so long as we do not overload our producers with taxes, extravagance and inflation.
There is another reason why we should do all within our power to revive and expand not only the British commonwealth markets but also the large sterling markets throughout the world. Because of the tremendous quantity of raw materials that we are shipping to the United States, we are now exporting in dollar value approximately 80 per cent of all our exports to one country. We have put nearly all our eggs in one basket. In a large measure we have placed ourselves in a position of economic dependence upon the United States which is not healthy either for us or for them.
Our real sovereignty and full authority over our own affairs as a nation will depend in very large measure on the extent to which the Canadian government succeeds in reopening the commonwealth and sterling markets so that our trade is better balanced, and we have some freedom of action in the


event of economic storms in the United States or action at any time by their government which might interrupt the flow of our exports. There is nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate any intention on the part of the government to take appropriate action in pursuance of this great need. Perhaps we will hear this afternoon of some information in regard to this, and I am sure that most hon. members would welcome that information.
May I say also one word in connection with our trade with Britain which I cannot refrain from saying in view of some of the statements I have seen in publications in the United States, and sometimes in this country as well. I see gloomy predictions that Britain cannot surmount these present difficulties. I even see statements that Britain is through as a great world power. I see statements that the British are slow and stodgy, without imagination. I cannot help recalling that just a few weeks ago I saw some of the fastest aircraft in the world flying over the skies of Britain in simulated air attacks and air defence of the British Isles, which were reminiscent of the days of the battle of Britain. I cannot help remembering that a Canberra jet made in Britain crossed the Atlantic in three hours and twenty minutes, nor can I forget that not very long ago a very gallant gentleman sped across a Scottish lake in a British-made motorboat at more than 200 miles an hour. The same gentleman had also driven a British-made automobile at well over 400 miles an hour, which is still the world's record for speed on land. These are not just accidents; these are not just stunts. They are the product of industrial genius, technical skill, great imagination and individual vigour. I can only say to those who make gloomy predictions, such as some of those I have seen, that this is no time to sell Great Britain short.
There is also nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate any intention on the part of the dominion government to take appropriate action in pursuance of its frequently repeated promises to prepare for a national health insurance program.
In its submission to the dominion-provincial conference which met in Ottawa in August 1945, the dominion government emphasized the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over hospitalization, except military hospitalization, and placed tentative proposals before the provincial governments for their consideration.
Neither then, nor at any time since then, has the dominion government made any serious attempt to carry forward the discus-

sions and inquiries which are absolutely necessary before any plan could be agreed upon between the dominion and provincial governments.
It would be most improper for the dominion government to leave the impression that it could proceed with any national health insurance program without the most extensive inquiry to ascertain the basic facts upon which any sound approach to this problem must depend.
The problem of meeting the cost of medical care is now one of the most serious problems confronting individuals, as well as provincial and municipal authorities who must accept responsibility in many cases where the patients are unable to pay the cost of hospitalization and medical treatment.
Since the dominion government submitted its proposals to the provinces in 1945 the situation has changed very greatly. Hospital and other medical costs have risen by leaps and bounds. If it were not for the unselfish service of Canadian doctors in every community many patients simply would not get medical treatment at all at this time. Let it be said to the everlasting credit of the doctors of this country that there are few cases on record where any patient has failed to receive medical attention because of his inability to pay for the services of a doctor. But the present situation is imposing a tremendous burden upon the doctors, upon the provincial authorities and particularly upon the municipal authorities.
There can be no satisfactory solution of this complex problem until there is a thorough examination of the costs of medical care, hospitalization and other aspects of diagnostic, preventive, surgical and medical care. In 1945 the representatives of this government left no doubt that in their opinion extensive inquiries were necessary before this subject could be tackled. If such an inquiry was necessary then, it is far more necessary today, with the increasing complexity of this problem. It has become doubly necessary because of the increasing invasion of the provincial and municipal tax fields by the dominion government. For that reason there should be general agreement that the first and necessary step in dealing with this subject is to institute an inquiry which would be conducted by representatives of the medical profession, the hospital boards, the dominion, provincial and municipal governments. It is not sufficient to get recommendations from those governments that care to forward them. This is a subject in which all the cost must be considered jointly. The sooner such an inquiry is started the sooner it will be possible to discuss this problem
The Address-Mr. Drew with some knowledge of the essential facts. Without such an inquiry this problem cannot be tackled in a satisfactory manner. There would be no satisfactory basis for agreement between the dominion, provincial and municipal authorities, and agreement in that respect is absolutely necessary.
The dominion government is long in default in proceeding with such an inquiry. I hope there will be no suggestion that this subject could be dealt with without an inquiry of that kind in view of the earlier insistence by this government that such an inquiry was necessary and that it was because of the need of that inquiry that they could not proceed at that time to discuss some aspects of their proposals. Whatever method is to be adopted, one thing is certain. Some method must be found to assure proper diagnostic, surgical and medical treatment in every case which requires it.
On one point let us be very definite. We want no state medicine in Canada. The free relationship of the doctor to the patient must be preserved. In this, as in other matters, we must make a definite decision. Either we believe in freedom or we believe in supreme state authority. There is state medicine in Russia. There is state medicine in every communist country. State medicine has also been adopted by some countries which are far from communist. Most of them, however, have learned by sad experience that it is an unsatisfactory system both for the doctors and for the patients. As we believe in freedom, let us preserve the freedom of our doctors and the freedom of our patients under a system which will meet the cost of medical care in a free society which is really free.
Now I wish to deal with a subject which is directly related to what I have been saying about medical care. Perhaps the most important question for Canadians to decide in the field of domestic affairs is the constitutional relationship between the dominion, provincial and municipal governments and the way in which they are going to be able to carry out their responsibilities under the Canadian constitution. I mention the municipalities for this reason. Although it is true that the municipalities are legally emanations of the provincial legislatures, the fact remains that because of the serious plight in which many municipalities now find themselves, these municipalities are seeking direct assistance of different kinds from the dominion government, as the collector of most of our taxes and the place where so much revenue has been accumulated that it is not available in the ordinary way in the required quantities by the other levels of government.
This parliament and Canadians generally must give immediate consideration to the

The Address-Mr. Drew question as to whether this country is to continue as a federal state, or whether it is to become a unitary state .with one central government. I hope no one in this House of Commons will brush aside a statement of that kind because in this case I am simply quoting a statement made by a man who served in this government on an earlier occasion and who I know commands the respect and admiration of many members of this government. That warning that I have just given, namely, that we must decide whether we are going to continue as a federal state or as a unitary state, was placed before a gathering of lawyers at Dalhousie university law school a month ago by the Hon. Angus L. Macdonald, premier of Nova Scotia. I mention his words particularly, because they came from the head of a provincial government who once served as a member of the present dominion government. In a careful legal analysis of the trends towards centralization, he made it clear that the issue now before us is not the adequacy of any contributions by the dominion government in lieu of taxes, but that the real and the inescapable issue is whether, in fact, our federal system is to survive. He pointed out that this is a subject which was under consideration at an earlier date. There were those who thought that Canada should become a unitary state in 1867. The decision reached at that time was that Canadian unity demanded a federal system with its division of authority and the existence of local governments which would have jurisdiction over those matters of traditional local concern which meant so much to the people of the different provinces who were then seeking to find common ground for national unity.
There is no reason why anyone who believes in a unitary state should not argue in support of that contention today, if that is the belief of any Canadian. There are those of us who believe that neither our historic background nor the area of this country makes a unitary state suitable for Canada. On the other hand, those who believe in that system have every right to assert it. They should assert it openly, however, and not seek to change our federal system by stealth. Let no one be uncertain about the fact that this question is now squarely before us. I again repeat the words of Mr. Macdonald, not only because he has served both with this government and with a provincial government, but also because it cannot be charged that his views are based on political opposition to this government. He has stated the case in these simple words:
A fundamental question now arises-it is this: do we wish to continue as a federal state?
(Mr. Drew.]
This warning comes from a man who knows the minds of many of the members of this government from long daily contact with them. It is with that knowledge and with that experience that he poses a question that he says must now be answered by all Canadians, unless continuing centralization is to produce a unitary state in Canada, no matter what it may be called.
There has been some tendency on the part of members of this government to leave the impression that the signing of temporary agreements with provincial governments, under which their most important tax fields are given up in return for annual payments, in some way disposes of this question. It does nothing of the kind.
Whe . the Ontario government recently signed an agreement, which it was emphasized was a temporary agreement, the premier of that province made it clear that this did nothing to solve the fundamental question which has now been under discussion for ten years. He made it clear that the agreement was merely a stopgap and that it is the duty of the dominion government to take the steps that are necessary to re-allocate sources of revenue so that the provincial governments and the municipalities will be able to meet their increasing obligations from financial resources under their own control. The government of Nova Scotia has also signed an agreement. The premier of that province, however, leaves no doubt that in his opinion that does not dispose of the basic issue which must be dealt with right away. Other provincial premiers have taken the same position, although their governments have also signed temporary agreements.
As we consider this subject, which is of such vital importance to the future of Canada, it is therefore necessary for us to bear in mind that when the government of Quebec is so insistent in its demand that the federal system be respected, the government of Quebec is not alone in that demand, nor is it alone in the opinion that our federal system is in jeopardy, unless we reverse the present trend toward centralization.
There is no reference in the speech from the throne to any suggested meeting between the dominion and the provincial governments to discuss this subject. I am directing my arguments, therefore, to the proposition that it is essential for the dominion government to take immediate steps to review this situation, if it does in fact believe in the federal system and is not deliberately seeking to replace that system by a unitary state, in fact if not in name.

The Address-Mr. Drew
This is far from being the first occasion when this subject has been under discussion, and I have no doubt that there may be some impatience in the minds of some members of the government to hear it raised again. The possibility that the wartime agreements under which the dominion government took over taxing powers in return for payments to the provinces might weaken our federal system was raised when the dominion government first proposed those agreements in 1942. It happened that I took part in some of those discussions so far as they affected the province of Ontario and I know that there never would have been any agreement with the Ontario government if there had not been a firm and unqualified promise by the dominion government at that time that these were only temporary agreements for the duration of the war and that within one year after the termination of hostilities the revenue position of the provinces would be restored and their taxing powers returned undiminished to them.
The question before this house is, therefore, not merely the survival of our federal system, but the extent to which the government is prepared to honour an undertaking which it has never denied, and in fact which it admitted when we met in conference some years ago.
It is worthy of comment at this point that in Australia, where similar agreements were made between the federal and state governments at about the same time with the same promise, the taxing powers of the six states in Australia were fully restored this year. The government of Australia did not treat their promise as a mere scrap of paper.
When the dominion-provincial conference met in 1945, on the first day of that conference this subject came up for discussion and I propose to quote from what I said on August 6, 1945, to indicate that the arguments I put forward then are the arguments that I am prepared to repeat on behalf of the party which I have the honour to lead. I quote what was said at that time:
Not only because of the very practical considerations in our own country which are as real today as they were in 1867, but also because of sound arguments which can be advanced in support of decentralization of authority, the strength of the provincial legislatures and their governments within their own clearly defined jurisdiction should be maintained.
If we accept the proposition that the provincial legislatures are to continue to exist as responsible bodies with full legislative powers over their own defined fields of legislation, then those legislatures must have real and not merely nominal powers. The power to legislate and to govern rests upon the power to raise funds by taxation.
Any arrangement which provided for a centralized collection of the greater part of the tax
requirements of provincial governments and made them mere annuitants of the central government would place the provincial governments under the control of the central government to an extent that meetings of the members of the legislature would become almost meaningless because of the limitations within which they would be called upon to legislate. If the provincial legislatures are to continue as free and responsible legislative bodies within the conception of the British North America Act, then it would seem clear that the provincial governments must have authority over their own taxation within clearly defined fields.
That was the position I took in 1945, speaking as the head of the government of the province of Ontario. It was the position I had taken earlier in 1942 as leader of the opposition in the Ontario legislature when I was consulted by the then premier of Ontario, and it is the position I take today on behalf of the party that I lead.
At a later meeting of the dominion-provincial conference on January 8, 1946, I said this:
If the provincial governments, and in turn the provincial legislatures, were to abandon their most important sources of direct taxation in return for an annual payment on a fixed basis, they would place themselves in a legislative straitjacket from which they could only escape by abandoning still further powers in return for added payments at some date in the future.
If the provincial governments placed themselves in such a position that they were only able to expand their activity with the approval of the dominion government, they would become little more than local administrative commissions of the dominion government, and the provincial legislatures would cease to possess anything but the form of administrative responsibility.
Today that situation has in very large measure already arisen. In many cases the provincial governments have quite frankly stated to the municipalities, which are exclusively under provincial jurisdiction, that under the fixed arrangements which now exist they are unable to assist them. For that reason municipalities have turned to the dominion government and are seeking grants of one kind and another, which should be available to them either from their own revenues or from the provincial governments. Nothing could more effectively destroy the whole structure of our federal system than that the municipalities which are incorporated and receive all their authority from the provincial legislatures should become dependent upon the dominion government and in doing so be under the direction and control of the dominion government. That would, in fact, be the last nail in the coffin of our federal system.
No matter what arguments might be put forward in any other country in support of a unitary system, and it perhaps should be noted that there is no country even half the size of Canada anywhere else in the world

The Address-Mr. Drew which does operate under a unitary system, the fact remains that in this country there are special reasons why we must respect, in all its integrity, the federal system which was defined for this country by the British North America Act in 1867. Surely no one will argue today that the unity of this country within the boundary of one nation would ever have occurred if it had not been that there was the absolute assurance of the preservation of the local rights and customs in the different provinces of Canada, and particularly in the province of Quebec.
Again I emphasize that none of these views is being expressed for the first time today. The fact that they have been repeated so often, however, merely emphasizes the need for immediate action by this government to carry out the promise it made in 1942. Ten years have passed since that unqualified promise was given. This is what I said as the premier of Ontario, speaking to the elected representatives of the people of Ontario in the legislature of that province on April 1, 1947, as reported in the Hansard records of that day:
There are good reasons why the province of Quebec attaches special importance to the provisions of the British North America Act and is less likely to accept substantial changes which are made without the consent of that province and without adequate compensating protection, if any of their established rights are to be diminished. With good reason Quebec looks to the British North America Act as their guarantee of their own civil law, of their customs, of their language and religion . . .
I would recall that those are words spoken in the Ontario legislature considerably over five years ago.
May I point out that the premier of Quebec is not alone in expressing his concern about centralized power in Canada. The premier of Nova Scotia, the premier of Ontario and premiers of other provinces have also warned that, unless we change our course, we are in danger of drifting into a unitary state.
I hope I need not emphasize that this is no mere academic discussion of our constitution. The rapidly increasing trend toward centralization of taxing powers has greatly weakened the position of the provincial and municipal governments. In 1939 from every tax dollar, collected at all levels of government, the dominion government took 51 per cent, the provincial governments 19 per cent and the municipal governments 30 per cent. But last year the dominion government took 77 per cent, leaving for the provincial governments 12 per cent and the municipal governments 11 per cent.
It will be seen that while in 1939 municipal governments collected 30 per cent as compared with 19 per cent collected by provincial

governments, they are now able to collect only 11 per cent as compared with 12 per cent by provincial governments.
It is a recognized fact that there is some point beyond which no taxing authority can go, no matter what the demands for services may be. When the dominion government arbitrarily invades the field of over-all taxation to the extent of 77 per cent, leaving only 23 per cent to be divided between the provincial and municipal governments, then those governments are not in a position to act independently and to carry out their increasing responsibilities. That is particularly true today of the municipal governments.
Above every other obligation, that applies to education and health services. Most municipalities are today in a very critical financial position because of the rapidly increasing demand for educational and health services, which are the most important requirements of our society.
It can be properly said that municipal government is the very bedrock of our democracy. Nevertheless, the position of our municipalities seems to be receiving little consideration from the dominion government at this time, in some surprising respects.
Not only are the municipal governments deprived of revenues adequate for their responsibilities because of the encroachment of the dominion government in all fields of taxation, but they are also being penalized in other ways which add greatly to their burdens. Just as an example, may I remind the members of this house that the municipalities must pay the dominion sales tax on all the equipment they purchase, although the provincial governments do not pay this tax. I must say I find it difficult to see where the distinction lies. What is even more significant, however, is that in the case of civil defence, which many of us believe is the responsibility of the dominion government in any event, municipal governments, which have been called upon to buy special equipment for civil defence, such as fire equipment, hose couplings, stirrup pumps, and things of that kind, not only pay for something that is part of our general defence program, but they must also pay a dominion sales tax on those purchases.
For the reasons I have presented I do believe there is nothing more urgently demanding action by this government than the re-allocation of clearly defined sources of revenue for the provincial and municipal governments, which will restore the real authority of the provincial governments and enable the municipalities to meet their increasing obligations without imposing crippling taxes on those whom they service.

That is what this government promised without any qualification ten years ago. That is what is needed to preserve and strengthen our federal system. That will be the most effective check on extravagance by this government, because the centralization of taxation encourages extravagance by the very fact that it takes away from local governments those checks which are much more in evidence in governments closer to the people. And may I add that, above all, this is the course of reason and of honour.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon):
That the following be added to the address:
"We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(a)	To relieve Canadian taxpayers from the burden of excessive and unjust taxation;
(b)	To eliminate waste and extravagance and thereby reduce taxes and the cost of living;
(c)	To take any effective steps to regain the commonwealth markets for food and other products upon which the prosperity of our farmers and other basic producers so directly depends;
(d)	To conduct inquiries in consultation with the provincial governments, so that necessary information may be available for the dominion and provincial governments to consider jointly a national health insurance program;
(e)	To reach agreement with the provincial governments in regard to a clearly defined re-allocation of taxing powers so that the provincial governments and municipal councils may have adequate financial resources to carry out their rapidly increasing responsibilities."


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, before attempting to deal with the various matters discussed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in the interesting speech to which we have just listened, I should like to take a moment to extend congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in response to the speech from the throne. I think a special word of congratulation is due the hon. members for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Deslieres) and Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) because, as newly elected members, they delivered on Friday last their maiden speeches in the house.
When one has to rise for the first time in the House of Commons he is apt to feel that it is something of a trying ordeal; and perhaps when this event takes place so soon after arrival in the house, and with the knowledge that other members have spoken here in previous sessions, an hon. member so placed is apt to feel that the difficulty may be still more forbidding. But I believe we can all say to our new colleagues that we are proud of the manner in which they acquitted themselves, and that they did credit to themselves, and to their constituents. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Deslieres) spoke in the two languages.
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent (Translation) :
We were happy to notice how easily he expressed himself in both our official languages, French and English. He gave us the opportunity of listening to a most interesting speech indeed, as regards both its contents and the eloquence which be displayed in expressing his ideas.
(Text):
This hon. member's election to the House of Commons was not by any means the first time he had been elected to public office. I understand that for nine successive years he was a member of the council of Sutton and then for eight years mayor of that municipality. It is quite evident that he acquired in the municipal field experience and knowledge which, added to by his success in his business career and by his experience as governor of the Brome-Missisquoi-Perkins hospital, will be factors in his success in this place, and which I am sure will be put to good account both in the discussion and solution of such problems as we have to deal with here. I believe the citizens of Brome-Missisquoi can be proud of the member they have chosen.
I think that is equally true of the citizens of Waterloo North. Before coming here the hon. member for that constituency had also been active in community affairs. He is a successful businessman. He was chairman of the Kitchener-Waterloo airport commission for many years and is now chairman of the Waterloo-Wellington airport commission. He is a past president of the Kitchener Chamber of Commerce and of the Kitchener-Waterloo Rotary club. He is a member of the Canadian Legion, of the advisory committee for the new St. Jerome's college, is a director of the Waterloo township plowmen's association, of the Kitchener Red Cross Society and the Kitchener-Waterloo federated charities.
The hon. member made a speech to which I feel sure we all listened with interest and, I may add, a speech which is highly gratifying in its demonstration of the ability he has brought to parliament. I think we can all feel that it is fortunate for the people of the whole of Canada that their representatives in parliament continue to be men and women who not only have a wide grasp of public affairs but are men and women of vision who are confident as to the future of their country and who make sacrifices by coming here to do their part in assuring the future of their country.
To come now to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), I am sure we all agree most wholeheartedly with his opening remarks with respect to the pleasure we will all take in joining in the ceremonies and festivities which will accompany Her

The Address-Mr. St Laurent Majesty's coronation next June. I think we were all gratified to see to what an extent we are of one mind, as was demonstrated on the occasion of Her Majesty's visit as Princess Elizabeth about a year ago. The enthusiasm with which she .and her distinguished consort were greeted on the occasion of their visits to so many parts of Canada is, I think, a very satisfactory demonstration of the attachment of all our people to the kind of institutions under which our country has grown and under which I hope it will continue for very many generations to administer and take care of its public affairs.
Because that is our system, because we feel it is a good system for the administration of our public affairs, I extend congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition for the very frank and, perhaps some of us may sometimes think, severe criticism of the actions of the government. It is a part of our democratic institutions that there should be someone recognized in our official organizations whose duty it is to watch and criticize what is being done by the advisers of the crown, and I think it is helpful that that should be so. For three and a half years now the government has been attempting to discharge the mandate entrusted to it in 1949. It has not had too much time available to answer criticism, but it has always given close attention to criticism and has always been as attentive as it could be to remedy such weaknesses as the criticism revealed.
But it is also a part of our constitution and traditions that within a certain number of months now, possibly a year but not more than two in any event, the people of Canada will be called upon to pass judgment on the conduct of the government and on the criticism levelled against the government. I think it is proper that at that time the public should have before it all the information that could have a bearing upon the determination of its verdict when it is called upon to arrive at one.
The last item dealt with by the hon. gentleman was that of dominion-provincial, and now municipal, constitutional relations. He repeated a warning that has been current at almost all times during the whole period since the coming into force of confederation itself, namely that there was a formidable question that had to be determined, the continued existence of a federal system or the establishment of a unitary system. That is a problem that has been constant in our history ever since 1867. There have been periods when to some of us it appeared that the pendulum was swinging too far one way and to others it appeared that it was swinging too far the other way. At other times


not too distant it has appeared to the same gentleman that there were excesses in different directions. I have here an extract from a report in the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 4, 1937. It is attributed to "Colonel Drew" and as I would not want to be mistaken about the office the hon. gentleman occupied at that time I will merely refer to the note as I have it here:
Extract from Colonel Drew's speech, February 3, 1937. "Today politics mean more than they ever did before In the history of Canada", Colonel Drew said, in pointing out that Canada was far too overgoverned. "We must start all over again from Confederation, if we are to have one country instead of nine", he said.
Bit by bit the provinces have assumed powers acquired through court decisions that were meant for the federal government, Colonel Drew declared. Holding up the example of Great Britain where, he said, twenty cabinet ministers govern millions of people, Colonel Drew contended that in Canada it took between 100 and 110 ministers to govern eleven million people. "Our country is overgoverned, in some ways the worst governed country in the world," he said. "We must get back to one strong government."
I do not agree, and I do not think the hon. gentleman now agrees with the hon. gentleman of 1937.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, I do; but that was not the end of the quotation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is the end of the
extract I have here. I am glad that the hon. gentleman does not agree with the hon. gentleman of 1937.


George Alexander Drew: I do, entirely.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not envisage the situation as being as terrifying as he has portrayed it to us today. Here he is suggesting that there should be a conference to reallocate fields of taxation so that the municipalities and provinces would have ample room to impose and collect themselves everything they might feel they required for the discharge of their growing responsibilities.
With respect to the allocation of taxation fields, I think that was perhaps more pertinent to the problem that existed in 1945 than it is to the situation that exists at the present time. Since 1945 the federal government has withdrawn from several fields of taxation that it had been necessary for the federal government to occupy in order to raise the sums required to assure the security of this country during the second world war. For instance, the government retired from the field of taxation on amusements, parimutuel betting, sales of electricity, gasoline, railway transportation and telecommunications and exchange tax. The only fields in which the federal government is at the present time are those of customs and excise, including sales taxes; personal and corporate

income taxes; and succession duties. I think there is a small excise tax on the transfer of bonds and other evidences of indebtedness or security.
There is a constitutional responsibility in this country which, in the language of the hon. gentleman, is very serious at this time -the responsibility for taking all measures required for the continued existence and freedom of this country. That constitutional responsibility was clearly envisaged by those who drafted the British North America Act which came into force in 1867. It was that defence, national security, would be the responsibility of the federal government and that the federal government would have by constitutional declaration the right to resort to any and every form of taxation of the Canadian people. Now, no responsible Canadian government can ever give up the right to resort to any and every form of taxation when that may be required for the discharge of its responsibility to assure the security and freedom of the country at large. There can be no permanent allocation of those fields of taxation in which we are now raising the considerable sums that are required to meet the obligations of the federal government.
Unlike customs and excise, personal or corporate income taxes were sources of income that were not used prior to the first world war, although I believe they were used to a certain extent in the province of British Columbia and there was also some slight form of corporation tax; but they have become the very foundation stones of fiscal policies not only of this nation but of all nations in the world. There can be no undertaking by any responsible government not to resort to the levying of customs, excise and sales taxes, succession duties, personal income and corporate income taxes.
With respect to succession duties that were imposed during the war, after the war this parliament on the recommendation of the government withdrew to the extent of estates of a value of not more than $50,000, and nothing has ever been done to prevent any provincial government from levying succession duties. On estates valued up to $50,000 only the provincial governments levy succession duties. Beyond that figure, except for provinces having made temporary tax rental agreements for a period of years with the federal government, the provinces continue to levy succession duties. A credit is given by the federal government to the debtor of the succession duty of as much as half the federal duty, if he has paid that much to the government of the province in which he resides.
68108-3i
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
With respect to corporation taxes there is nothing in our legislation, nothing except the tax rental agreements that have been signed by some of the provinces, to prevent the provincial governments or provincial legislatures from levying corporation taxes to any extent they see fit. As a matter of fact, Quebec and Ontario have levied corporation profits taxes to the extent of 7 per cent although only 5 per cent was recognized by the federal taxing authorities as an expense of carrying on business. To the extent of 2 per cent there was double taxation there. That was because both governments wanted the amount of income produced by that tax rate. I do not know what special corporation taxes there are in the province of Ontario, but I know that in addition to the 7 per cent profits tax there are several corporation taxes existing and collected in my province of Quebec. There is nothing to prevent the legislature from fixing at any figure it may see fit the tax rate it imposes on these corporations except the very serious reason mentioned by the hon. leader of the opposition-that is to say, the unwisdom of trying to take too much from an individual taxpayer. The provincial legislatures, like the federal government, have to exercise such wisdom as they have in determining the rates that it is possible to impose on individual taxpayers without undue interference with the economic activity of such taxpayers.
With respect to the personal income tax the legal situation is exactly the same. In addition to that, at all times since the expiry of the first tax rental agreement there has been a provision in the federal income tax act that a taxpayer who had to pay an income tax to his provincial government would get credit up to 5 per cent of the amount of his federal tax, if be paid that amount to his provincial government. Neither the government of Ontario nor the government of Quebec, during the period in which they did not see fit to have tax agreements with the federal government, ever attempted to impose that amount of personal income tax on their people. It would have meant no increase in what the individual would have paid, but would have meant simply that the provincial governments would have the inconvenient responsibility, if it is an inconvenient responsibility, of having imposed a personal income tax and having collected it.
The hon. gentleman says there was an undertaking in 1942 to restore the taxing powers that had been rented to the federal government during the war period. There was, and at the expiry of those agreements there was no obligation upon any province to renew them. There was an undertaking that if the agreements were not renewed there would
36	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent be a reduction, I think of 10 per cent, in the corporation tax. Though there may have been no undertaking concerning the personal income tax, because there had been practically no resort by provincial authorities to the personal income tax, reductions were made in the rate of income tax levied under federal laws for federal purposes.
Proposals were made to the provinces that if instead of levying their own taxes they wished to renew agreements, these were the kind of agreements we were prepared to make with them. At that time there were nine provinces, and seven of them chose to make those agreements. The two larger provinces chose not to make the agreements. They were just as free to impose and collect any and every kind of taxation from the moment the war tax agreements expired as they had been before the war tax agreements were made. Those two provinces remained in that position up to the time the province of Ontario chose to enter into a tax agreement for a five-year period, from 1952 to 1957.
For seven years there was no tax agreement with the province of Ontario. There is no tax agreement now with the province of Quebec. Quite frankly, I do not think there could be or that there should be or that anyone would wish that there be, any permanent arrangement which would restrict the constitutional rights of the central government to have recourse, in times of need, to any and every kind of taxation that the parliament of the people of Canada might feel was required in order to meet emergent conditions that they might then have to face. There could be temporary arrangements, however. If those that were suggested had not been accepted, they could have been discussed. Other forms could have come up for consideration. As a matter of fact that was done with, and in respect of, the provinces that have made those agreements. The agreement made by the province of Ontario this year is not exactly the kind of agreement that was proposed in 1945, and the form it hasi taken in 1952 has been the result of consultation and negotiation between the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the premier of Ontario, who happened to be at the same time his own minister of finance.
There were provisions in the agreements made immediately after the war, as well as those made in 1951, which differed from the original agreements and which were the result of representations made by, and negotiations had with, the premier of Nova Scotia. It has always been a condition of each and every one of those agreements that no more favourable terms would be given to one provincial government than to the others,


and that such terms as were arrived at with one would be available to every one of the others. I have no doubt that there will be further discussion of this problem. These agreements that have been made are for a temporary period, and it may be that when that period ends the provincial governments, or some of them, will wish to have consideration given to modifications of those terms. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. gentleman, if he had the responsibilities which are mine at this time, could take the responsibility of recommending that there be any permanent abandonment of any of the constitutional taxing rights that belong to the federal government. There might be different temporary arrangements made, but I think-at least I would hope-the hon. gentleman would not take the responsibility of any permanent abandonment of any constitutional taxing rights which the fathers of confederation felt would be necessary for the security of this country, and which on two occasions it has been found were absolutely necessary for the security of this country.
The other matters dealt with by the hon. gentleman are not, I take it, criticisms of the ordinary civilian activities of the government, nor criticisms of the defence effort of the government, but rather criticisms of the so-called extravagances and inefficiency of the country's war effort and criticism of the high level of taxation. I believe, of course, that the implication was that when the moment arrives for the people of Canada to pass judgment upon the conduct of this government, they will come to the conclusion that if is time for a change, and that the change should be a change to the hon. gentleman and his friends as the advisers of the crown for the future period.
I think these are matters that are of great public interest and that deserve to be considered seriously. It seems to me there is no discussion and no controversy over the fact that the need for a great defence effort was demonstrated by the aggression which broke out in Korea in 1950. I think that practically the whole of the Canadian public was satisfied that the government should have acted promptly and is satisfied with the part the Canadian forces have taken in the joint effort of the United Nations to resist aggression in Korea. That effort has consisted of the continued action of three Canadian destroyers in Korean waters, on a rotation basis. It has consisted of the activities of the 25th infantry brigade which constitutes, and which from the time of its

formation has constituted, one-third of the fighting strength of the commonwealth division in that war theatre.
I think we also have reason to be satisfied with the part the R.C.A.F. played through 426 squadron in the transportation activities since July 1950. The planes of that squadron have made 434 round trips; have travelled over five million air miles, have carried over 5,250,000 pounds of cargo and mail and more than 10,000 passengers, including the members of the forces. They have been assisted by planes chartered from Canadian Pacific Air Lines, which performed 350 return trips. Those planes chartered from C.P.A. were passenger planes and carried no cargo, but they travelled something over 3,500,000 air miles and carried upwards of 17,000 passengers. Most of that was done by a plane about which there was much criticism some years ago, namely the North Star. We were all happy that these almost 9,000,000 miles of air travel were accomplished by those Canadian planes without any untoward incident whatsoever.
Of course it is true that we all feel and greatly deplore the price, in lives and in anxieties borne by their families, that is being paid by the presence of these men of ours on the fighting front in Korea in the part they are taking in preventing war. But that is an inevitable part of the price that has to be paid by free people who wish to remain free and who take pride and comfort in the fact that their young people appreciate the freedom under which they live to the degree that it makes them volunteer to run the risks they are obliged to run when, to uphold the institutions of this country, they go and take their chances for survival in foreign lands.
This aggression in Korea made it more necessary than we have perhaps realized to proceed as rapidly as possible with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I think we take some satisfaction in the fact that there are now six Sabre jet R.C.A.F. squadrons in England and Europe; that steady progress is being made to reach the final commitment of an air division of twelve squadrons; and that our 27th brigade group has now taken its place with NATO ground forces on the European continent. I think we have reason to be satisfied as well with the progress that is being made by our Royal Canadian Navy in co-ordinating its efforts with those of the United States Navy and the Royal Navy for the safety of the Atlantic should another war occur.
This defence effort of ours includes, as one of its parts, our mutual aid program. Hon. members know that Canada appropriated $670 million as a share of this co-operative effort and that, out of that appropriation,
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent armaments have already been provided for three divisions of our NATO allies, one in The Netherlands, one in Belgium and one in Italy. We have also provided aircraft and aircraft engines for members of the NATO organization, and air training for NATO crews in our own country.
When it is said that we have nothing to show for the sums that parliament has appropriated, we should not forget that the regular personnel of our services before Korea was 47,185 and that it has recently reached over 100,000. This is the largest number ever maintained, outside of war periods, by this young nation.
Our defence effort has also included our defence production; and altogether for the last two years the appropriations made by this parliament for the defence effort have been practically one-tenth of the gross national product of the whole Canadian people, that is to say one-tenth of the volume in dollar value of all the goods and services produced in Canada by the whole Canadian people. One-tenth of the gross national product has been channelled through the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production. Of course, every member of the government is responsible for what is being done by the defence departments but the principal burden of administering this one-tenth of the whole national production of the country has fallen upon the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). When one realizes that fact, one is perhaps not surprised that they should not take too much time off to reply, or have too much time for replying to criticism.
The general effect of this defence effort has been perhaps more apparent to outsiders that it has been to some of our friends on the other side of this house. I should just like to refer to a few examples of the appreciation of this defence effort shown outside of this house and sometimes outside of this country. For instance, the London Times of August 28 had an article dealing with the commonwealth division and headed "Success of a Unique Military Endeavour". I will not take time to read the whole article, but will content myself with reading just a few short lines.
Security forbids mention of the detailed composition of these brigades, but it is known that the Canadians are represented by the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Royal 22nd Regiment (known as the "Vandooz" because of their French-Canadian composition) , and Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, supported by gunners of the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and tanks of Lord Strathcona's Horse. These Canadians have seen plenty of action, and their performance has been unsurpassed.

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
Still dealing with Korea, the Montreal Star of September 17, 1952, reports:
United Nations commander attends club opening in Tokyo.
The United Nations commander in chief, General Mark W. Clark said today: "The Canadian soldiers in Korea have made a magnificent contribution." Clark formally opened the Canadian Maple Leaf Club, a recreational centre in downtown Tokyo, which is to be used by all allied enlisted men. "I wish to pay respects to the Canadian forces and their magnificent contributions to the United Nations forces in Korea," Clark said.
Vice-Admiral William Andrewes in Vancouver at the end of August paid tribute to the great and growing tradition of the Royal Canadian Navy:
I saw the Canadian tradition build in nine or ten months in Korea. A bit of it is ours, and that is good. Much of it is yours, and that is good, for every navy must build a tradition. Yet each soon came to be a separate entity. You knew each ship was different. But all three were splendid; all were first-class.
With respect to what has been going on in Europe, the NATO organizations, I find this in the Montreal Gazette of November 15:
Sixty miles from the East German frontier, the 27th Canadian infantry brigade is now completely operational, ready to move and fight within hours.
The commanding officer behind this achievement is Brigadier Geoffrey Walsh, C.B.E., D.S.O. of St. Catharines, Ontario. Within a year, a green army has been transformed into an operational fighting force.
Then he goes on to speak of the system of rotation which is applied and said:
"We have been praised so often it is becoming embarrassing." Brigadier Walsh denied that there was undue trouble with brigade discipline. "Of course, there were disturbances, but these have been exaggerated by certain sections of the press for political purposes," he said. "If the brigade were in Canada there would be just as much, if not more, trouble. The outbreaks at Edmonton and Kingston involving civilians and soldiers were larger than here, I am sure."
Hon. gentlemen probably saw in the Globe and Mail of November 10, an article by Benjamin Welles, New York Times service, dealing with the very efficient and exemplary way in which the R.C.A.F. have been able to settle down, co-operate with the local authorities and get their fields established.
Grostenquin, France, November 9. Quietly and efficiently the Canadians have developed the jet fighter base here in the past four months that will equal-in speed of construction, operational efficiency and living conditions for officers and men- any of the twenty-one other North Atlantic Treaty Organization air bases already built in France. This is the home of the alliance's first F-86-E Sabre jet fighter wing on the European continent, and all sixty of the Sabres here are Canadian built.
The progress being made here would be outstanding by any test.
The article goes on to describe how the personnel of the R.C.A.F., because of its ability to speak the language of the local

communities and its ability to adapt itself to local conditions, had succeeded in having all this done without any friction whatsoever. The article also goes on to point out that it might be well for the others interested there to take as an example the manner in which affairs had been conducted by the Canadian troops.
This I think is a tribute from one whom we know, whom we respect and who we know does not say what he does not believe to be absolutely correct. It is a report in the Winnipeg Free Press of November 12, 1952, entitled: "Tribute to Canada" and was written in the London Observer by Mr. Chester Wilmot, perhaps the most famous historian of world war II. He has this to say about the Canadian troops in Germany:
Lord Alexander told me last week that he regards the Rhine army "as the finest army Britain has ever had in peacetime" and he spoke with the same enthusiasm of the R.A.F. squadrons which provide the main strength of the second allied tactical air force. The most encouraging development of this year has been not the expansion of British strength-though this has been considerable, especially in the case of the R.A.F.-but its reinforcement by Belgian, Canadian, and Dutch contingents. The Canadian brigade group, though formed only last year, has no superior in the Rhine army.
I have here a report from the Ottawa Journal of November 8, 1952, of statements attributed to Air Marshal Curtis. He said:
"R.C.A.F. F-86 Sabres now are the only match for Soviet Mig-15s, although the United States air force will send Sabre squadrons in the near future. The R.C.A.F. is not just a token force, but is a major contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization far out of proportion to the men involved."
And these are not just words. Hon. gentlemen will remember this release that was made simultaneously in London, Washington and Canada on Sunday, November 2, about the arrangements that have been made for the NATO forces to have built in these Canadian shops the frames for from 300 to 400 of these F-86's. A lot of the engines will be provided by the United States government, but some of the electronics and engine parts as well as the airframes will be provided by Canada. R.A.F. airmen are receiving training under our Canadian scheme for use by the NATO forces in building up its strength. That is, we think, the indispensable bulwark against the outbreak of another world war.
These are achievements of substantial importance. It is not surprising, in view of the extent of the activities of the defence department and the Department of Defence Production, that ministers should have devoted more attention to attaining these achievements than to the minute details of administration. No one has suggested there has been anything

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
wrong in the general program. Much is made of the few regrettable incidents having to do with thefts which have occurred in camps, having to do with fires which have broken out in camps, and incidents of that nature. These are deplorable; but has anyone tried to hold the presidents of the banks responsible because the Boyd gang broke into and robbed the banks? Has anyone attempted to hold a high official of the Bank of Nova Scotia responsible because there is a report that that bank was successfully defrauded of the sum of $250,000 recently? These are things that, when they happen, have to be followed up diligently. Those who are guilty of misconduct have to be prosecuted and made to realize that such will not be tolerated. And that has been done.
The hon. gentleman says he has not heard anything about what has been done in connection with the thefts at the Petawawa camp. Well, he has not been reading the newspapers, because I have read about several convictions obtained against those who were guilty of these incidents at Petawawa. And I am under the impression that the prosecutions have been conducted with vigour and to a successful conclusion, and that that will continue to be the case. What is important however is the wrongdoing, when it does occur, should be followed up vigorously, so that those who are guilty of wrongdoing may be prosecuted.
Another matter about which much is being made is that of alleged extravagance in the amount of mobilization stores that have been purchased. They are considerable. I am not going to attempt to defend or even to deal with the individual items mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). It may very well be that it was, as was recognized, a mistake to order 64,000 serving forks. But that was brought to light; and when it was brought to light immediate action was taken in connection with the matter. I am very sure that had that been one of the things that had come across the minister's desk personally, the requisition for 64,000 serving forks would never have been approved.
Then the hon. member referred to boots. Well, I was concerned about boots. I made inquiries and was informed that it was necessary to have that quantity of boots available for the proper functioning of the commissariat of the army and of the reserve forces. I was shown the amount expended for clothing and stores in the defence department as a part of what was spent since 1949 for the maintenance of personnel in the forces, and I find it is just slightly over 5-2 per cent.
Well, out of curiosity I looked at the statistics issued by the dominion bureau of statistics and by the Bank of Canada, in which were set out the cost of living index and the consumer price index. I find both of those were made up on the assumption, in the case of the cost of living index, that 12 per cent of the expenditures of a family go toward clothing, while in the consumer price index 11 per cent has been taken as ample for clothing. Well, in the instance brought to our attention 5-2 per cent represents the total cost of clothing, and that kind of equipment, purchased for the armed forces.
It runs into large figures, of course. I do not know why over a million neckties were required. It may very well be that that was a mistake. But in 1950, when the Korean incident broke out, there were acute fears of a possible outbreak of war on a wider scale than persists today. The leader of the opposition says that the situation is just as tense, that international tension is just as great today; but he also says there is greater hope than there was before that there will not be a world war. That of course is true. We all remember, however, that at the time of the last world war there was great criticism levelled against the defence department because they did not have the stores required to properly clothe the men as rapidly as they were being enlisted under the conditions of emergency that then arose. It may well be that the officers in the requisitioning departments, having that in mind, did order more than the minister would have sanctioned, had it come to his attention, or that the deputy minister would have sanctioned had it come to his attention.
I think we are all not only happy but fortunate that a newspaper which is not usually oversympathetic toward the government should have found it proper to publish on August 27 this short article to which reference was made by the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) in his speech on Friday. Under the heading "Of This We Are Free" the Ottawa Journal of that date contains the following:
Speaking in New York before 36,000 members of the American Legion, General Eisenhower drew his biggest applause with this:
"Let us bend ourselves to end corruption in public office at every level of government. The United States is no better than its public officials. Pre-occupation with their own profit . . . undermines America's strength."
The writer in the Journal then goes on to say:
In a nation, as in an individual, the temper of the Pharisee is a poor thing. Yet, in thankful truth we here in Canada can say that no public man in this country needs to stand on a platform and say
40	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
about our government, our officials, of any of our public men, what General Eisenhower felt need of saying to the people of his country.
We Canadians have our failures in government and in other things. Yet when the last word of censure is spoken, when the litany of error is called, it still remains true, and the most cynical cannot deny, that corruption in our government is unknown. Within a generation we have fought two world wars, have expended billions, often with desperate haste. To the eternal credit of our public men no man in this country today dares to rise and say, or can say with truth, that a single cent of the billions spent was diverted to a private pocket from its proper channel.
For our democracy, whatever its shortcomings, that is a glory.
*Whatever its shortcomings, that is a glory; and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition agrees that we must be very cautious to seek out, to condemn and to eradicate any and every mistake that is exemplified by extravagance or waste. But let us together glory in the fact that, on the whole, our defence effort has been an effort worthy of the Canadian people, and one of which we can be justly proud.
Much of the criticism has been directed against the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). I was pleased to read in the Montreal Gazette of November 17, in an article which was intended to be critical of something the minister had done recently in reply to charges of poor morale in the Canadian forces overseas, statements such as this:
The direction and management of the Department of National Defence are bound to come under criticism. This is by no means to condemn Mr. Claxton's many valuable efforts and services. Canada has few public servants who devote themselves to their duties with greater vigour or constancy. The difficulty lies in a certain tendency on Mr. Claxton's part to uphold the defence department as something beyond censure or reproach.
They go on to say:
No doubt these inclinations on the part of the Minister of National Defence are largely unintentional and even unconscious. He himself is probably unaware either of these inclinations or of their consequences. And they are no less unfortunate because they tend to diminish public appreciation of his unquestioned achievements as a devoted and able administrator.
It may be that my colleague is sometimes oversensitive with respect to the criticism that is levelled against some of the activities of those who are in his department and for whom he has constitutional responsibility to this house. But I think on the Whole we are happy that the situation in that department is such that the head of the department would be sensitive about any criticism levelled against it. That does not mean we should not pay attention to the criticism, that we should not do our best to see that what is underneath it disappears and in that way do away with the occasion for criticism.
IMr. St. Laurent.)

That is why we want the defence expenditures committee set up. Hon. members will have found a notice in my name on today's order paper which will be called in due course. We want it set up. We are all anxious, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) possibly more so than any of the rest of us, to be sure that there is no waste because the Minister of National Defence, together with his colleague the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), carries a tremendous responsibility with respect to the proper channelling of one-tenth of the total production of the Canadian nation in the course of a year. That is a tremendous responsibility and one with respect to which I am sure the Minister of National Defence wishes to see continued such tributes as I find in this critical article in the Montreal Gazette of November 17 last.
So far as defence production is concerned, I do not think I need to say very much. I was one of those who attended the launching of two ships and the handing over of three guns at Sorel to the United States and- Canadian forces on the 14th of June last. I was much impressed by what I saw there on that occasion. I was also much impressed by the comments I heard from the United States procurement and naval officers who were present, who saw what was being done and how it was being done in that particular munitions plant. Quite frankly, we all would be happier if it was not necessary for mutual aid to be extended to our associates in the NATO organization, but since it has to be extended I think there is some occasion for us to be proud that it is here in our Canadian shops that the NATO organization wishes to have the F-86 fighter planes produced for the principal fighting element of that organization now being built up in Europe.
In numerous other fields there are frequent striking examples of the importance being attached by our allies in NATO to the part this young nation is able to play in building up this joint strength. The hon. gentleman said there was a reference in the speech from the throne to a lessening somewhat of the dangers of war on a world-wide scale. He added that several newspapers had made comments about that statement in the speech from the throne which he felt it might be wise to correct. His speech implied, and I agree with him, that we should not be complacent about the present situation, but I do not think there is anything in the language used which would induce anyone to be complacent. Here is what was said:
You resume your labours on behalf of the Canadian people at a time of continuing international tension. Nevertheless, because of the steadfast

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent
resistance of our Canadian forces and their comrades in arms to aggression in Korea and because of the increasing strength of the forces of freedom in Europe, there are signs of a lessening of the danger of an outbreak of war on a global scale. My ministers are convinced that a lasting peace can be assured only so long as the combined strength of the free world continues to be built up and maintained.
It never was intended to imply that it was possible to lessen our efforts to build up and maintain the combined forces of the free nations in Europe. I do not want to pose as a military expert, but as a Canadian citizen I do not feel that there are sufficient allied forces on the continent of Europe at this time to resist aggression from the Soviet forces. I feel quite convinced that that strength has to continue to be built up and will then have to be maintained as an insurance premium against the possible outbreak of war in that important section of the free world.
Another matter with which the hon. gentleman dealt, and which I feel I must discuss at some length, is the pretended overtaxation.
I noted one expression he used which I am sure is not exactly what he had in mind. He said that the people were being overtaxed far above the amount authorized by parliament. The hon. gentleman knows, as we all do, that parliament does not authorize any amount of taxation. Parliament authorizes certain amounts of expenditure and then parliament authorizes certain rates of taxation. Those rates of taxation apply to the basis that is forecast. When they have been authorized, if the economic activity of the nation is greater than had been estimated those rates produce an amount larger than they had been intended to produce when the lesser estimate of the economic activity was made. The converse is also true, as has been frequently pointed out by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). I remember one occasion when the hon. member had misgivings about the prospects. He was glad to see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was so optimistic, but he was not satisfied that his optimism was quite justified and was much concerned about what would happen if instead of there being an increase in the gross national product there was a slight recession.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: That was a good many years ago.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Address-Mr. St. Laurent but it passed the city editor and it got into the paper. It was entitled "Canadian Economy praised by Federal Reserve Bank":
Confidence in Canadian economy has been greatly strengthened by the general success of the dominion government's fiscal and monetary policies according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Commenting on the Canadian scene in its monthly review, issued today, the bank notes that the economy's balance has been maintained despite the strong expansion pressures generated by the Korean war, the Canadian defence program and the swift pace of economic development.
They go on:
Canada's tax program, the bank points out, was designed not merely to keep the over-all budget in surplus, but also to provide additional revenue in a manner specifically calculated to dampen inflation . . .
"Government policies have fostered rapid economic development in Canada," the bank concludes. "During the past two years, of course, when defence requirements and inflationary pressures have placed critical strains upon the economy, official policies have attempted to channel the continuing expansion in industry and primary production into 'more essential' lines. But many factors suggest that Canada may be moving toward new horizons in a general economic atmosphere conducive to enterprise and individual initiative."
On the following day, inspired probably by this statement of the Federal Reserve Bank, we find in the New York Times:
A Lesson from Canada
Like most other countries, Canada experienced an inflationary expansion following the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. In consequence, wholesale prices rose from 206-6 per cent of the 1935-39 average to 242-3, or by about 17 per cent, while the cost of living climbed from 164-5 to 190-9, or only 16 per cent. But the upswing of wholesale prices was halted in the second quarter of 1951 and the rise in living costs had reached its peak by the fourth quarter of last year.
They go on and give certain details.
What makes the Canadian record the more impressive ... is the manner in which it was achieved. The government's policy, in the words of Finance Minister Abbott, was "designed to guide the economy in the right direction without dictating the details of economic activity." In other words, the nation steered clear completely of price-wage controls, and all direct interference with the individual's affairs, relying upon increased taxes (direct and indirect), the stern regulation of consumer credit, a voluntary credit restriction plan, and an anti-inflationary policy of debt management.
The strictly economic approach to the inflation problem by Canada is typically exemplified in its policy in the field of taxation ... it has sought to maintain a good balance between taxes on earnings and taxes on spending . . . Canada has also had the wisdom to see that, except in time of war, any value that an excessive profits tax might represent is-
-destroyed by the effect it has on incentive.
I do not think that there has been any mismanagement of the Canadian economy, and I do not think there has been any overtaxation as the hon. gentleman seemed to imply in his remarks this afternoon.
For comparison, I had looked up the budgets presented by the hon. gentleman when he was leader of the government of Ontario. I find that, in a comparable period, the amount realized from his taxation policies was something over 15 per cent above the expected, while the amounts realized by the dominion government, over and above those expected, have been something of the order of 11 per cent. I am not bringing this out as a reproach. I am just pointing out that where the same constitutional system prevails the legislatures determine, on the forecasts submitted to them, the rates required to raise the sums they have appropriated and authorized to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. Fortunately for the hon. gentleman while he was premier of Ontario, and fortunately for us, the optimism-even the optimism that has been sometimes looked upon by the more prudent as excessive-turns out frequently to be more than justified by the buoyancy and resiliency of our Canadian economy. Certainly that is nothing for which we have any reason to apologize or to be sorry.
It must, of course, make us more careful, especially when we realize -that there must be elections from time to time. No government likes to impose more taxes than are required. That is something about which we are concerned, not because we are power hungry or anxious to remain in office-I might as well be frank and confess it-but because we have sufficient conceit that we believe we are able to give better government than the alternative would give. I shall not apologize for that conceit because I am quite convinced that my hon. friend has the reverse conceit quite as firmly as we have ours. That being so, we are always concerned with keeping taxation at the lowest level that is possible in view of the services which have to be provided.
I made a note of the hon. gentleman's statement. No one in this country seriously contends that any of these services that have been instituted over the last few years should be eliminated. On the contrary, there are many who contend we have not gone far enough and that we should increase taxation on the Canadian people to be in a position to render further social services that have not yet been undertaken. I am sorry I am taking so much of the time of the house, but 1 had prepared some notes on the kind of budget that we would naturally expect from the hon. gentleman if, in the near future, he had the responsibility of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott).

There are some items that have been severely criticized, but they do not amount to very substantial sums. We have heard a lot about possible savings that might be made in the administration of these social services. I was glad to see that the hon. gentleman himself was shying away from the $500 million that had been mentioned as a possible saving resulting from a commission such as the Hoover commission being set up in Canada. The whole amount to which such a commission of inquiry would apply is something of the order of $621 million. It would be rather difficult, therefore, to squeeze $500 million out of that. I submit it would be difficult to squeeze $100 million out of it, unless some of these services were going to be eliminated. One thing that has been severely criticized by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) is the film board. Even if you cut that out altogether, all you would save would be $3 million.


Mr. Fraser:: I never said to cut it out.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is just the point; when you get down to something specific you would be glad if it did not cost so much but you would not cut it out.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I said to just clean it up.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Even if you did, all you would save would be $3 million. A lot of criticism has been levelled against the government because of the tremendous extravagance in travelling expenses. Well, they are large and amount, I think, to about $46-5 million. You could not cut that out without leaving in Korea the troops we have there, without doing away with the rotation system; and I am sure no hon. gentleman would want to do away with the rotation system for the men who have served and who are serving in Korea. If travelling expenses were eliminated you would have to keep the members of parliament here all the time. No one would want to do that. You would have to eliminate everything that is expended on foreign representation abroad. I believe the international situation is such that no one would want to do that. They want it done properly, but they want it done with due regard to proper economy. They do not want to cut it out.
Even if we cut it out, even if we cut out all the expenditures incurred for the so-called publicity, we would hardly arrive at $100 million. On the other hand, if you took into account only some of the things that the hon. gentleman has seriously recommended should be done-I have them here and I shall give the details following the dinner recess- they amount to something over $600 million.
68108-4J
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent I believe the hon. gentleman would have rather serious qualms about balancing the ones against the others.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess for dinner I was endeavouring to give some sympathetic consideration to the difficulties which the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) might have to face if, in the near future, he had to present the budget to this house. I had first of all tried to find what items of expenditure it might be possible for him to compress. I had been guided in that search by the amount of criticism that had been directed against certain of the activities this government has carried on while in office. There has been much criticism of the film board; but even the elimination of everything connected with the film board could account for only $3 million. Then I had also mentioned criticism of the cost of travelling, removal expenses and so forth, which amount to $46,500,000 but which, of course, could not be entirely eliminated because it would be impossible for the administration to function at all if a substantial portion of these expenditures were not continued in effect.
Another chapter of our activity that has come under fairly severe criticism from time to time is the C.B.C. But even if all government activities in connection with the C.B.C. were eliminated, all that could account for in reduction of expenditure would be $8,250,000. Another item that I had set down was the elimination, for instance, of 10 per cent of the civil servants, mainly in the Ottawa area. That would be a considerable slice of the administrative work which it is suggested is not carried on with sufficient regard to proper economy. That might make an item of $41,500,000.
Another item which has been frequently criticized as being nothing but government propaganda is the expenditure incurred in respect of publicity, personal relations advertising, amounting to $17,500,000.
Altogether these items would make a total of $116,750,000. I am sure the hon. gentleman would not find it possible to eliminate all of these items. I think he would have considerable embarrassment in making any substantial reduction in them. For instance, the elimination of government activities in radio broadcasting would be a reversal of what has been the policy of his party from

The Address-Mr. St. Laurent the start for, as Mr. Bennett said here when he was dealing with this matter, if there were not public control of radio broadcasting it would mean that there would be no Canadian radio activities at all; and that would mean that quite a large number of our artists would have to find employment in other countries or turn to other fields of activity.
But be that as it may, anything that the hon. gentleman might find it possible to squeeze out of these items would be many times offset by the additions that he would have to consider making in the expenditures of government if we are to take seriously the policies that have been propounded, both outside of this house and inside it, by the members of his party. For instance, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), in the foreign policy debate last March, was desirous that there be at least $25 million added to the appropriation for the Colombo plan. That is something which I am sure he would press fairly strongly upon his colleagues.


Gordon Graydon: Might I ask the Prime Minister to read what I said on that occasion? There was more to it than that.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: The hon. member will find it in Hansard of March 21, 1952, at page 677.


Gordon Graydon: I can find it. I would ask the Prime Minister to read it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: It is suggested that it might be arrived at by economies in other items of expenditure.


Gordon Graydon: That is exactly what I have said.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I have endeavoured to
deal with the other items of expenditure where economies might be made, and I have allowed not only what might be a reasonable proportion of them but rather the items entirely. The hon. member said, as reported at page 677 of Hansard of March 21, 1952:
I have no doubt that If the minister were to go through the various departments and comb out all unnecessary expenditures, we could give another $25 million to India without scarcely requiring even another vote by parliament.


George Alexander Drew: That is right.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: The next item to which I wish to refer is the $200 million which the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) is reported in the Globe and Mail of March 28 as having urged in cash and food


for Britain. I will admit that the hon. gentleman might not have to include that item in his budget because I understand that, since that time, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has realized-


George Alexander Drew: I would ask the Prime
Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Even though this material may be prepared by someone else, I would ask the Prime Minister to stick to the facts. He knows perfectly well that never at any time have I advocated any different course than that which I advocate at present.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is there a change of leaders again?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not think I suggested that the Leader of the Opposition would take any different course. I understood that the hon. gentleman was still, and had been even on March 28, the leader of the opposition, and that he was not the hon. member for Lake Centre. I was pointing out that the hon. member for Lake Centre had recommended this course. I was saying that perhaps the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) would not find that he had to implement that recommendation, because I have since read in the papers that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) had said that what was wished for in the United Kingdom, and what should be recommended, was not aid but trade.


George Alexander Drew: Quite.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: However, this was the recommendation of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who is a prominent member of the official opposition.


Mr. Hees:: You are now getting Pickersgill, chapter II, page 1.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall have an opportunity of dealing with the hon. member who has just interrupted, if he will wait until I get to him, in the usual order in which we deal with these hon. members.
Another matter the hon. gentlemen would have to consider is the recommendation which was made by the Montreal district annual meeting of Progressive Conservatives the other day in Montreal.


Gordon Graydon: Pickersgill could not have been there, sir.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know why it is that the name of Mr. Pickersgill is recurring so often in the interruptions that come from the other side. I have received very valuable assistance from Mr. Pickersgill-


George Harris Hees: Hear, hear.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: -since I have been in office. It is quite apparent from the mood of the hon. gentlemen that they resent the fact that I got valuable aid from any source whatsoever.


George Harris Hees: Very necessary.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because it seems to be an obsession with them that Mr. Pickersgill was my assistant and did act as such until such time as he became the clerk of the privy council.


George Alexander Drew: Still is.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have no regrets whatsoever as to the assistance I had from him during that period. I think quite frankly that it has been of value not only to me but to all those to whom I had responsibility in the discharge of the duties which had been placed upon my shoulders. I am now going to use assistance that has been supplied to me by the Montreal Gazette. That may be a source less susceptible to suspicion by gentlemen on the other side.


Gordon Graydon: Stick close to them and you will be all right.


Mr. Croll:: They have not done you any good.


Gordon Graydon: Don't blame the Gazette for that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Gazette reported the resolutions adopted by this annual meeting of the Montreal district Progressive Conservatives. Among them was a resolution favouring the extension of family allowances to school children up to the age of 18. On the assumption that Canadian children up to that age would be eligible, this would involve an expenditure of $63 million a year-quite a substantial item, and one that I think the hon. gentleman would feel that he would be required to consider.
Another item which I think has been given approval by the official opposition in its attitudes and votes in this house is the deduction from income for taxation purposes of all medical expenses. This would mean an item of some $48 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Everybody voted for that the first time.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: If everybody voted for it, the hon. gentleman would perhaps find that an additional reason for including such a provision in the budget that he would be responsible for recommending; but it would be nevertheless an item of $48 million.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would be reduction of taxation, not increased expenditure.
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It would be a reduction in income tax received, but the effect on the consolidated revenue would be just the same. It would be $48 million that would have to be found in some other way to take care of the requirements.
Another item recommended by the hon. member for Lake Centre which has perhaps not received such unanimous approval yet, but which has been commented upon with favour by several of his colleagues, is federal aid to education. No specific figure was placed upon that, but on the assumption that there might be a grant of even $5 per man, woman and child, that would run into an amount of about some $70 million. Whether or not that would be considered by the hon. gentleman,
I do not know. Whether or not it would be recommended, I do not know; but it is an item of some substance.
Another item recommended by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) in a speech in this house is assistance for disabled workers. I am sure he would press that very strongly for consideration by a minister of finance of his party. On the basis of $40 a month for approximately 150,000 it would amount to a sum of $72 million. That, I am sure, is an item that he would want to have considered seriously as an additional service for the Canadian public. No one disputes that it would be desirable, if it is a thing that the taxpayers want to pay for. But they cannot have it both ways. It cannot be allocated and remitted to the disabled persons unless it is raised from the taxpayers of the whole community.
Another item on which the leader of the opposition has taken a positive stand in this house is the reduction in the age at which the old age pension would be paid from 70 to 65. I have the reference here, but I think we all remember that that was the attitude taken by the hon. gentleman and many of his followers both in this house and outside. Well, that would mean an increase of $194 million in the amounts required for old age pensions.


George Alexander Drew: From where do these figures come?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: From the statistical information we have of the age groups of the Canadian people, because the hon. gentleman was specific in saying that he wished that reduction to be made in the non-means-test old age pensioners.


George Alexander Drew: Is that the total figure?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The figure is $194 million for the age group between 65 and 70.


George Alexander Drew: Is that the total figure?
46	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Harris Hees: I wonder whether I could make a correction in the figure that was given?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If I gave a wrong figure-


Mr. Speaker:: With the consent of the Prime Minister, the hon. member may ask a question, but it can be only a question.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: I would like to ask the Prime Minister where he got the figure of $72 million as the cost of pensions to those who would be completely disabled. The figure I have is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Answering the question, it is by the multiplication of the number of months in the year by the factor of forty dollars.


George Alexander Drew: We want to know if it is statistics or figures.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I can assure the hon. member that I am making the speech-not Mr. Pickersgill-and I am making it, without reading it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -from notes I prepared on material that was available to the whole public.


An hon. Member:: Give it to him again.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not suggesting that all these items would be included in the expenditures that the hon. member would recommend, but these are some of the items to which considerable importance has been attached by members of the hon. gentleman's party; and there are others.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) has made recommendations in the house for further benefits to veterans, benefits that would be very desirable but which would involve additional expenditures to which I am sure the minister of finance in his party would be giving careful consideration. But, in the result, I am sure the hon. member would find it very difficult, with the experience and sterling business integrity for which he is known, to recommend any diminution in the level of taxation unless he were prepared to recommend that deficits be incurred at this juncture in our economic affairs.
I do not think he would wish to recommend deficits; and, if he did not, I fail to see how he would avoid many increases in

the conference may be expected to last, but I can assure hon. members that I shall lose no time in returning to my place in parliament just as soon as it is over.
The Minister of Finance and I are going to London with the hope that some progress can be made in the direction of widening opportunities for trade both within the commonwealth and between commonwealth countries and other nations. But I think it would be wrong to give the impression that a conference of commonwealth representatives, however valuable it may be as a preliminary -and it will be valuable-can by itself solve the problem of making sterling convertible or, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has put it, of removing the roadblocks in the way of trade. That is not only my personal view. If I may refer again for a moment to Mr. Eden's speech here in Ottawa I find that he had this to say:
We realize of course that there is no final solution to some of these problems which we shall have to discuss in London, except on a world basis.
Yet by our Joint efforts we believe we can inspire the message and expand the contribution which the commonwealth can make to the economic life of the free world.
I am sure we all join in that view and that hope. I also feel sure that we join in the confidence in the future of Britain expressed
by Mr. Eden in that same speech:
I know there are some who believe that the contribution we can make to the modern world is a declining one. I do not accept that for one instant. On the contrary, I am convinced that the leadership and experience we have to give can be as decisive in shaping world events as at any time in our long history.
I am sure it is with that hope and that confidence that we are going to join them in the search for ways to remove the roadblock which prevents the resumption of world trade, because I think we share the views and hopes that it may not be too optimistic to feel that the western world will so rearrange trading that the great nations of the east will feel that it is to their advantage to remain with us and help us maintain the standards of freedom for mankind throughout the whole world.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in the hope that we may make every preparation for Her Majesty's coronation and that her reign thereafter will be a very long and happy one.
I also want to join the Prime Minister in expressing pleasure at seeing the new members in the house and to say to them that I

hope their time in parliament will be useful and enjoyable and that we shall have very pleasant relations with them.
One other thing I would like to do-because sometimes I have found it necessary to criticize the policies of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson)-is to express on behalf of the C.C.F. group in the house and myself our congratulations to him upon having been elevated to the very high office of president of the United Nations assembly. I feel that is not only a recognition of the service he has rendered to the assembly in the past but is a recognition too of the place Canada holds in the assembly of the United Nations. I only wish that the United Nations could look forward in the next few weeks to settling this very grave problem of Korea.
I had hoped that over the week end agreement would have been reached, at least among the democratic nations, for support of the Indian resolution, but that apparently has not been possible. The United States apparently would not agree to it, and I was very sorry to hear over the radio tonight that the Russian delegation had denounced the proposal also. Consequently it is very difficult to see how those of us who are between those two great giants can exercise that influence which is so necessary in order to bring about an end of the war in Korea, since the United Nations has achieved the end it originally had in view-namely driving the aggressors back where they came from-and is now endeavouring to settle by cease fire an armistice and, we hope, the peace. It is very, very difficult to see tonight what the next step will be. I think we must all hope and pray that a speedy end will be brought to this conflict in the Far East and that the war will not spread any farther.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) leave tomorrow for the commonwealth economic conference in London. I am sure everyone in this house hopes that the results of that conference will be beneficial not only to the commonwealth nations, not only to Canada, but indeed to the world at large; because upon the prosperity of the commonwealth depends very largely the prosperity of the democratic world, and certainly the prosperity of our owi country.
Watching the statements that have been made from time to time from Ottawa I have been rather alarmed at the attitude the newspapers convey to us that the government might adopt. I was very glad to hear the statement the Prime Minister made tonight in that regard. After all, we in Canada have a somewhat special responsibility in this conference because we happen to be the only so-called dollar country to be present. We
The Address-Mr. Coldwell hear a great deal about the necessity for convertibility of the dollar; but the point about which I sometimes think we are under many illusions, when we talk about the convertibility of the dollar, is that it is not a question so much of exchange of money as of exchange of commodities. It is really not a money problem at all; it is a commodity problem at its base. The sterling area has been spending, and must continue to spend because of necessity, far more in the dollar countries than they have been able to earn. I think that is the crux of the problem; and this lack of balance in expenditures and receipts has precipitated a very serious disruption affecting nations carrying on about half the trade of the world. I refer of course to the sterling area and our own country.
As was earlier pointed out very briefly, this has been very largely aggravated by the loss of sterling assets during the war. The sterling area, and particularly the United Kingdom, disposed of its overseas assets during the war, turning them into cash that they could use for the common war effort. The result is that today Britain no longer is able to use those great inflows from overseas to balance her accounts with the rest of the world and particularly with the United States and Canada.
There has been, according to press reports from the United States and also in this country, some disposition to criticize the domestic policies of the United Kingdom and other sterling countries. I think that rather we should indulge at the moment in some selfexamination of our own trading policies and economic policies in North America. Indeed it seems to me that even cursory examination of the trading positions of our nations will to some extent give us an answer to this problem.
Incidentally, over the years we have tried to draw attention to the matter. Sometimes, when the Labour government was in power, I know there were those who thought we were prompted by some ideological friendship with that government. I may say that we have been equally insistent since there was a change of government in the United Kingdom. We believe that, regardless of whatever view the government in power in the United Kingdom may have ideologically, that does not alter the true economic effects of the situation which is faced by the sterling countries and ourselves. So we have been none the less outspoken on these matters since there was a change of government in the United Kingdom.
As I said a moment ago, this lack of balance in our dollar-sterling trade relationships which would have to be discussed at the conference is not just a question of the welfare

50	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Coldwell of the sterling area. It is a question, indeed, of our own continued Canadian prosperity. If we look for a moment to see what has happened since the war to some of our trading relationships with the United Kingdom- the largest sterling country-we find that we have indeed, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) pointed out, tried to increase our trade with her, but always we have exported to her far more than we have been willing or able to import from her. In 1946, for example, our exports to Britain were nearly three times as great as our imports. In 1947 our exports were nearly four times as great as our imports; in 1948, they were over twice as much and in 1949 about twice as much. In 1950 we came the nearest to striking a balance, largely because of the curtailment of dollar purchases by the United Kingdom. In 1951 that curtailment by Great Britain continued but our imports from the United States increased, again to Britain's export disadvantage. In other words there was a substantial increase.
Now, it is argued that this trading position had been normal throughout the years. To some extent that is true. Before the war, with the assets I have already mentioned, Great Britain was able to buy from us, we shall say, twice as much as she sold to us, and we were able to buy from the United States twice as much as we sold to that country. Thus the balance was made up because of the overseas assets and the inflow to Great Britain from those assets. But the post-war change in the assets of the United Kingdom and the other sterling countries- I am including Holland and other countries which had a somewhat similar experience and either lost assets or overseas areas which they formerly controlled-changed the picture almost completely.
I should like to say that in our opinion, both at the commonwealth conference and generally in our trade relations, we can only regard trade as a matter for great co-operative effort. In other words, we sell in order to buy, and nations must buy where they sell. There is a danger, of course, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) pointed out in his speech that was quoted by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, that our mounting surplus of some commodities, particularly wheat, and the curtailment of the export of some other commodities which the Prime Minister mentioned a few moments ago, will gravely affect Canada in the long run. As to the present outlook for wheat, we all know that the world needs every kernel of it. The difficulty is, how is the world going to pay for it? I think the answer to that question is that the world can only pay for it by our
fMr. Coldwell.]
taking goods or by our making loans or by our accepting sterling and making investments in the sterling area.
It is said, of course, that in order to replace these normal markets, as I call them, that we had in the past, we have been able to find new markets in the United States. It is true that before the war, as I have already pointed out, we traded very largely with the United Kingdom and the United States. Since the war a great deal of our trade has been diverted, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will probably say of necessity, to the United States. In other words, whether or not we have had to, we have placed more and more of our trading eggs in the one basket.
For a moment I want to look at the figures from the United States, and these are from the official reports just as the Prime Minister's figures were this evening. Recent figures from the United States for 1950 show that United States imports into Canada were five times as great as those from the United Kingdom. In 1951 they were at a still greater ratio, of six to one. Our exports, taken over the long-term picture, showed a somewhat similar change. In 1950 we exported four times as much to the United States as we did to the United Kingdom, and the 1951 figures show over three times as much.
It may be said that this rather discounts my argument, but if we look at the picture still more closely we realize that in the past our economic health did not depend on exports to the United States but rather on those to the United Kingdom. We believe that if we are to maintain a healthy economic life in this country in the future, then we must not place so much reliance on trade with the United States as we have been doing in the immediate past. The reason, of course, is very simple. As was pointed out this afternoon, the United States is so largely competitive with Canada in her production. She produces the same commodities that we produce, particularly in agriculture, although more and more as the days go by Canadian industry is so greatly expanding its production that we are competitive industrially as well in many respects. Indeed, many of the corporations that are operating as Canadian companies in Canada are in reality United States companies who, from time to time, seek tariff protection from the parent organizations in the United States.
I was interested a few days ago to read a statement in the Montreal Gazette by the president of one of our Canadian chartered banks. I am not going to quote the statement because it is somewhat lengthy. I am going to summarize it, and I think I am doing

so quite correctly. Mr. H. A. Stevenson of the Canadian Barclays Bank noted that in this year, that is 1952 to date, that is to last week, our imports from the United States had increased from 69 per cent last year to 74-5 per cent, while our exports to the United States had dropped from 62 per cent to 53 per cent. In other words, what this showed was that we were buying more from the United States and now we are selling less to her while from the overseas countries we are buying less and selling more proportionately. This could, of course, lead to a decline in our total trade if it were accompanied by a lessening of defence buying, and that in turn could cause a serious disruption or even a recession in the Canadian economy.
May I add that this danger might become still more apparent if the new administration in the United StateS should revert to the type of policies the Republican administration adopted in the years before the 1930's. Looking over the cabinet appointments that have been announced, it seems certain that there will be at least a more conservative -spelled with a small "c"-business-dominated cabinet responsible for the economic and social policies of our great neighbour to the south than we have had for some years. Even under the much more liberal-again spelled with a small "1"-administration of Mr. Truman, we have been reminded of the dangers of depending on the United States markets. Indeed, in direct contravention of the general agreement on tariffs and trade made at Geneva, which we both signed and which we carried out to the letter, I believe, the United States restricted imports of fats, oils and dairy products, particularly cheese, coming from this and some other countries. We protested against what was done, but our protest did not meet with any significant results. Thus we have been warned that our future is in danger if we place too much reliance upon the unpredictable United States market. Hence I say to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance that we should re-examine our trade policies with the overseas countries at this conference in London and try to regain what in the past have been our stable markets.
I think this means something else. I think this means that Canada must do something. This means that our trade and tariff policies must be designed to assist non-dollar countries to export more goods in order to earn more dollars to pay for their purchases here. Let me say, as I said at the very outset, that I believe this is the crux of the dollar-sterling convertibility problem. There is no other solution of a permanent nature although, as I have already suggested, there may be some temporary expedients. We may make
The Address-Mr. Coldwell loans and we may make investments in the sterling areas, but I would regard those as only temporary expedients and would say that the only way to solve the problem is to increase our exchange of goods with those countries.
It is perfectly obvious that when we use exclusively monetary terms, as we so often do, we obscure the real facts; because the real facts today necessitate an exchange of goods in order to bring about convertibility. It would indeed be unfortunate if in any way, at the conference in London next week, Canada adopted either a negative position or merely the position of an interested observer. From what the Prime Minister said I do not think that will be done, and I sincerely hope not.
I was going to say more about this matter, but I think tonight I should like to deal more particularly with another matter which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in his amendment, namely a proposed national health plan. I think the reference in the speech from the throne will have caused considerable disappointment to a large number of Canadians who hoped that at long last we would get, at this session, legislation that would bring to the Canadian people a national health plan. I noted that the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, I think unfairly, made the statement that the countries with socialized medicine were communist countries. I do not know. I have never been in a communist country. I have read that they have-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct that statement immediately. I said they had state medicine in Russia, that they had state medicine in communist countries and that they also had state medicine in some countries that were strongly opposed to communism.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is right in correcting me in that respect. I recall now that that is exactly what he did say. But the emphasis was on the fact that the communist countries had this state medicine while the democratic countries also had it; but to my mind at least it seemed to convey the impression that they came afterwards and not before. As a matter of fact, in the democratic area there are many countries which have had national health plans for a great number of years. There are Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, and of course more recently the United Kingdom. Indeed, there are only three of what I might call the major democratic countries which are without some national health plan. Those three are the United States, Canada and Australia; and even in the Commonwealth of Australia there
52	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Coldwell is a hospitalization plan and certain prescriptions are provided for the population.
It was also stated that a good many people regretted that the United Kingdom had put a national health plan into effect in that country. That is not what I learned. I had the privilege, for a couple or three weeks, of travelling with a group of parliamentarians from all over the commonwealth. Many things were discussed. One of them which I made it my business to discuss was the success or failure of national health plans, because I was greatly interested in them. I found that it did not matter with whom I talked, or with what political party from the United Kingdom I talked, there was general agreement that while there might have been some defects in the plan when originally introduced, it was today not only the most popular piece of legislation in the British Isles, but was the most beneficial one. I remember distinctly that a unionist member travelling with us made the statement that it was having a profound effect on the people of southern Ireland because of the great benefits that family allowances and the national health plan were bringing to the people of northern Ireland. In spite of all the criticism that has been made of the plan in the United Kingdom, it is noteworthy that no political party and no members of parliament are prepared in any way to overthrow the national health plan even though they are prepared to abolish some of the other plans and legislation which the Labour government put into effect when it was in office in Great Britain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the hon. member consider it to be state medicine?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes; I consider it to be the kind of national health program that we would have in the future. I will develop the idea of a national health plan a little more fully in a few moments, and I think that will answer the question that has been asked.
In our own country for many years organizations have been asking for this plan. Indeed, the party now in power in this parliament, namely the Liberal party, was pledged to introduce a national health plan as long ago as 1919. That is 33 years ago. Today it was said that we should have another investigation. If we brought into the house all the volumes dealing with investigations and reports that have been made in this country into this problem of health in the last 33 years, I would not be able to see over my desk if I were sitting down. I am sure the volumes would be more than three to four feet high. Indeed, in my office at the present time I have enough that, if I piled them up here, they would be between two and three feet high. I refer to reports of surveys, reports' of committees, reports of


inquiries and reports of investigations in this country into a national health plan. Indeed, if we look at the record even in 1945, the proposals of the government of Canada submitted to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction in August, 1945, at page 29 we find this:
In both federal and provincial circles, health insurance has been under active consideration since the last war.
I continue:
In 1941, the Minister of Pensions and National Health called a meeting of the dominion council of health and other interested agencies to study the question. In 1942 the government appointed an advisory committee on health insurance. In 1943 the House of Commons appointed a committee on social security. To this committee, the advisory committee on health insurance made a report on the 16th of March, 1943. Widespread discussion occurred on the part of interested organizations and individuals. The Canadian Public Health Association in June, 1942, the general council of the Canadian Medical Association in January, 1943, and numerous farm, labour and other organizations passed resolutions approving in principle of health insurance.
I am not saying that they approved the national health plan, but they approved in principle of health insurance. The report continues:
Included in the report of the advisory committee was a draft bill providing for health insurance on a nation-wide basis. This was to be administered by a commission to be established under provincial legislation to be enacted by each province.
May I adJ that a bill was printed by the king's printer, I think improperly under the circumstances, for it was never introduced in the house. It was circulated, though, among candidates of the Liberal party in some parts of this country in 1945, and was shown to audiences as the bill which the government was prepared to enact if it were re-elected. Well, that was the last we saw of that printed bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It did its
work.


Major James William Coldwell: It did its work, yes. Of course, it has done its work on a number of occasions, both before and since. May I say to the hon. member for Greenwood that, probably it did the same kind of work that, the clause in the amendment of the loyal opposition is supposed to do on this occasion,, exactly the same.
If we go back a little further we find that, a committee of the House of Commons was instructed in 1928 to investigate and report on the subject of health insurance for Canada.. As I have already indicated, this was indeed the first of a long line of committees. What did it do? It recommended that a survey be: made. And surveys have been made, I might, add, almost continuously ever since.

In 1942, as I have indicated, the federal government set up an advisory committee on health insurance to make another study. That was stated in the proposals to the dominion-provincial conference. A year later that committee issued a report. It was 500 pages long. It dealt with every aspect of health insurance and, as I said, actually drafted a bill.
Further studies have been made almost continuously ever since. In fact on December 29, 1945, the government organized a special directorate of the department of health called the directorate of health insurance studies. This directorate has been functioning continuously ever since that time, a matter of seven years. Among other things, its function has been to study and analyse the health insurance legislation of other countries and the planning of legislation for our own country. In order to show that this has been an earnest effort on the part of this departmental organization, 1 find that the government has spent over a quarter of a million dollars on this directorate since it was set up seven years ago. In addition, the federal government has authorized the spending of approximately $650,000 in grants for other surveys. In its proposals to the federal-provincial conference of 1945 the federal government estimated the cost of a comprehensive plan at that time at $250 million a year.
This of course was on the basis of prices as they were at that time and with the population as it was in 1941, about 11-J millions. If we want to be fair about it, we have to increase that $250 million in conformity with the increases in the cost of everything else in the country, and with the increase in the population. If we take the 1952 estimated population of Canada at 14,600,000 and the cost of living in 1943 as 118-4-it is now 185 -we can calculate that on that basis the $250 million a year would have to be increased to about $492 million a year. In a recent broadcast I said $470 million, because I was using rather a smaller population figure than the one which I think is more accurate and which I have just seen.
When we think of the various organizations that over the last several years have asked for a national health insurance plan for this country we find that it makes a very impressive list. We have several representative organizations such as the following: The federation of agriculture and other farm organizations; both the national labour congresses; the American Federation of Labor groups and the Canadian Congress of Labour groups and the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour; the railway transportation brotherhoods; the Canadian Legion; the
The Address-Mr. Coldwell board of evangelism of the United Church of Canada and numerous other organizations. All have asked for a national health plan.
Quite recently a Gallup poll was taken in this country; Gallup polls have a habit of showing at least pretty closely the state of public opinion. That poll indicated that eight out of every ten Canadians wanted a national health plan on a contributory basis. That is what we suggest. I quote the words of the question:
.... under which they would be assured of complete medical and hospital care by the federal government.
We find more and more that the leading men in the medical profession are coming around to the need for such a plan. I noted around the middle of September that Dr. J. B. Jobin, chairman of the Canadian association of French-speaking physicians, had spoken at Laval university, and in the course of his remarks he said this-of course I am using the translation-"Socialized medicine is a must if modern medical services are to be accessible to everyone". I regarded that as a very important statement by a medical man who is so representative of some of our French-speaking Canadians in the province of Quebec.
Where we have anything in the nature of a widespread health plan we find ample support for it. I expect that some hon. gentlemen read the very interesting article in Maclean's magazine of a month or six weeks ago, which dealt with the high cost of hospitalization and the high cost of health generally in Canada. If so, they would have noticed the report that in various parts of Canada demand for a health plan was taking shape. The writer outlined what had been done, for example, in my own province of Saskatchewan, in the Swift Current area. In that district they have established a health region which takes in Swift Current and I believe something like a hundred towns, villages and municipalities comprising practically the whole of the Swift Current area. There, for several years, not only has there been in effect a hospitalization plan which gives everyone in the province coverage, but also a plan whereby medical aid is provided to the residents of that area, without individual obligation. The health of the community as well as the care of the teeth of the school children are looked after in this unit, under this plan.
I also noticed a few days ago that, again in my own province of Saskatchewan-and this indicates the demand in a province where a considerable amount of work has been done

The Address-Mr. Coldwell in this regard-a vote was held in the rural area around Regina; and there again the people voted themselves into a health unit. This is not the kind of health unit that is In effect in Swift Current, where the services are available as I have indicated, but more particularly one in which sanitation and preventive methods may be used to combat the spread of disease, and the like.
Today more than half a million people, or over two-thirds of the population of Saskatchewan, are included in some health region or some health unit. The success of the hospitalization plan is so well known that when, for example, in the recent general election in the province the Liberal opposition sought power it made the claim that it could improve the hospitalization plan. They did not suggest that they would do away with it or eliminate it, but rather that they would improve it. We know they did not get the opportunity to carry out their plan; but their attitude indicates that the plan has the support of all parties in Saskatchewan, because the people of that province are familiar with its benefits.
Various excuses have been given as to why this could not be proceeded with. The principal excuse is that there are not enough hospitals in Canada. As hon. members from Saskatchewan are aware, when the hospital plan was put into effect in that province there were not enough hospitals to take care of the people who wanted hospitalization, because so many people had deferred operations and other medical care. Then, suddenly, they found they were able to go to the hospitals because they were not then placed under a heavy financial burden in doing so. At that time there were less than four hospital beds per thousand of population. Because of the Saskatchewan government's building program, and then through federal aid which came two years later, we have now something like eight beds per thousand of population. I suggest therefore that these excuses will not hold water.
In order to place our views before the house, and to test the feeling of the house I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), the following as an amendment to the amendment:
That the amendment be amended by deleting paragraphs (d) and (e) and by substituting therefor the following:
"We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(a)	To recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial administration;
(b)	To implement their proposals to the dominion-provincial conference of 1945."


There are several points that I suggest must be kept in mind in connection with any plan. First of all, we think that the plan must be contributory, and that these contributions should be based upon ability to pay. This is somewhat different from the old-age security program, where some today are required to pay no more than $30 this year and $60 next year and thereafter.
Secondly, we believe that the plan should be so arranged-it can be, and indeed has been so arranged in other countries-that every individual shall have the right, as of right, to the very best of medical care and attention that can be provided. We believe, too, that every individual should have the right to choose his doctor, and that every doctor should have the right to refuse to take a patient if he does not wish to take that patient. In other words there should be no demand to regiment either the individual or the doctor, as is so often suggested. I am convinced that whether or not we get this now, we are going to get it. The whole civilized world is demanding that suffering shall not be allowed to continue, but that relief is the duty of the community.
In other words it is the application of what sometimes we describe as the Christian principle, though it has a much wider application than the Christian principle alone; that is that we are told to bear one another's burdens. I know of no better way of endeavouring to bear one another's burdens than by relieving this terrible amount of sickness that goes uncared for in so many parts of the world.
Putting it on a much lower level, may I say that last June, I believe it was, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) told the house that losses on account of illness and disability, through accidents and for other reasons, cost the country about a quarter of a billion dollars, and that the loss in days last year amounted to something like 137 million man hours. Those are economic losses. But when we consider the great losses through suffering, the anguish of people who are not able to get all the treatment they need when they need it, I think we must see immediately how important is this piece of legislation to the national wellbeing of the Canadian people.
I had intended to discuss cost. However, all I am going to say about cost is that I believe the cost to the people of Canada collectively would be less than the amount we now spend for the very inadequate services we get. It is estimated that individuals spend about $500 million a year, and that the dominion and the provinces spend $175 million, making a total of $675 million.

On the basis of the estimated cost of a national health plan made by the advisory committee which reported in 1943, the cost of a health program would now come to approximately $492 million. This of course takes into consideration the increase in population and the increase in the cost of living since that estimate was made. In the Saskatchewan health survey report, tabled in this house, the amount estimated for a nation-wide health plan was $450 million. It is obviously difficult to estimate exactly what a health program would cost at this point. But even if a national health plan cost $600 million, as some have suggested, there would be a saving in money, in suffering, in anguish and in early death for many Canadians that would more than compensate for any expenditure we might make.
My time has expired. I would press the amendment which I have had the privilege of moving.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to concur in what was said this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) about that part of His Excellency's address which announces that the coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is to take place next June. We wish at this time to reaffirm our loyalty and devotion to the crown and all for which the crown stands in the British commonwealth and concept of living. I should also like to agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in all that he had to say about the quality of the fighting forces of Canada. They are doing a wonderful job and are discharging their responsibility well. The only tragic part of the whole situation in which these boys are placed is that they have to continue to fight a limited war for an unlimited period of time. We sincerely hope that some way will be found to bring this terrible Korean situation to an early end. Our prayers will be devoted to that end.
I should also like to commend the efforts of the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They performed their duties capably. In fact they were very persuasive. They made what is virtually a bag of dry bones look like grain-fed western red brand beef, and that is pretty good.
I should like to say a word or two about the proposal contained in the amendments moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) with respect to a national health plan. In our view there is no greater asset
The Address-Mr. Low to any nation than the health of the people. Consequently every effort should be made by the people individually, and collectively through their governments, to achieve a high national standard of health and well-being. A mistake which the socialists often make is in thinking that a worthy objective of that kind can be reached through government action alone. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There simply could not be any high standard of health, even with everything an all-powerful government could do, if the individuals of the nation were not prepared to learn how to look after themselves, how to exercise restraint and use wisdom in their manner of living, and do all in their power to produce and make available health-giving foods in sufficient quantity to fill the nation's needs.
Another mistake socialists everywhere have made in the past is that, although they have laid great stress on careful planning, they have been overeager to catapult the nation or state into comprehensive health or hospitalization schemes before the means were available or the facilities were ready for them. We believe that they ought to have learned something as a result of the tragic errors that have been made in this and other countries in that respect. Social Credit Alberta launched out sixteen years ago on the beginning of a health improvement and insurance program. That program has seen continual expansion and development along very sound lines until today Albertans enjoy a very substantial measure of health services, without doubt the best to be found in Canada.
The provincial government is determined to develop that scheme as fast as it can. We believe that a national health program, built on the model of the Alberta one, is desirable and possible. Its objective should be to make it possible for every Canadian, irrespective of means, to obtain hospitalization, medical, dental and optical services and along with them a sound health education with emphasis on preventive or what are known as prophylactic measures-all of these of course to the fullest extent of need. But, sir, if such a national plan or program is to endure and succeed in its aims it must develop more or less gradually and not be imposed upon the nation in one fell swoop by an overanxious power-hungry junta of centralizers. The kind of national health program we propose would develop as rapidly as production expansion and resources development would make it possible without creating an avalanche of tax increases and without plaguing the nation with the sort of embarrassment that has almost universally followed the imposition of socialist programs

The Address-Mr. Low wherein serious shortages of trained personnel and hospital and clinical facilities have very soon become apparent.
The Social Credit kind of national health program would ensure that sufficient doctors, dentists, nurses, technicians, clinics and hospital beds would be made available first to take on the work as the scheme is extended. Moreover, as the program develops care would be taken to preserve, amongst those already mentioned, these fundamental principles, and I name five of them. The first is a fair measure of individual responsibility. Let us not kid ourselves that we can give everything free to individuals and not in some way damage the nation or its morale. It just is not possible.
Second, patients must continue to have their choice of doctors and the program must guarantee that there will be no regimentation of patients, doctors, nurses or hospitals. The third important principle is that emphasis must be placed on preventive medicine, keeping people well. In this connection an intensive campaign of education should be launched to teach the people what they can and should do for themselves to keep well. Amongst other things they will have to be taught the facts about food substitutes and how the people are being gypped by millers and bakers today-not all, but by some of them-who try to make the people believe that when they buy certain kinds of bread they are getting whole wheat bread. This just is not so, and the people should know it because a certain amount of unbleached, unadulterated whole wheat products is essential to good health.
The fourth important principle is that the program must be devised by joint co-operative action of municipal, provincial and federal governments, and be administered by the first two. Fifth, there will have to be provincial and federal subsidies to keep costs down. I think a fair start has already been made in Canada, and it should be aggressively expanded and extended as rapidly as resources can be made available, consistent with sound development practices. That is the way we view this whole matter of health insurance.
I should like to say a few words in connection with the whole matter of trade and the commonwealth. The boys are leaving on a trip to London tomorrow-I wish I were going with them-and they have their work cut out for them. They have been receiving a lot of advice tonight and I suppose it would not hurt if I gave them a little more. At least I am glad I can talk to the genial Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) before he goes

because I have always said that I like him. I like to see him get along well-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Look out.


Solon Earl Low: -and that is the reason I like to give him some advice. At any rate, within a few days the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance will be sitting down in London with representatives from other parts of the commonwealth to discuss and consider the whole field of commonwealth trade and finance, and perhaps other relations. We sincerely hope that the government will exhibit at that conference a considerably changed attitude toward commonwealth relations and commonwealth trade from what we think they have been exhibiting most of the time since the war ended. The Liberal government has been altogether too tough in the matter of convertibility, and they have taken a line which has gradually diminished what our trade with the other parts of the commonwealth could have been if they had used more vision and determination to strengthen commonwealth trade rather than merely to follow the line of least resistance and the lead of the United States of America.
To be completely fair about the situation, it is true that during the war the pattern of trade had to change to some degree because at that time Britain could not supply Canada's needs, in the traditional manner, of the things we had to import. However, that is no excuse for letting the pattern continue as it has during the seven years since the war ended in 1945.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals are just now beginning to wake up to the fact that they have hitched themselves to the most uncertain market in the world, the most uncertain market for Canada-that is the market in the United States; and for all too long they have neglected to do what ought to have been done to restore Canada to the best market she ever had and the market which she ought to continue to hold if she can in the years to come. I am speaking now, Mr. Speaker, entirely from the point of view of the good of Canada when I say we should serve the best interests of our own country and the commonwealth as a whole. I think the government should hang its head in shame over the fact that Britain has had to go behind the iron curtain, to Russia, to the enemy of the free world for a number of things she has had to get such as coarse grain, lumber, and things like that which Canada could very well have supplied.


An hon. Member:: That is hindsight.


Solon Earl Low: You can talk about hindsight but there ought to be just a little bit of vision and foresight as well.

I quite realize that since the war ended in 1945 Canada had advanced a grand total of $1,763,900,000 in financial assistance to other countries up to March 31 of this year. Of that figure $1,185 million represent loans to Great Britain, all of which will be recoverable in the future. In addition there were certain direct credits that were made available to some of the European countries. I will not detail those at the moment. In addition to those credits made available to certain European countries, contributions sent to the United Nations agencies have totalled $203,100,000, which includes $154 million advanced to UNRRA, $12 million to post-UNRRA relief, $15 million for the Colombo plan assistance to India, $10 million for assistance to Pakistan, and just over $1 million contributed by Canada to the technical co-operation payments plan for India, Pakistan, Ceylon, and Greece. Some $325 million has been contributed by Canada for military aid to NATO countries. That was very largely a transfer of existing stocks of armaments and equipment which the Canadian army had been keeping as a mobilization reserve. Actually every Canadian has contributed $46.40 in these forms of aid to other countries, which is not recoverable.
Now, sir, Britain has been the biggest beneficiary of the Canadian assistance I have outlined, and I am not pleading that we continue to help Britain in the ways I have cited and which have been the pattern since 1945. I think we must consider much greater aid to the underprivileged countries under the Colombo plan and the technical co-operation arrangements. I much prefer to see us drop sacks of wheat and food materials into these underprivileged countries to help them live in some measure of happiness and contentment, than to be draining off our production in the form of arms and shells to destroy our fellow men in warfare. In my judgment food can be made a far more effective weapon than atom bombs; and using that weapon, peace could be brought to this world much more quickly than by all the military campaigns that could ever be fought.
We think there are very worth while, physically and financially possible measures that can be taken by Canada to help these countries that are in need and to help Britain and other parts of the commonwealth get on their feet, particularly Britain. We have believed and asserted over the past seventeen years-and by "we" I mean the Social Credit group-that the British commonwealth of nations offers the only assurance of bringing balance once more into a world of trade that has become seriously out of balance. What the government seems to have forgotten is that our great neighbour to the south, the
The Address-Mr. Low United States of America, has within her borders as much as 50 per cent of the world's total industrial capacity. This makes her a colossus both in the industrial world and in the world of trade.
Ever since the United States became the industrial giant she is, she has had a tendency to hog the channels of trade and has consistently refused to balance her trade with the rest of the world. This has brought about a condition under which the other countries of the world have not been able to secure enough American dollars to be able to buy from the United States the things they needed. As a consequence the streams of trade have to quite a large degree been dried up; and perforce, the United States has had to resort to Marshall plans and gifts of great quantities of goods to other countries to make up for what normal trade ought to be doing.
If the British commonwealth of nations with its widely scattered territories, its tremendous production, and its very large population will revitalize their sinews into strong unity it can become the one factor which is capable of bringing order and balance into an unbalanced world of trade. Canada should be taking the lead in this revitalization. Thus far since the war the Liberal government of Canada has been very diffident in its approach to commonwealth matters and has been an abject follower, instead of the bold and courageous leader that everyone had the right to think it should be.
When the Canadian representatives sit down at the London conference they ought to be guided by the determination to restore our traditional trade patterns, and not worry their heads off about this business of convertibility of currencies. We in this group feel that every effort should be made by Britain and by us to help Britain once more get investments in other parts of the commonwealth. Britain should even now be doing something about investments in Canada. There is still ground floor space in such things as the petroleum industry where, specifically, I will name the Athabasca tar sands. If Britain will make a supreme effort she can get hold of a block of those sands and set out, like some of the other countries, to perfect methods of separation so that eventually she will contribute to her own and the world's supply of petroleum products. As I say, other countries are getting into it, and I think Canada should be doing everything possible to help Britain to get into the oil development in this country. In due time the investment will pay off handsomely. The thing is physically possible, and we Social Crediters have always claimed that what is physically possible can be made

The Address-Mr. Low financially possible. In the years ahead Britain will have to have returns in the form of investment income if she is to maintain her place in the world of commerce.
In the second place, Canada must be prepared to send to Britain the food materials and a good many other raw materials which Britain needs and which we can supply, not in the form of gifts or loans but on a straight deal. The Prime Minister used some words this afternoon and this evening which I thought were not very logical. He reminded us that Britain in the past year had bought something like $631 million worth of goods from us and that Canada, a nation of 14 million, had bought something over $400 million from Britain. There was a $200 million disparity. Britain cannot afford to buy $600 million worth of goods from Canada if we only buy $400 million from her. It is just impossible. Somehow the disparity has to be made up.
The Social Credit group in this house for a good many years has advocated that Canada should be prepared to accept from Britain in payment for these goods the only thing Britain has to pay with at the present time, namely her own currency, sterling. There is no doubt in my mind that Canada can trade about amongst the countries of the sterling area to obtain with the sterling the things which Canada needs. It may take a little time, but if in accepting sterling we help Britain to get on her feet, and at the same time sell to advantage the products which we have to export, it will be worth taking the time. And while we are trading around in the sterling area there is no question in my mind about the ability to finance the whole deal within Canada, just as in 1917 we financed the advance of wheat to Great Britain by an issue which was arranged by the minister of finance.
Canada should also show her good faith in this whole matter of the revitalization of the commonwealth by encouraging the import into this country of those things which Britain can supply. There are encouraging reports now coming out of Britain which indicate that since the socialist government was defeated production has gone ahead by leaps and bounds. Canada is going to need quantities of television material. I am convinced that the British product is the best in the world. There is no reason why Britain should not supply Canada's needs in this respect just as fast as Canada expands her television program.
That is not all. In the field of the development of the St. Lawrence system Britain could supply us with great quantities of steel headgates and materials that will be used to develop this waterway. We should be prepared to buy them from Britain. In my

judgment there is no reason why those things should not be done. In addition to that, we should encourage imports of other things that Britain could supply, including automobiles. I believe we should be ashamed of the fact that in Canada we hear a lot of criticism about the antiquated production methods of Britain, and charges that the cost of British goods has been made inordinately high as a consequence of the British social security system, while at the same time we put every obstacle in the way of marketing their automobiles in Canada. I say we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We Canadians declare to the world that we believe in competition, yet we do everything we can to prevent competition. At least certain entrenched interests in this country do so, and they do it with the sanction and assistance of this government; at least that is the way it appears to me.
The situation is pretty well summed up, Mr. Speaker, in this editorial which was published not so long ago in the Calgary Herald. I am just going to quote briefly from it.
When the two big winter automobile shows are held next February, in Toronto and Montreal, the first major shows since the war, there will be no British cars on view before the Canadian public. They have been black-balled by the Canadian automobile industry.
When British motor manufacturers and traders revealed what was going on, and protested, the National Automobile Shows Inc. at first maintained utter silence, and then its general manager, J. L. Stewart, came up with the explanation that the exclusion of British cars was not a question of patriotism or of international economics, but was a simple matter of everyday business. Canadian firms, he said, had invested several million dollars in facilities and advertising, and they did not propose to invite companies outside the association to share the benefits of their advertising benefits.
He did not explain how it is that a number of United States firms which have not kicked in to the association since 1927 will be showing their cars.
He might also explain how it is that at the world-famous Earl's Court motor show in London, an immeasurably fancier and more expensive show than any Canadian association is apt to venture into, there is a distinct section set aside for the display of Canadian-made cars.
That is good sportsmanship, and I think we ought to be exhibiting the same kind of sportsmanship in this country. If we expect Britain to buy from us, we have to be prepared to buy from her and to do so on a competitive basis, not some arbitrary basis that some of these people like to think up.
I need not point out at any length, Mr. Speaker, that we have hitched ourselves to a very uncertain market, that is the one in the United States. Events of the past ten months should have served to convince a lot of foolish people that the United States of America does not need too many of the products which Canada produces. Whenever it

suits her purpose to do so, without any warning whatever, the United States is apt to throw up embargoes or tariffs to keep out Canadian production. The foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan gave her a perfect excuse for excluding Canadian meat products. There is no good reason in this world, except of course for the fact she does not need to import those products to Canada, why the embargo should have continued as long as it has. Our cheese was excluded from the United States last summer, and the consequences nearly ruined the cheese industry of central Canada. The United States seems to consider she is not bound by the Geneva trade agreement, although she would yell to high heaven if Canada were to exhibit such ideas and tendencies.
The Liberal government was very foolish and shortsighted to allow Canada to become dependent on these uncertain United States markets. As I said, I am not speaking from sentiment at all in this regard but from the necessity of restoring our traditional markets. It is largely from the sense of good business for Canada and Canadians, as well as from a well-founded belief that the British commonwealth, if it strengthens its ties and comes to a unity of purpose, will go far towards restoring balance and Christian decency in world trade. For seventeen years we Social Crediters have taken essentially this same position which, Mr. Speaker, gives the absolute lie to the statement that was made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) in my own constituency not so long ago when he attended a Liberal convention there. I wish he were in his seat right now, because I should like to talk to him pretty straight.
This is the same minister who, at the Liberal convention in Calgary, made the statement that if the government does not win the next election it will be because the government has been doing too good a job of statesmanship and not enough of playing politics. At the nominating convention in my constituency this self-styled statesman told the people that he believed Mr. Low's talk about empire ties and preferential tariffs for commonwealth countries was catering to British sentiment in Ontario. He said, "I don't think he is sincere."


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Hear, hear.
The Address-Mr. Low


Solon Earl Low: I hear "hear, hear" from the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). I am sure, of course, that the people of this country, of the Peace river country and of Alberta, cannot lose sight of the fact that in making that claim the minister from Edmonton, who claimed that I am not sincere-this goes for the member for Ottawa West as well if that is what he meant by his "hear, hear"-was definitely getting off the path of statesmanship and down into the gutter of very questionable politics. Now, I ask who are they-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Solon Earl Low: I ask, who are they to deny anybody's sincerity?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps out of fairness to the hon. member I ought to say that I understood that in making the reference he did to the improvement in empire trade he was seeking to appeal to the British sentiment in Ontario; that was what I understood the quotation to be, and when he read the quotation I added the "hear, hear" because I agree.


Solon Earl Low: I wonder how long a man does have to keep pressing for the strengthening of the commonwealth and the restoration of our traditional market, that is the market the Liberals have thrown out the window, before he can convince the minister from Edmonton-there may be some others-that he is sincere. Certainly seventeen years ought to be sufficient. For seventeen years, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit movement has been preaching the same doctrine, and it has not been for the mere purpose of catching votes in Ontario. We have taken that position because we sincerely believe it is the best way to build for peace and decency. It is also the best business for Canada.
It is now ten o'clock, sir, and I do not know what your desires are with respect to adjournment. I do have some time left, but if it is your desire I shall leave it until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 25, 1952