1953-02-11

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to table copies in English and French of a note presented today by the Canadian embassy at Washington to the state department concerning the continuation and extension of United States restrictions on the importation of dairy products.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May
I ask that this document, containing the submission handed today to the state department at Washington by the Canadian ambassador and relating to restrictions on the importation of Canadian dairy products, be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable to the
house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of note, see appendix, page 1860.)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform
the house that I have received the following communication from Government House:
Ottawa, February 11, 1953
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, Wednesday, the 11th February, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute
Secretary to the Governor General. (Administrative)
The Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons,
Ottawa.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	What was the number of loans and what was the total amount loaned in each province, in 1952, under the Farm Improvement Loans Act?
2. What is the number of current loans and what amounts are outstanding, in each province at December 31, 1952?


Mr. Lesage:: 1. Figures to September 30, 1952, are the
latest available:	No.	AmountBritish Columbia ... .	1,626	$ 1,758,793.43Alberta 	. 18,404	22,226,055.93Saskatchewan 	. 23,974	30,343,023.98Manitoba 	. 8,262	9,392,948.34Ontario 	. 9,193	10,051,377.17Quebec 	. 4,596	5,426,270.73New Brunswick 	. 669	698,508.65Nova Scotia 	. 704	679,203.10Prince Edward Island	. 1,281	1,237,538.52Newfoundland 	. 30	37,864.00Total 	. 68,739	$81,851,583.852.	The chartered banks do not report the current number and amounts outstanding by provinces.



DEFENCE ORDERS


Mr. Goode:: 1.	In the list of Canadian firms receiving large defence orders during the period January 1 to 15, 1953, published by the Department of Defence Production, were there any bids from firms in British Columbia?
2.	If so, were such bids from British Columbia firms higher than those of the successful tenderers, and in what amounts?


Mr. Dickey:: I have spoken to the hon. member. We are getting the information he wants, without going through the necessary documentation to answer the question. He has asked to have it dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.



SUPPLY PROBLEMS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Was the mail contract for Bath rural route No. 1, in New Brunswick, put up for tender in 1952? If so, on what date?
2.	What are the names of the persons who put in tenders for such contract?
3.	What was the amount of each such tender?
4.	On what date did tenders for this contract close?
5.	What is the name of the person who was awarded this contract?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Yes. On October 30, 1952.
2 and 3. Only one tender was received, as follows: Thomas Keenan, Bath R.R. No. 1, $2,000. Mr. Keenan amended his tender to $1,800, 3 January 1953. A late offer of $2,200 was received from Mr. Andrew McQuade, 13 January 1953.
4.	November 21, 1952.
5.	The contract for this rural route has not yet been awarded.


LBNAM CONSTRUCTION CO.    COMPLETION OF PROJECTS
Mr. Diefenbaker:: How much has been expended or contracted for by the Department of Public Works in addition to any amounts paid to the Lunam Construction Company, in order to complete the following buildings or projects, since the insolvency of the said company:	(a) Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, public
building, addition and alterations; (b) Regina, Saskatchewan, Royal Canadian Mounted Police barracks, repairs and improvements to swimming pool; (c) Tisdale, Saskatchewan, public building, addition and alterations; (d) Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, Indian hospital, installation of sewerage disposal, (e) Langenburg, Saskatchewan, new public buildings; (f) Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, new Indian hospital; (g) Regina, Saskatchewan, new building for unemployment commission; (h) Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, new public building?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Amount
Amount	Contracted
Expended	For
(a)	Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, public building-addition
and alterations	 Nil
(b)	Regina, Saskatchewan, R.C.M.P. barracks-repairs and
improvements to swimming pool	 Nil
(c)	Tisdale, Saskatchewan, public building-addition and
alterations	 Nil
(d)	Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, Indian hospital-installation of sewerage disposal	
Nil(e)	Langenburg, Saskatchewan,	new	public building	
Nil(f)	Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, new Indian hospital
$ 14,518.98
(g)	Regina, Saskatchewan, new building for unemployment
insurance commission	 32,525.78
(h)	Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, new public building ....	24,054.26
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


$ 57,546.69 37,061.28 25,162.14 TRACADIE, N.B., HARBOUR
Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works received any complaints, from the Tracadie board of trade and/or from any other person or organization, regarding the condition of the Tracadie, New Brunswick, harbour, as well as suggestions, from the said sources, for the betterment of the said harbour? If so, when?
2.	Has any survey of the situation been made by departmental engineers?
3.	If so, when was such survey made and what was the report resultant therefrom?
4.	Is the Department of Public Works entertaining any plans to improve the said harbour?
5.	If so, when will such plans be effected?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) March, 1952.
2.	A winter survey has been authorized.

3.	Results of survey and report not yet received.
4.	Matter will be considered.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


SUMMARY TRIALS OF INDICTABLE OFFENCES
Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	How many appeals against sentence arising from summary trials of indictable offences have been taken, in each province, from and including the year 1949 to date?
2.	On the hearing of such appeals, in how many cases have sentences so appealed against (a) been reduced; (b) increased; (c) quashed?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1 and 2. See statement on following page.


APPEALS ARISING FROM SUMMARY TRIALS OF INDICTABLE OFFENCES, 1949-51(0
[Stage Direction]
Appeal of Accused from Conviction and from Sentence
Crown Appeal from Acquittal and from Sentence
-	1949(2)	1950	1951	1950	1951	Total appeals	Acquitted (from conviction)	(j) Sentence varied	Total appeals	Acquitted (from conviction)	(3) Sentence varied	Total appeals	Acquitted (from conviction)	„ (*) Sentence varied	Total appeals	Con- viction	„ (*) Sentence varied	Total appeals	Con- viction	Sentence varied721	89	164	837	104	162	773	115	107	58	8	21	66	3	171	0	0	1	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	010	2	3	10	0	0	17	0	3	2	2	0	4	1	07	0	3	5	2	0	5	1	1	6	5	0	2	1	069	9	4	54	12	1	63	11	5	6	0	2	6	2	1340	50	78	273	46	52	302	66	24	18	0	12	21	0	1244	4	21	58	1	15	41	1	2	1	0	0	3	3	012	1	5	30	4	6	15	2	7	1	0	0	4	0	066	15	20	177	14	40	101	4	28	7	1	3	9	0	0165	7	30	226	23	48	221	29	37	17	0	4	11	1	4Supreme Court of Canada...	7	1	0	3	1	0	6	1	0	0	0	0	6	5	0
Notes: 0) 1952 figures not yet available.
(2)	1949 figures include appeals of the Accused and the Crown.		
(3)	Sentence Varied includes sentences reduced and sentences increased. Information as to the number in each of these categories is not available.
(4)	1951 Was the first year Newfoundland reported. There were no appeals of indictable offences in that year.

Questions
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What has been the total amount paid by advertisers, month by month, since the opening dates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television over (a) the Toronto T.V. station; (b) the Montreal T.V. station?
2.	What is the fixed (a) hourly rate; (b) halfhourly rate, for advertising over each of the said stations?


Mr. McCann:: (a)	(b)
	CBLT	CBFT
1.	Toronto	MontrealSeptember 	$ 68,029.55	$ 13,675.62October 	105,798.35	20,779.44November 	112,869.47	26,340.02December 	87,183.08	21,319.80CBLT	CBFT2.	Toronto	Montreal(a) Hourly rate ...	$ 750.00	$ 375.00(b) Half-hourly rate	* 450.00	225.00These rates cover only station time.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Since its inception, how many immigrants have come to Canada under the assisted passage scheme who were at the time of their entry (a) British subjects; (b) continental European citizens or subjects?
2.	How many in each of groups (a) and (b) above were women and children?
3.	To what classifications or groups of immigrants does the assisted passage loan scheme apply? Is assistance thereunder available to aid directly in the movement of dependents?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	(a) British subjects-3,494; (b) continental European citizens or subjects

15,872.
2.	Dependents have not been eligible for assistance under the assisted passage scheme. Number of women workers-(a) 409 and (b) 3,195.
3.	Assisted passage loans have been and are available mainly to farm workers, domestics and nurses' aides selected by immigration officers abroad. Assisted passage is not granted to dependents or non-workers except that class referred to in my statement to the House of Commons on February 4, 1953.


DEER LODGE HOSPITAL
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have any complaints been received by the government with respect to disturbances caused to patients in Deer Lodge hospital because of too many unnecessary flights over that hospital by military aircraft?

2.	If so. have instructions been given to eliminate such disturbances or at least to reduce the same to a minimum, and what are the terms of such instructions?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Deer Lodge hospital is located at St. James, Winnipeg, in the vicinity of the Winnipeg airport used by both R.C.A.F. and commercial aircraft. Flights of aircraft over the area consequently cannot be completely eliminated. However, to reduce the disturbance to a minimum, the group commander at Winnipeg has been instructed by the chief of the air staff to inform all pilots operating in and out of the airport to remain clear of the St. James area whenever possible. The problem of reducing flights over the area has also been referred to the director of air services, Department of Transport.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Bryce:: 1.	How many former commissioned officers are now employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	Of these, how many were above the rank of captain?
3.	How many served in Canada or the British Isles only, in world war II?


Mr. Mutch:: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the hon. gentleman who put this question on the order paper and he has consented to its being dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.



PARACHUTES

Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1.	Have contracts been let by the government for parachutes, since April 1, 1951?
2.	H so, what was the total amount of contracts let to each company for (a) man-carrying parachutes; (b) other types of parachutes, since April 1, 1951?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Irvin Air Chute Ltd., $3,030,258; Field Aviation Co., $169,050.
(b) Irvin Air Chute Ltd., $269,535.90.



TELEVISION


Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	Is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation contemplating the setting up of a television station in the maritime provinces? If so, when?
2.	If and when such a television station is set up in the said provinces, will the site of the transmitter of the said television station be in or in the immediate vicinity of the city of Moncton, New Brunswick?
3.	If not, where will it be located?
4.	Will any television station to be eventually erected in the maritime provinces be officially recognized as bilingual?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes. Late in 1953, if possible, or early in 1954.
2.	No.
3.	Halifax.
4.	Program plans have not yet been made.



BRANDON PUBLIC BUILDING


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	What is the reason for the delay in carrying out the additions and alterations to the Brandon public building as provided for in the estimates for the past three years?
2.	When is it intended to proceed with this work.


Alphonse Fournier: 1 and 2. Matter under consideration and plans being prepared.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Couriemanche:: 1.	From whom was the land purchased by the federal government for the location of the Delori-mier postal station, Papineau street, Montreal?
2.	What was paid for the said land?
3.	Who was the general contractor for the project?
4.	What was the cost of the excavation work and by whom was this work done?
5.	What was the total cost of construction, exclusive of land purchase and excavation work?
6.	What was the cost of furnishing the building?
7.	Who was the architect?
8.	On what date was the work begun on the said building and on what date was it completed?
9.	What are the names and addresses of the subcontractors on this project and what amounts were paid to each of them?
10.	After occupation by the postal service were repairs made to the interior of the building?
11.	If so, (a) on what date; (b) of what nature; (c) for what reason; (d) at what cost?



TENDERS FOR SUPPLIES


Mr. Fulion:: 1.	Are there maintained by any department or departments or agencies of the government, what are known as approved lists of persons or corporations in connection with invitations to tender for supplies to be acquired by or for such department, departments, or agencies?
2.	If so, what is the nature and purpose of such lists?
3.	By whom are they compiled?
4.	On what basis and on whose recommendation are the names of persons or firms included on such lists?
5.	Are invitations to tender for the class or type of commodity in connection with which such approved lists are compiled, confined exclusively to those whose names appear on the lists in any particular area?
6.	If so, why are not tenders asked for from all persons or firms in the same line of business in the area concerned?
Orders for Returns
7.	What is necessary in order for any person or corporation in an area to have his name placed on the list for such area?
8.	Does the Department of Resources and Development maintain such lists?



NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE-PENSIONS

Mr. Johnston:: 1.	Are there any members of the R.N.W.M.P. (veteran association) drawing pensions?
2.	If so, how many are receiving $75 or less per month?
3.	What are the payments received by each member receiving $75 or less?
4.	Has there been any adjustment made in these pension payments?
5.	If so, what was the adjustment and when was it made?


Mr. Garson:: The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) who has asked this question has agreed that the first part, which reads:	"Are there any members of the
R.N.W.M.P. (veteran association) drawing pensions" should read "Are there any members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police drawing pensions?" With that change may I suggest that there be an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return, as amended by the suggestion of the Minister of Justice.



ROBERVAL COUNTY, QUE.  RURAL MAIL SERVICES

Mr. Spence:: 1.	How many rural mail services are there in operation in the county of Roberval, and how many contractors carry the mail from the point of arrival to the various post offices?
2.	What is the name of each one of them?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	What distance must he cover to perform his work?
5.	When does his contract expire?



FARMERS


Mr. Fair:: 1.	During each of the years 1951 and 1952, how many farmers were operating farms in each province?
2.	How many operators in each province had a net income, (a) less than $500; (b) $500 to $750;
(c)	$750 to $1,000; (d) $1,000 to $1,250; (e) $1,250 to $1,500; (f) $1,500 to $2,000; (g) $2,000 to $2,500 and (h) over $2,500, in the above years?
3.	How many operated farms of, (a) 100 acres or less, (b) 100 to 160 acres; (c) 160 to 320 acres;
(d)	320 to 480 acres; (e) 480 to 640 acres; (f) 640 to 960 acres; (g) 960 to 1,280 acres, and (h) over 1,280 acres, in 1951 and 1952?
4.	What amount of income tax was paid by farmers in each province in each of the above years?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of all correspondence dated since July 1, 1951, between the district post office inspector, at Saint John, New Brunswick, and any
1832	HOUSE OF
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement
person or persons residing at Johnville, Carleton county, New Brunswick, with reference to any recommendations as to the person to be awarded the mail contract for Bath rural route No. 1, in New Brunswick, for 1952-53.



INQUIRY AS TO INTERNATIONAL WHEAT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: am sure the house will have no objection to my saying that we are glad that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is back from his successful trip. I have a question I should like to ask him which it may be difficult to answer at this time. Perhaps he could take this by way of notice. Is the situation at the international wheat conference today such as would lead one to believe that a continuation of the agreement is not going to be achieved?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have been in close touch with the Canadian delegation at the conference. I must point out that the sessions are in private and no information is being given out in any form. My hon. friend will appreciate that I cannot give out any information from proceedings being held in camera. Meetings between importers and exporters are taking place each day.
I know of nothing that has happened that would lead to the conclusion that there is any breakdown in the discussions. Bargaining is going on and I am most hopeful, and I think most of those present at the conference are hopeful, that an agreement can be reached.



SUGAR-AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND CUBA

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I had risen to speak at three minutes to ten but of course I had not got very far in what I was prepared to say. I rose at that time and I rise now to support the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) and the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff) in their pleas on behalf of the sugar beet industry and the sugar refining industry in Canada. I was particularly interested in what they had to say, and I was also interested in the reply given by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). I should like 

to read a few extracts from the hon. member's speech and comment upon them as I go along. At the top of page 1819 of yesterday's Hansard the hon. member for Charlotte was explaining the economy of the maritime provinces in respect to the agreements that were made some time ago regarding the importation of Cuban sugar and the exportation of maritime fish. He said:
Again, I want to say that all the maritime provinces-and I will include Newfoundland because now we have four maritime provinces-as I have said on many occasions in this chamber, are most dependent on these American markets. Take them away from us and our economy is completely wrecked.
I believe I cam understand the mentality of the hon. member when he says:	"Take
them away from us and our economy is completely wrecked." In other words, the economy of the maritimes is completely dependent upon exports and imports, upon foreign trade. Might I ask the hon. member, and this is not the first time I have asked this question in this house:	What is the
purpose of an economic system? That question has never been answered by any member of the government. I would ask the government, I would ask the finance minister who is in charge of monetary policy, what is the purpose of an economic system? Until that is answered we are not going to solve our financial problems internally or externally.


Mr. Riley:: You mean not until they are
"Hanselled".


Ernest George Hansell: We are not going to solve
the problem of foreign markets either. I am going to give hon. members my definition of the purpose of an economic system. I would suggest it is to produce and deliver for the welfare of man. I suggest that the monetary policy of any country should be designed to distribute the abundance that it is able to produce. That is the purpose of an economic system. The present government-in fact I would say all ox-cart economists-never admit that there is anything basically wrong with our present financial policy. They will never admit it. In fact everything that is done in the realm of finance is done for the purpose of bolstering, fortifying or solidifying, if you wish, the present financial policy, which is basically wrong. Everything that is done is done with that one purpose in mind regardless of how it affects the welfare of mankind.
In his speech the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) had a good deal to say with respect to free trade. When he mentioned free trade in the manner in which he did there was considerable applause from

the Liberal side of the house. Let me say that I think we are all in favour of as much free trade as possible. I believe we are all in favour of freer trade. But let me say that in the final analysis there is no such thing as free trade and there never will be. We may as well get ourselves straight on that. In spite of all the applauding that some members may do, there is no such thing as free trade. When I was a boy my father used to say that he was a Liberal. I do not know whether or not he was, but I know that I used to hear him talk about the Liberal party as being a free trade party. I heard a speaker in the house some year or two ago-I cannot recall who it was but what he said was not denied-who stated that during Liberal administration tariffs had on the average been higher than during Conservative administration.


Mr. Fulton:: Perfectly true, too.


Ernest George Hansell: That may or may not be so,
but with all the talk and applause that has come from the Liberal benches in respect of free trade-


Mr. Blackmore:: Pure lip service.


Ernest George Hansell: -may I point out that they are in the driver's seat. The country is being administered by a Liberal administration, a so-called free-trade administration. Let them put some of their policies into action. I say that free trade is an absolute impossibility, and I would challenge any of them to name one thing that we can produce more cheaply in Canada than it can be produced in some other country. Let them name one thing that we can produce in Canada and sell in open competition with the world.


Mr. Low:: It would be a nice exercise.


Ernest George Hansell: That is a challenge. Let
them tell us.


An hon. Member:: What about nickel?


Ernest George Hansell: I was interested in reading an editorial in the Ottawa Journal the other day which is headed, "Wise Words from a Banker". It is not very often that Social Crediters quote bankers but bankers are at least authorities on banking. The president of such a well established bank as the Bank of Montreal certainly should know what he is talking about when he is dealing with economics. Of course even the president of the Bank of Montreal would not admit that there is something basically wrong with the present financial policy, and he is speaking of course as an orthodox banker and is analysing the present situation. Mr. B. C. Gardner, the able president of the Bank of
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement Montreal, made a speech, and the Ottawa Journal refers to it. This is what Mr. Gardner said:
Trade is in its nature competitive. Canada can ill afford, therefore, to come under the competitive disadvantage that we would suffer if our domestic level of prices should in future years rise more rapidly than corresponding prices in the United States. In a highly competitive world we cannot proceed on the assumption that domestic cost levels will be a matter of small moment as far as our export trade is concerned.
Further on there is the following:
Mr. Gardner concluded by pointing to other dangers-
Listen to this.
-a corporate tax rate which takes more than half of every dollar of profit, denying industry provision for necessary expansion; high taxation leading to compensatory wage demands and inviting inflation; public demands for government services which must be paid for out of the pockets of private citizens; a tendency to run to the government for protection against the ordinary hazards of day to day business. "There is great need for public education in these fields . . . for legislators and electorate alike."
That would include the hon. member for Charlotte. The fact of the matter is that, with our particular financial policy in Canada and its effect upon Canadian price levels, we cannot compete on world markets in the sale of practically anything. We cannot produce as cheaply as some other country in the world can produce. I want to read another extract from the speech of the hon. member for Charlotte. This is what he said, as found on the same page, page 1819 of Hansard of yesterday:
We do not get very many subsidies down there, and we do not get very much financial assistance. We are quite an understanding people, and we try to stand on our own feet. We are willing to produce what we have to produce in competition with any part of the world.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want hon. members to note that, because the actual truth is far, far beyond that statement.
We are willing to produce what we have to produce in competition with any part of the world. If we cannot produce fish as cheaply as someone else, then let us eat someone else's fish. If we cannot produce sugar as cheaply as we can buy it somewhere else then let us give the consumer the advantage of cheaper living.
That sounds all right, but let us analyse that statement and let me ask the hon. gentleman a question. He says:
We are willing to produce what we have to produce in competition with any part of the world. If we cannot produce fish as cheaply as someone else, then let us eat someone else's fish.
Will he then explain please why this government permits a 33 per cent tariff protection on codfish? Would he be willing to have that tariff taken off? Does he want it removed? Since he referred in another

Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement part of his speech to the fact that potatoes are produced in the maritimes, does he believe that potatoes should not be protected- when at the present time there is a tariff of 75 cents per hundred pounds? We all recall what happened not so long ago when there was no market for potatoes grown in the maritimes. The dominion government bought the crop. What did they buy the crop for? They bought it to keep prices up. Is that not protection?
Now, the hon. member had better answer some of those very simple questions.
He says in another passage which I will quote from Hansard of yesterday:
I think we have to make it clear that if a business cannot stand on its own feet it should not exist. That might be a pretty broad statement, but if an industry cannot survive without subsidies, then there is something wrong.
Well, there certainly is something wrong, and it is not that there is something wrong with business. As a matter of fact business in Canada is run pretty efficiently. What is wrong can be found in some of the basic principles of our financial policies in Canada, and business must groove itself according to the financial policies which are determined by the present, government.
Let us get back to the subject of free trade and foreign markets to which my hon. friend referred, and we bring in the sugar beet industry. For a number of years now, particularly since the war, the nations-the United States, Canada and other countries -have been doing all they could-


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Might I ask the hon. member a question?


Ernest George Hansell: Since I have been referring to the hon. gentleman's speech, yes.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Has the hon. member ever produced sugar beets, fish or anything else in his lifetime?


Ernest George Hansell: I did not get the first part of the question.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Has the hon. member ever produced sugar beets, agricultural products or fisheries products?


Daniel Aloysius Riley: No, but he read a book.


An hon. Member:: "It's in the book".


Ernest George Hansell: I have not produced sugar beets except in my own backyard and I have never produced any fish except those I have caught with a hook, line and sinker.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Were they voters?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You want to try it because you might change your mind.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, in order for one to familiarize oneself with fish or sugar beets, it is not necessary for one to have grown them. I might ask my friend if he has ever preached a sermon in his life.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I think perhaps I have.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, that is very good.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: His sermon has some sense to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was it on smuggling?


An hon. Member:: It was not stolen
anyway.


Ernest George Hansell: I am glad to know that my
hon. friend has preached a sermon, but even if he had not I would say that he had a perfect right to criticize a preacher.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: That is what I am doing.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I was saying
that we have done all we could during and since the war to rehabilitate war-torn countries. We have contributed to foreign aid. There is the Marshall plan, which has poured millions and millions of dollars into European countries. We have UNESCO, which was designed to educate people-to give them a scientific knowledge of production and other matters. We have the Colombo plan and we have had one thing after another.


An hon. Member:: Are you against them?


Ernest George Hansell: No, sir, I am not against
them. My hon. friend asks if I am against them. No, we are not; and I am making a point of why we do these things. Well, they were all designed to restore the productive capacities of war-torn countries. What for? You might say that is a foolish question; but the answer is: So that they can produce; so that they can become self-sufficient. That is the answer.


An hon. Member:: It is a simple answer.


Ernest George Hansell: Just as simple as that. But
let us remember that the more that nations become self-sufficient the less they become dependent on foreign trade.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: No, no.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, unless we are going to manufacture wheelbarrows and exchange them for wheelbarrows from some other country-and surely we do not adjust our economies to do that.
Let me read a little excerpt from the Pakistan News and Views of February 2. It is a very interesting item regarding a
>
speech that was given by Mr. Nurul Amin, chief minister of East Pakistan. I will read it:
Land which formerly produced jute is now going to be used to grow more food for the populous area of East Pakistan. The chief minister of East Pakistan, Mr. Nurul Amin, has expressed the hope that this will enable East Pakistan to wipe out its food deficit in two years.
They are going to become self-sufficient in respect of their production of foods in two years. I will not take time to read the whole article but the final paragraph reads:
In conclusion, the chief minister stated that selfsufficiency in food was the first objective of every country. "But", he added, "it is more so in the case of East Pakistan which has an enormous population."
Now, Mr. Speaker, one might say that to take such an attitude is to lean toward nationalism. Well, if that is so in contradistinction to the position of the internationalists, then I do not mind being called a nationalist. Furthermore, if we are to be accused of attempting to safeguard our sovereignty, I do not mind being accused of that either. To add it up and conclude, all you are accusing one of is simply being a Canadian. You can accuse us of that if you wish. You can say that we are ultra-Canadian if you wish. I say that we believe in foreign trade. We believe also in using our productive capacity to produce Canadian goods for Canadian people. What we say is simply this. We can produce sugar in Canada, and there is no reason why we should not produce sugar for Canadian consumption.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a brief that has been published by the Alberta sugar beet growers. I am not going to read the entire brief, but I am going to read that part of it which sums up one or two of the reasons for the continuation and expansion of the sugar industry in Canada for Canadians. I read this from the brief:
Several policies of the Canadian government are directly affected by the potential influx of foreign refined sugars into Canada.
Then, the brief gives some of the reasons for the necessity of sugar production in this country. The first one in the brief, numbered "A", is as follows:
The defence policy-which makes it vital to Canada, that a reasonable proportion of this country's sugar supply be produced at home. The lesson of sugar rationing and shortages during the last war should be remembered. During that period of stringency-due to submarine sinking of sugar ships-it was required that Alberta sugar be shipped to Ontario and Quebec.
We do not have to comment on that. We all know that sugar is a vital food product in Canada. The nation could not live without sugar, and yet as soon as the last war 08108-117
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement broke out one of the first things to be rationed was sugar. I am quite certain in my own mind that the reason for that was the lack of foresight on the part of the administration here to ensure that there were ample supplies of sugar in Canada. The sugar industry should have been encouraged to produce more for Canadian consumption. We were running around with saccharine tablets in our pockets to put in our tea and coffee. When the fruit season came along and the housewives desired to preserve fruit, what happened? They were allowed a few extra coupons in order to put by some preserves for the winter. This state of affairs really should not have occurred in Canada, yet it did. I say once again that this portion of the brief represents one reason why we should pay attention to the sugar industry of Canada, if for no other reason, because it ties in with an adequate defence policy.
Another reason given in the brief is that the industry helps in our immigration policy. I will read from the brief:
The immigration policy, which calls for the establishment of agricultural people on the Canadian farm lands-as these people from Europe come to a sugar beet area, they are able to establish themselves first as beet labourers, then as tenant farmers, then owners of farms themselves. This process has gone on continually in southern Alberta and many of our best irrigation farmers are those who entered the sugar beet industry as hand labourers.
I am told that about 10,000 people have been brought into these areas. Well, I shall read that portion of the brief.
Since the opening of immigration-post-war, we estimate over 1,000 people each year have been so employed. In seven years, this immigration has amounted to around 10,000 people who are building up Canada. The present population of 100,000 people in the area surrounding Lethbridge, our market town centre, is very largely composed of immigrants attracted by the sugar beet industry.
Then, another reason for supporting the sugar industry in Canada is the irrigation policy. I shall read this short paragraph from the brief:
The irrigation policy. Millions of dollars from governments in Canada have been and are being spent to place water on arid and semi-arid lands. We state, without fear of challenge, that sugar beets as a cash crop, are the foundation for the successful farming, which must follow irrigation in western Canada. The introduction of rotation, use of beet by-products, for supplementing grasses and legumes, the establishment of livestock farming, all rely upon sugar beets.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I could read more from that brief and comment further upon it but I do not wish to detain the house. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has given a great deal of study during the past twenty years to the sugar industry of Canada, and he will have something to say upon this
1335	HOUSE OF
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement matter. I am going to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that on the subject of _ the sugar industry the member for Lethbridge is an expert. It would pay this house to listen to what he has to say in this connection. It is of vital importance to Canada. We are not simply making claims for the industry itself, we are making claims on behalf of the Canadian nation. We believe that the policy of producing Canadian goods for Canadian people is the right policy. Since sugar is a vital food product, we believe in the production of Canadian sugar for Canadian consumption.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I greatly
appreciate the warmth of the welcome that I have received upon returning to the House of Commons. Last evening I returned from a trip that covered 20,000 miles of travel by air, and which included visits to eleven different countries. I hope in due course to be able to give a report to the house of some of the highlights of the trip, perhaps on the estimates of the department. At the moment, I should like to speak about sugar.
I was not able to do so earlier. Perhaps hon. members would be interested in my contact with this problem.
Some time early in last October I had a call from Mr. McGregor of the Canada and Dominion Sugar Company, pointing out that imports of Cuban refined sugar were coming into western Ontario and disturbing the market for beet sugar. At that time he asked that a quota be placed on imports of refined sugar into Canada. I pointed out that quantitative restrictions were one of the menaces to world trade today and that Canada was vigorously protesting quantitative restrictions against the importation of Canadian cheese into the United States market and against other similar violations of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. He was not satisfied with that, but he departed. A few days later I was asked to meet a group of beet sugar growers and refiners, which I did. Quite a large group came to Ottawa. Representatives of the industry in Alberta, in Manitoba, in western Ontario and in Quebec came here. We had a frank discussion. Several facts emerged from it. One fact that was stated repeatedly was that the agreement with Cuba covering the import of raw sugar had no bearing on the problem whatever. That was stated several times by several members of the delegation and I thought it was accepted as a fact by all those present. Of course, it is a fact because the source of the raw sugar is immaterial if the laid-down price in Canada is the same from any country of
(Mr. Hansell.l

origin as it is in this case. The meeting was in agreement-I must say that the representative of the Quebec industry did not agree-that the whole difficulty was caused by the importation of refined sugar from Cuba. The representative from Quebec said that there were several things wrong with the industry, but the rest agreed absolutely that if the import of the refined sugar from Cuba could be stopped, the beet industry could carry on.
I promised the meeting that I would visit Cuba early in February-I had already planned to do that as part of my itinerary- and that I would take up with Cuban exporters the matter of stopping the import of Cuban refined sugar into the beet-growing areas. That was an undertaking, and both they and I understood that it was a binding agreement that I would do just that.
A short time after that the beet-growing industry was circularized by Mr. McGregor of the Canada and Dominion Sugar Company, Limited and was asked to take part in a pressure campaign on the government to bring about legislation to stop the import of Cuban refined sugar. I am happy to say that the rest of the industry, being men of integrity, refused to have anything to do with that campaign and I was advised by them to that effect. However, the Canada and Dominion Sugar Company then started the most aggressive pressure campaign that I have ever known of ini my seventeen years as a member of this House of Commons. I have here cables that I received while on the trip; they include cables to Bogota, to Havana, to Rio and to other stopping places. They are all in the same language though not in the same words. It happens that Mr. McGregor is a man with a limited vocabulary and he repeats certain phrases. Those phrases are in all the cables. In the meantime the office received telegrams and letters obviously all written by Mr. McGregor or his staff and signed by parish priests, by organizations of growers, by individuals and by various other people, if there are any others.
The hon. member for Lambton West (Mr Murphy) undertook to take up the subject in the House of Commons and he did so. I presume that the hon. member for Lambton West prepared his own speech but I notice that the same old phrases that appeared in these letters and telegrams turned up frequently in his speech. It may be asked: Why did I not answer on this matter before I left? Would it not seem logical that I should do so when members from this side of the house spoke on this subject? I did not do so. The reason I did not was the commitment I had made to go to Cuba and

to take this matter up on the ground. I know from experience-as I think most other people do-that anything that is written on the subject of sugar in Canada or any speech made in the House of Commons on sugar is reprinted in full in Spanish in the Cuban newspapers. If I was going to talk to the Cuban industry, obviously I should not talk in Canada in this House of Commons; I should talk to them in Cuba. Therefore I made no reply to the speeches.
When I met with our beet growers at the end of October, I stated that I was reasonably sure that, if our position was laid before the Cuban authorities, the import of refined sugar would stop. I pointed out that the interest of Cuba was centred more on shipping raw sugar to Canada than on shipping refined sugar. I stated that I would find out how that refined sugar was coming in and would arrange to stop the import.
I arrived in Cuba. I found the industry greatly disturbed. They had been reading the speeches of the hon. member for Lambton West and they wanted to know whether Canada wanted to break trade relations with Cuba. I explained that the hon. member for Lambton West was simply a politician looking for the votes of the sugar growers and that they were not to take his remarks seriously.
However, we had thorough discussions. At a meeting attended by the principal exporters of the island I explained that we were glad to have their raw sugar but that their refined sugar was presenting a serious economic problem in Canada. They agreed at once that they had no desire to upset the Canadian economy and that if refined sugar was doing that, they would stop exporting it to the beet areas.
I then met the sugar institute, the body that controls all matters affecting sugar in the island of Cuba. I explained the situation to them. They very reasonably said:	"You
have a duty on refined sugar of $1.89 per 100 lbs., which is a duty of more than 25 per cent at present prices; if our sugar can come in over that duty, your refiners are getting too much profit." I said: "I know that; but nevertheless I am talking for the beet-sugar industry. Even though our cane refiners are taking too much profit, I want you to stop the shipment of refined sugar into the beet-growing areas." They pointed out some exceedingly bad buying practices on the part of our trade-practices which should be corrected. I am meeting our refiners at the end of the week and I hope that those buying practices can be corrected.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is Mr. McGregor coming up?
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will be glad to talk to Mr. McGregor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Talk to him in Spanish.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Assuming that remedial action is taken with regard to these buying practices which have discriminated definitely against the Cuban exporters, I think I can assure hon. members that no Cuban refined sugar will be shipped from Cuba into western Ontario or into the three prairie provinces. It may be that if the refiners are still considered to be taking too wide a margin, refined sugar will go to Newfoundland, which was always a market for Cuban refined sugar, it may go into the maritime provinces. All I am saying is that refined sugar will" not be shipped directly from Cuba into the beet-growing markets.
I should like to say a little bit about Mr. McGregor's company. While we are going into this matter I think perhaps we had just better see what the real situation is. We must examine separately the interests of the refining company in question and those of the beet-sugar growers themselves; for, although some of the growers have allowed themselves to be persuaded to join in the representations of the refiners, it does not necessarily follow that their interests are identical.
let me say a few words about the position of this refining company. While I shall have to speak frankly in this connection, I should not like anyone to feel that this is being done in an unfriendly or critical spirit. The company in question is a reputable concern of many years' standing, respected in the community. Its affairs, so far as I know, are efficiently conducted, and if its recommendations are designed to benefit primarily the company itself this is not surprising nor anything with which one should necessarily find fault. The Canada and Dominion Sugar Company is the owner of three large refineries, two in western Ontario and one in Montreal. These refineries, according to figures recently published-and I quote from the Financial Post corporation service-have been doing approximately one-third of all the sugar refining business in Canada.
While the company processes beets in western Ontario, its principal activity is the refining of imported raw cane sugar. In the latest year for which I have seen statistics, for every pound of beet sugar produced by this company it was refining approximately four pounds of imported cane sugar.
During a number of years past, the company has been enjoying a period of quite profitable operations. Between 1945 and
1838	HOUSE OF
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement 1951 its net profits, after taxes, steadily rose from $940,638 in 1945 to $2,238,888 in 1950, an exceptionally good year-


An hon. Member:: The poor fellows!


Clarence Decatur Howe: -followed by a profit of $1,779,337 in 1951. Although I have not seen it authenticated, I am told that the gross profits of the company before write-off in 1952 were the highest in the history of the company. I would point out however that that prosperity in 1952 was not shared by the beet growers, who took a cut in their returns. I am afraid this refining company has not learned about equality of sacrifice.
Good dividends have been regularly paid for many years, and since the war the company has also managed to double its earned surplus which, at the end of 1951, amounted to more than $5 million. It is obvious that the main financial interest of this company lies in the refining of cane sugar, constituting about 80 per cent of its total output, with beet sugar as a profitable sideline.
The year 1950 was a record year for the sugar beet industry in Canada. In that year, from figures reported by the company itself, the Canada and Dominion Sugar Company produced about 494 million pounds of refined sugar, of which 104 million pounds were from beets and 390 million pounds from cane. To express the implications of these facts in more definite terms, if parliament should see fit to take some action which would have the effect of increasing the price of refined sugar in Canada by one cent a pound, this company would be placed in a position to collect from Canadian consumers, in round figures, an pxtra $5 million a year. Of this amount, about $1 million would go for beet sugar. And under the sliding scale of prices provided in the company's contracts, I understand that the beet growers would get about one-half of this sum, the company retaining the balance. Also, the whole of the $4 million arising from the increase in the price of refined cane sugar would be available to increase the profits of the company. I think I can understand why this company might have come to the conclusion that it would be a good thing to keep up the price of refined sugar in Canada, and to prevent the importation of competitive products or, what amounts to much the same thing, to restrict the imports to something less than 1 per cent of total Canadian consumption.
But I cannot quite see why the beet growers should be prepared to support this easy solution to their problems. Relatively speaking, they would get a very small share of the proceeds. In total, out of every additional dollar contributed by Canadian


sugar consumers, the beet growers would apparently stand to gain about 10 cents; the remainder would go to the refiners.
At this point it would be helpful to look at the magnitude of this problem. For the past four years our total imports of all raw and refined sugar into Canada averaged 600,000 short tons per year. Most imports of sugar into Canada are made by the refiners themselves. However, for many years we have been importing modest quantities of refined and other sugar for direct industrial use. Total imports of these sugars in several recent years, as shown in official statistics, have been as follows:
short tons
1935		
1936		
1937		
1938		
1939		
1940		
1947		
1948		
1949		
1950		
1951		
1952	(11 months)
2,583
2,266
2,678
4,998
3,995
8,911
9.036
8,088
4,247
6,325
13,069
23,085
Total imports of refined sugar for direct industrial use since the end of world war II have ranged from 4 to 13 thousand tons a year, and for 1952 may have reached 25,000 tons-less than 4 per cent of the total consumption of refined sugar in Canada. The solution proposed by the Canada and Dominion Sugar Company Limited and the beet sugar growers who are supporting them is a maximum import quota of 5,000 tons of refined sugar per year.
Once we adopted the policy of using import quotas as a permanent protective device for the benefit of the sugar refiners, does anybody imagine that other interests would be slow to appeal for a similar kind of protection? And how would the farmers of Canada like it if this parliament were to place virtually prohibitive import quotas on the things that they have to buy, wherever these articles happen to compete with goods produced in Canada? How would the exporters of Canada like it if their customers in other countries, not content with tariffs, were likewise to adopt import quotas to keep out Canadian products whenever these Canadian products showed signs of competing with their own industry? In instances where other governments have resorted to such policies, we have made vigorous protests. We should not expect our protests to be very effective, however, if we ourselves accepted the principle of virtually prohibitive import quotas as a part of the regular commercial policy of this country. There are very few countries which depend as much as Canada on
183S

two-way international trade, and it would not be logical for us, of all people, to set a bad example by adopting that kind of import restriction.
And now let me say a few words about the beet growing industry. This industry over the years has also grown and prospered. After the first great war the area under sugar beets in Canada ranged from 15 to 25 thousand acres. The value of the beets grown in Canada at that time was less than $2 million a year, and in 1922 beet sugar accounted for only 2-6 per cent of the total production of refined sugar in Canada. Since then, the beet growers have come a long way under our present sugar tariff structure. The number of acres in sugar beet has steadily increased to an all-time high of 101,650 acres in 1950, and nearly as much, 93,138 acres, in 1951. The total value of sugar beets grown in Canada reached an alltime high of $18,459,000 in 1950, as a result of good weather and abnormal raw cane sugar prices. The value of $14,364,000 in 1951 was the second highest in history. Beet sugar represented 19-6 per cent of the total Canadian production of refined sugar in 1950 and 18-9 per cent of the total in 1951. Hon. members will find an inspiring story of this industry in an article by George A. Yackulic in Saturday Night of February 7. In this article, headed "Hope and Fortune Found in Sugar Beets", the writer described the beet sugar industry in Alberta as having been a steppingstone to farm ownership for many hundreds of new Canadians. The writer reports that, by the time they finish collecting for their 1952 crop next fall, many of Alberta's farmers will count their profits from beets at over $100 per acre.
There is, of course, a difference between growing beets in Alberta and growing them in Ontario. The irrigated land of Alberta which is suitable for beet culture is far away from Canadian ocean ports. The beet growers of Alberta and to a lesser extent those of Manitoba, therefore, enjoy a natural freight protection against the competition of imported sugar. This may be illustrated by the following table of relative retail prices of refined sugar in eight Canadian cities on September 2 last:
Cents per lb.
Halifax	 9-8
Saint John	 10-1
Montreal	 9-6
Toronto	 9-9
Winnipeg	 13-1
Saskatoon	 14-2
Edmonton	 12-2
Vancouver	 10-5
Tariff protection sufficient to safeguard the production of sugar beets in Ontario is,
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement therefore, more than sufficient to protect the production in western Canada, which benefits by freight protection in addition. In Ontario, recent figures indicate that the production of beet sugar is running at approximately 47,000 tons a year, about 7 per cent of the total production of refined sugar in Canada. In Ontario there are competitive demands for labour, notably in Windsor and Chatham; there are also competitive uses for land such as the production of soya beans and corn; but it is remarkable to see the way in which the sugar beet farmers of Ontario have continued to find it profitable in recent years to grow this crop.
We have heard a great deal in this house about the 6,000 sugar beet farmers in Ontario. According to the census of 1951, sugar beets were being grown during that year on 3,087 farms in Ontario on an area of 30,068 acres, being an average of 9.07 acres per farm. In Alberta and Manitoba, the operations were on a larger scale, the average area under sugar beets per farm in Alberta being 26.8 acres and in Manitoba 20.2 acres. In the province of Quebec, on the other hand, sugar beets were being grown on 2,494 farms on an area of 10,741 acres, being an average of 4.3 acres per farm.
The cause of the present complaints lies in the recent fall in world raw sugar prices, not in this small importation of Cuban refined sugar. What has brought this about? There is no mystery about it. During and after the second world war there was a temporary shortage of sugar, and prices went up. By the spring of 1950 production had increased and the price of raw sugar had fallen to about $4 per 100 lbs., f.a.s. Cuba.
The panic buying following the outbreak of hostilities in Korea pushed this price up to a high of better than $8 per 100 lbs., in July, 1951. Since that date production has been overtaking consumption, and within the last few months the supply of sugar available has increased to such a level that producing countries are holding substantial tonnages of raw sugar and the price has fallen as low as $3.50 per 100 lbs., f.a.s. Cuba, Neither the beet growers, for whom I have the greatest respect and sympathy, nor any other class of producers can hope to continue to receive at all times the full benefit of scarcity prices. For many years they enjoyed an extensive and profitable business at normal prices. During the last few years they have done even better. At the present time world sugar prices have returned to more normal levels.
There may be farmers who will find it more profitable to shift a part of their production into some other crop. Such shifts

Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement happen every year. On the other hand, I have no doubt that even without any extraordinary measures to promote the growing of this crop, sugar beets will continue to be profitably grown in Canada as they have been throughout the past fifty years.
I appreciate the fact that the Canadian refiners have special problems of their own. Because of the seasonal nature of Canadian navigation they have to stock up for the winter and hold a considerable inventory which may rise or fall in value while they are holding it. In recent years raw sugar prices have been rising and I presume that refiners have taken a corresponding benefit. More recently, prices have been falling and it is evident that the refiners have naturally been postponing as long as possible the moment for making corresponding reductions in the prices of refined sugar. This is why industrial users of refined sugar in Canada have found it worth their while to import refined sugar from Cuba, even over a duty of nearly two cents a pound.
There is no doubt in my mind that it would be possible, if we thought it to Canada's advantage, to devise some kind of restrictions which would curtail or entirely prevent the importation of refined sugar from any source, though naturally the people of Canada would have to pay for it in higher prices, the loss of export markets, and retaliation in other countries.
In Cuba our export interests include fish, potatoes, wheat, and a very wide variety of manufactured products which the Cubans themselves would like to buy from us in larger quantities. A good many of these products come from Ontario and western Canada, the very provinces where sugar beets are grown.
It would surely be irrational to endanger our export markets for fish, potatoes and wheat and manufactured products and at the same time to increase the cost of living and the cost of production throughout Canada in order to safeguard one industry against all possible competition.
It is not the policy of this government or of the party to which I belong to respond to pressure organized and generated by a single company, even if it is the producer of one-third of all the refined sugar consumed in Canada.
A good deal has been said in this debate, particularly by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy), who told us a very sad tale about the low wages paid in Cuba. I took particular pains to find out about wages in Cuba. The sugar producers have a


contract with the workers which is supervised by the government. I was able to get a document from the government in Spanish which gave the full particulars. I think Canadian sugar growers, who have been doing so well according to Mr. McGregor and the hon. member for Lambton West, might want to know what similar labour in Cuba is getting. They might revise their whole idea about returns for growing of sugar beets in western Ontario.
During my visit to Cuba a few days ago I obtained a substantial file of information with regard to wage rates paid to workers in the sugar industry and applicable to the 1953 sugar crop. I also obtained comparable information with regard to the 1950 crop. These wages are not by any means low.
Out of scores of occupations listed, I may quote a few typical ones. The lowest unskilled wage listed in the entire contract is the one for collectors of sugar samples, warehousemen, et cetera, who are getting $4.43 a day. Generally speaking, the wages for unskilled workers in the sugar mills range between $5 and $6 a day; the wages for more skilled workers range from $6 to $9 per day; and when we get into the classes of tradesmen the wages run from $9 to $15 a day. Foremen are getting $15 to $22 a day. It should be noted that all workers in Cuban sugar factories receive compulsory vacation pay as well as a number of extra benefits for retirement, maternity, et cetera. They operate on a 44-hour week. That is the answer to the sad story about the depressed wages paid to the poor coloured workers in the Cuban sugar industry.
I should like to quote from the Chatham Daily News of November 7, 1952, as follows:
For the second time within a quarter of a century the sugar beet industry in Ontario faces possible extinction as the Liberal government at Ottawa allows refined Cuban sugar to flood the domestic market. Noting that the price of beet sugar has dropped $10.80 to $8.60 within a sixteen month period and $1.30 since Cuba started flooding the market last February, beet processors admitted today that they are "stymied" in the face of government apathy.
I can tell you how beet sugar can be compensated if the price of refined sugar has only dropped to the extent indicated there while the price of raw cane sugar has dropped by $4.40. The beet sugar growers might ask the refiners for a little share of the extra gravy that is being withheld at the expense of the Canadian consumer.
I have some additional notes here. I had planned to really do a job on my friend, Mr. McGregor, in return for the loss of sleep he caused me on my trip, but I do not think I will say much more. One threat he made did not cause me very much concern. I have

heard it made before. It was a threat that unless Cuban refined sugar was shut out of Canada he would close the refineries. I would assume that Mr. McGregor has shareholders and a board of directors, and that just about the time he would start closing the refineries the board of directors would decide to get themselves a new head boy.
This has been a difficult negotiation. Our balance of trade with Cuba is very much in our favour, and Cuba is a very important market to the maritime provinces. It always has been and it always will be. The Cuban agreement on raw sugar was made as ' a means of stimulating that market and of protecting the market we have had. It has had that effect. There has been a very sharp growth in imports from the maritime provinces, and in talking to the people of Cuba I may say that they in Cuba believe that market can be stimulated a great deal more.
It was necessary to conduct these negotiations with that thought in mindu Certainly I have no intention at any cost of disturbing that market for products of the maritime provinces. However, it has been my experience that international traders are reasonable people and that they particularly value the good will of governments. I did not have much doubt when I went to Cuba that if this situation was explained to the exporters they would be prepared to co-operate. I found that to be the case, and I sincerely hope that nothing will be said in this house or outside of it that will further disturb the happy relations that exist between Canada and Cuba in the matter of raw and refined sugar and in the matter of interchange of products generally between our two countries.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I should like to ask the minister a question. I would be interested to know whether, if the importation of refined sugar from Cuba was prohibited, that would increase the cost of refined sugar to the Canadian people.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I can say is, it would put the refineries in the position of being able to charge anything they like for refined sugar, and while I have great respect for the industry as a whole I have no respect at all for the president of the Canada and Dominion Sugar Company. I shudder to think what he would do to our consumer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question? Can he explain why it is that the retail price of sugar at Winnipeg is so high, the second highest in the country of the list that he gave, in view of the fact that we have a refinery right at our back door?
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement


Clarence Decatur Howe: The prices of all products are based on competition. I presume it costs more to grow sugar beets in Manitoba than it does in Ontario. I do not believe that the beet sugar growers on the prairies could live on the price at which raw sugar can be landed at Canadian ports and refined there. The protection of course is the rail rate from the coast to the interior. I think the prices are just what one would expect, having in mind the cost of transporting imported sugar to the prairies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is getting the benefit of that freight rate protection, the growers or the company?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think we can say that the industry on the prairies supplies the demands of the prairies, and it therefore has a self-contained market for that product. In the circumstances I think the prices are reasonable.


An hon. Member:: We have no Mr. McGregor.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not met him anyway.


Mr. Bryce:: May I ask the minister a question? How is it that in the minister's home town of Port Arthur Manitoba sugar is 50 cents a hundred cheaper than at Winnipeg?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest, if I know the division of markets among the refineries, that the head of the lakes is supplied from eastern Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, we are all glad, I know, to have the report of the minister. We are very glad to have him back.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Are you going to change your speech?


John Horne Blackmore: Why not let a fellow get
started?


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I thought I had better ask now.


John Horne Blackmore: You will soon find out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: We are very glad that the minister has given us his report. I am not sure of all the details concerning the profits that are being made by other corporations in Canada. Before a person could be sure that the sugar refining industry is making inordinate profits I think one would need to probe into the affairs of probably twenty other corporations in Canada to find out whether or not they are making relatively more. Of course the figures that the minister gave sound very attractive and startling. I wonder what the profits of the International Nickel Company would look like or the
1842	HOUSE OF
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement Aluminum Company of Canada or General Motors! Possibly if we knew all these things we might not have quite such a strong opinion as we may be tempted to have now. However, I am very glad to have the minister's report.
May I say that I greatly respect the minister and everything he has done. I appreciate very much that he was able to get the Cuban people to agree not to send into Canada any more refined sugar. Notwithstanding all that, however, I rise to voice a grievance. In my constituency, and in other beet sugar producing areas of Canada, there is definite injury by reason of the importation of Cuban refined. There is no objection to the importation of Cuban raw sugar, but when Cuban refined comes in we begin to remember the years 1930, 1931, 1929, 1928 and 1927, that period right up to 1932 when the Conservative government had to impose a minimum price of $2.30 a hundred at point of origin in order to save the beet sugar industry at all. We remember the fact that for some unaccountable reason the Liberal government at Ottawa abolished that provision in 1939, a provision which was the sole protection the beet sugar industry of Canada had against the importation of refined sugar from cane producing areas. They never told the country they did that. They did not get permission from parliament to do it. They did not even announce it. They just did it. Thereby the beet sugar growers were left completely at the mercy of cane producing areas where they could refine the raw cane into refined. That is the thing that is worrying us.
We can remember all the abominations committed against the beet sugar industry by the sugar controller during world war II. One of these days I will talk about them, and I believe they will be quite astounding to our maritime friends, for whom I have nothing but the very greatest sympathy.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: You are always astounding.


John Horne Blackmore: I hope I always will be.
1 think it would do my hon. friend a lot of good to be astounded occasionally.
So, Mr. Speaker, we still think we have been injured and are in danger of being much more severely injured by the importation of Cuban refined sugar. We look upon the federal government's neglect to limit the importation of this Cuban refined sugar into Canada as a neglect of duty.
I propose to show the vital importance of the beet sugar industry in the Canadian economy with respect to several considerations.

Any nation that intends ever to be strong and enduring must have constantly in mind five essentials respecting its economy. The first is to keep enough of its youth and its immigrants at home to provide amply for its people-producers, consumers and defenders. The second is to keep enough of its money at home to avoid falling into debt abroad. The third is to keep farmers and other primary producers within its borders able to buy the output of the cities. The fourth is to keep its national plant from running down, in other words to husband its resources, managing as far as possible always to improve them and not to deplete them. The fifth is to keep its production stable by avoiding lopsidedness or development in one or two or a few crops, an economy resembling that of Cuba. To attain those five imperative national objectives, the beet sugar industry is the best means available to Canada-this is a matter of exceedingly serious importance, a thing altogether too much neglected.
The beet sugar industry is no longer an experiment. It has been long tried, long proven and long trusted. Germany and Russia and other continental European countries have proved it. Britain has proved, and so has the United States. Canada has proved it abundantly and beyond all possibility of doubt. By that I mean to say that the sugar beet industry is not on trial. The only ones on trial in this country are people who do not know about it. Canada has proved the beet sugar industry in respect of each of the five considerations I have mentioned.
Back in 1932, in the darkest of the depression years, it was estimated in the United States that a beet sugar factory of 1,200 tons slicing capacity would give a living directly and indirectly to 10,000 people. The factory at Raymond, Alberta, in my constituency, is of 1,200 tons slicing capacity and produces yearly about 45 million pounds of refined sugar. It employed 350 people in the factory, 2,200 workers in the fields and 700 growers. That factory used coal to the value of $55,000; lime rock to the value of $20,000; coke to the value of $9,000; boxes, supplies and maintenance to the value of $105,000; bags to the value of $100,000; freight rates to the value of $330,000. The factory payroll was $175,000, and it paid the growers $940,000.
From the standpoint of providing work and markets I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is not an industry in the Dominion of Canada or on the North American continent that can begin to compare with the beet sugar industry. Let it be borne in mind that if troubles come upon this nation tending toward depression the first thing we shall be
IMr. Blackmore.]

wanting will be jobs and markets. If we destroy this means of providing markets we will rue the day. Let us be wise enough not to be foolish in respect of the beet sugar industry.
This factory helped to keep busy the rail-waymen, miners, labourers, truckers and others. The proof of these figures will be found in "Why Canada needs sugar beets", pages 14 to 16.
In the Lethbridge area now there are three fine sugar factories at Raymond, Picture Butte and Taber. That will indicate the reason Lethbridge had a higher per capita income in 1952 than any other city or community in Canada. The Lethbridge district receives very little income from oil. There are hardly any oil wells there. All the prosperity which prevails in Alberta generally in respect of oil is not shared directly by Lethbridge.
Turning back to the Raymond factory, certainly from 1932 until now it ha9 kept a good many Alberta youths at home who otherwise would have gone to the United States. It thereby complies with the first national requirement. It has kept in Canada money that would otherwise have gone to Cuba or other dollar countries to pay for scores of millions of pounds of sugar. It has kept many farmers and others in a position where they have been able to buy manufactured goods from Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada. By reason of the manure from stockfeeding, of the fibers and nitrogen restored to the soil, through crop rotation it has helped to keep the soil in southern Alberta from running down. Finally, it has greatly diversified Alberta and Canadian farming, which is a matter of extreme importance. Every acre of properly managed Alberta sugar beet land takes ten acres out of production of wheat in Alberta. That results from the fact that one of a considerable number of crop rotations is used in making the land ready for each beet crop.
The Canadian farming industry is now specializing far too much in wheat growing. Through raising wheat and other grains we are mining our soil. May I repeat that we are mining the soil of Canada. The amount of nitrogen taken out of the soil in raising one bushel of wheat is 1-3 pounds. For oats the figure is -65 pounds; for barley -9 pounds. Now, imagine how much of the actual substance of Canadian soil we are sending out of this country when we ship 100 million bushels of wheat. That goes on every year, not just 100 million but 300 million and 350 million bushels.


An hon. Member:: What are you going to do about it?
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement


John Horne Blackmore: We have to do something about it rather than sit around here and see it happen. What I am suggesting is that if we were increasing our sugar supply through the beet sugar industry we would remove a vast amount of that wheat land from the production of wheat, and we would produce our own sugar.
I know that does not mean very much to people who do not know this subject of sugar beets, but please understand that I know it. If you do not quite agree with me I will give you plenty of documents in which you can find proof for what I am saying. Call up the experimental farm any time and they will tell you exactly what I am telling you.
A carload of two-year-old fat steers does not contain as much phosphorus as 400 bushels of wheat. The figures I have just given are shown by publication No. 883 of the experimental farm service, called "Irrigation in Southern Alberta" published by Dr. K. W. Hill, senior agronomist at the central experimental farm. I have talked with Dr. Hill, and I have in my possession a letter containing the facts I have given you. It reached me only this morning, so you can be sure the figures I am giving you are right up to date.


Mr. Sluder:: What about the land belonging to the provinces?


John Horne Blackmore: 
them to do, we are going to be in danger of losing the money we are spending out there in the development of irrigation.
Many of those who oppose, or adopt a lukewarm attitude to, the beet sugar industry argue that Canada should work for less restrictive trade, and toward free trade. For a moment may we examine this matter of freer trade, currently called the principle of non-discrimination in trade. Samuel Crowther, whose work showed him to be a man of wide knowledge, experience and understanding, copyrighted in 1933 a book entitled "America Self-Contained". Chapter 9 of this book has the title "The free-trade myth." The chapter opens with a sentence which has the same meaning as the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) gave a few minutes ago; it is this:
One of the most curious of the several classical economic delusions is that trade ever has been or ever can be free.
I say to hon. members, can you name any great nation of our time that became great through free trade? Has not every nation which became great used protection high enough to protect its industries until those industries became strong enough to compete with any industries in the world? Take Great Britain as an example. Britain is supposed to be a country that proves the soundness of free trade. I am not saying anything against free trade. I am putting some facts forward so that hon. members can read those facts and realize what almost fanatical delusions we see manifested by a great many inexperienced and uninformed Liberals who come into this house.
In Crowther's "America Self-Contained" there appear several statements bearing upon Britain and free trade. At page 165 we read:
The regulation of international trade by tariffs and other restrictions is now, and always has been, an affair of expediency, and what is today accepted as classical free-trade doctrine is only a record of what British industrialists considered best for Great Britain at a certain period of history.
You see that just simply shoots a hole right into the balloon of the free trade idealists. Speaking of Adam Smith, who is said to be the high priest of the free traders, Mr. Crowther says at page 165 of his book:
He did not advocate the repeal of protective duties in cases where an industry would be destroyed-
We can see how that applies to our beet sugar industry. Again, the author says:
-he put national defence above all other considerations.
Again, it is said:
He held that the navigation acts, which practically confined British trade to British ships, were necessary. . .

Again:
-he did not favour wiping out the British farmers by letting in free the products of virgin lands.
Let our free trade idealists weigh these facts. On page 166 we read this from Samuel Crowther:
Adam Smith did not bring free trade to England. It so happens that he wrote at a time when British industry was coming to the stage where it did not need protection from foreign industry so much as it needed entry into foreign markets.
In other words, British industries had become so strong that they could compete successfully with any other industries on the face of the earth. Mr. Crowther himself makes the following significant statement at page 169:
One might imagine that British trade had from the beginning been based on the free exchange of commodities. Nothing could be further from the facts. Up to the thirteenth century, England was a crude agricultural country supplying raw materials to the Hansards, who were known as the Easterlings, and since theirs was the only money in England, the name for their money, corrupted into "sterling", has survived. Edward III saw that the British wool might as well be woven at home, so he attracted a number of Flemish weavers and, as soon as they were well under way, prohibited the wearing of any articles made of foreign cloth. Some years later, foreign merchants were compelled by edict to lay out in British goods the proceeds realized on any articles they imported.
What do you think about that for free trade? Free trade was not the policy that Britain applied when she was becoming great. Then at page 170 we read from Samuel Crowther again:
The navigation act was the rock on which British trade was built.
That is significant, is it not? In other words the free trade policy of Great Britain, without the navigation act, even when Britain was using "free trade", would certainly not have sustained Britain in the great role which she played.
From page 177 in Samuel Crowther's book we read this passage:
There was really no freedom about British free trade. It was an entirely one-sided arrangement, for no country could sell manufactured goods in Britain at a price to compete with home-made articles, while of course England had no need to raise a barrier against the incoming of raw materials for her factories. So free trade really meant that every country would admit British goods instead of attempting to make its own.
There is a catch there. There are a number of people in the house who have indicated absolutely fantastic and fanatical addiction to the idea of free trade.
Let me draw these additional facts to the attention of all those who think too strongly about free trade. Britain was at that time the world's banker. Britain was also the 68108-1181
Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement world's insurance headquarters. Foreign competition with British goods had not grown up from Germany, the United States and from home industries such as we now find in Canada. Trade unionism had not yet developed in Britain. It was therefore possible for employers in Britain to force down labour to almost starvation levels.
These were the elements in Britain which enabled so-called free trade to work. Does anyone, even in the wildest nightmare, imagine that Canada could possibly get into a position similar to the one Britain occupied in those days? If Canada cannot get into the position in which Britain was at that time, how in the world can anyone sanely suggest that free trade for Canada would be sound?
I hope that my good friend the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), who is not in the chamber at the present moment, will give careful thought to these facts. Yet I sympathize with the statements he makes here concerning ultra high prices which result from too much tariff protection. We can go too far in the matter of tariff protection, and in many cases we have done so in Canada.
What about Germany? Did Germany become great because of free trade? Nothing of the sort. Friedrich List, a great thinker in the days of Bismarck, was invited by Bismarck to advise him as to how to build a great and powerful Germany, that Germany which we today dread in production and international competition. What did List advise? The most careful, elaborate and effective system of protection of German industries until they became powerful enough to compete successfully with industry anywhere on the face of the earth; and Germany was labouring under the disadvantage that the resources which she possessed were relatively exceedingly meagre for the population she had. She had to build herself out of woefully inadequate materials, but look what she did.
Now let us consider the United States. Upon what policies has she become great? Free trade? Not at all. Everybody knows how rigidly the United States has excluded goods from abroad. She was advised by this same Friedrich List who by the way was driven from Germany by certain people who did not like his ideas. He took refuge in the United States and taught the United States people the secrets of building their nation. So they built themselves into a nation which today, like a Colossus, bestrides the world. On free trade? No, not on free trade. We had therefore better be careful. I am not saying a word against free trade. I am merely putting on the record some facts

Canada-Cuba Sugar Agreement to which I hope the people in the country, particularly those in this house, will give a great deal of attention.
Then what about Canada? Canada has grown great relatively. What has she done it on? The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) gave several items which are protected quite generously by tariffs in Canada. I will just read a few of those for the benefit of people like the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing), who seem to imagine that any kind of protection is pernicious. We have asparagus protected by a tariff of 10 per cent; beans, green, 10 per cent; cabbage, 10 per cent; carrots and beets, 30 per cent; celery, 10 per cent; apples, 20 per cent-some of that has been removed; that was in 1947-sugar beets, 30 per cent; potatoes, 75 cents a hundred pounds; onions, 30 per cent; oats, 16 cents a bushel; rye, 15 cents a bushel; wheat, 30 cents a bushel; seeds, garden, 35 per cent.


Mr. Laing:: How much of it is seasonal?


John Horne Blackmore: A good deal of it is seasonal and a good deal of it is not. For example, as to potatoes, it is not seasonal trade.


Arthur Laing: Oh, yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Potatoes? I will go right to the record with my hon. friend. I have It right here. Possibly he realizes that I know something about what is in that record. I have here on my desk the Canada Customs Tariff with amendments to June 1, 1950, so it is up to date; I think my hon. friend will agree with that. I can give him the pages on which those things are listed. For example, he will find potatoes on page 119, 75 cents a hundred pounds. I proceed with my list: whisky, $10 a gallon; soya beans, free; eggs. 10 cents a dozen; butter, 14 -cents; horses, $25; canned beef, 35 per cent; and so on down a long list that I do not think I will go through. But we have coal, including screenings and coal dust, protected by 75 cents. Let no one run away with the idea that Canada is a free trade country or has attained through free trade policies the degree of industrial development which she has attained. Let us not apply the doctrine, the dogma and the myth of free trade against the beet sugar industry because its advocates are seeking enough protection to enable it to grow as it should.
Others who are unsympathetic with the beet sugar industry contend that it is not efficient. I dare venture the opinion that if we could find an adequate score card by which to judge efficiency, it would be found that the beet sugar industry is probably one of the most efficient industries in the

Dominion of Canada. What do these people mean by "efficient" when they talk about "efficient"? As the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) said, I challenge any hon. member in the house or any person in the country to show that Canada is able to produce any commodity more cheaply than that commodity is being produced and sold somewhere else in the world. In other words, if we were to take away all protection from Canada, we soon would be using food and goods coming from everywhere on the face of the earth and we would not have anything produced with which to pay for them. That is precisely what we would face.
Now may I read a statement which I believe has a tremendous bearing on this whole matter of protection for the beet sugar industry. Here is a statement from a little publication called "Sugar Facts" dated February 3, 1953. It is headed "Cuba Sets Wage Rates". It states:
The government of Cuba, following meetings over the week-end, between the minister of labour and workers' representatives had announced its intention of fixing wages and salaries in the sugar industry at levels geared to a raw sugar price of $4.70 per 100 pounds f.o.b., 26 cents below the 1952 level of $4.96.
I ask you, what industry on the face of the earth could compete successfully with a country that is in a position to work together like that, so they can reduce their costs of production to the point where they can come in and compete successfully in the market of any country to which they desire to go. I am afraid that is exactly what we are facing in Cuba.
I greatly appreciate what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said to us today about the co-operative attitude of Cuba. If they decide to enter the Canadian market, they are able to do it. We do not have protection adequate to keep them out. I think the quota, possibly, is the best means of shielding our beet sugar industry. That is the means used in the United States. Some of these days perhaps I shall discuss the sugar quota as it is being employed in the sugar industry in the United States.
The beet sugar industry is of top-flight importance in respect of every one of the basic principles on which a nation is built enduring and strong. Without the beet sugar industry Canada cannot possibly attain selfsufficiency. Let me draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that today the United States is almost self-sufficient, and it is because of the fact that it is almost impossible to get United States dollars. If we want to be strong like the United States, what should our national aim be? Naturally, using

the United States as a model to govern ourselves by, it should be national self-sufficiency. And we cannot attain that without the Canadian beet sugar industry.
Without the beet sugar industry a genuinely balanced economy would be almost impossible to develop, if not utterly impossible. I am referring to an economy in which the primary producers, the farmers, could buy the products of the nation's industries. Without the beet sugar industry it will be extremely impracticable to maintain or to restore the richness of Canadian soils. No other industry I know of in Canada can be put to work and improve the soil while it produces a crop. Without the beet sugar industry it will be far more difficult to give employment to many Canadians, thus holding them in Canada where we want them, not down in the United States, after we have paid money to educate them.
Without the beet sugar industry it will be far more likely that we shall run into adverse trade balances, especially with the United States, from whom, in the last analysis, we buy a great deal of our sugar which we do not produce in Canada.
Considering the importance of the beet sugar industry to the Canadian economy, and considering only that, we must conclude that the admission of Cuban refined sugar into the Canadian market was highly regrettable.
It may be argued that the Canadian refiners are getting too much. I do not know about that; but I would say this, that before the government took the risky procedure of permitting Cuban refined sugar to come into this country, they ought to have found out what the situation was. They should not have let the Cuban refined sugar come in first, and then found out afterwards. That is a pretty reckless way of governing.
I maintain that the sooner we shut out Cuban refined sugar entirely, by a device similar to the one used in 1932, or by devices such as those suggested by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie), the better off we shall be, because this country is capable of producing in the Palliser triangle probably twice the amount of sugar we require, thus making the Palliser triangle a steppingstone to greatness rather than, possibly, a millstone around our necks.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Department and missions abroad-
85. Departmental administration (including expenses of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States permanent joint board on defence), $2,853,958.
Item stands.
External Affairs



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
444. Departmental administration, $1,368,375.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
179. Departmental administration, $613,375.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $354,893.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
162. Departmental administration, $391,601.
Alphonse Fournier: Stands.


Mr. Casselman:: There were only four.


Alphonse Fournier: No; for two weeks I have been announcing those five departments. We have taken two weeks to get them in. One department will disappear within a day or so, so that we will have only four left.


Mr. Graydon:: The minister is so persuasive.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did the minister say that one of the departments would disappear?


Alphonse Fournier: The estimates will be sent to the committee on external affairs.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Lester Bowles Pearson: That items Nos. 85 to 104 inclusive of the main estimates, 1953-54, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution following a practice which has become fairly normal, and I think very useful in the House of Commons, and which gives the standing committee on external affairs an opportunity not only to go over the estimates but also to discuss external affairs generally and report back to the house. This resolution gives me an opportunity, which is also becoming normal, to make a statement on external affairs generally.
The last occasion upon which I was able to do this was December 8, when I gave an interim report to the house on the work of the seventh session of the general assembly of the United Nations. At that time I deall at some length with two questions which

External Affairs
were uppermost in our minds in New York, the Korean and South African questions, which were on the agenda of the general assembly. As the house knows, the United Nations general assembly is to reconvene on February 24 and will then have before it some additional difficult and I should think controversial items. Before the general assembly resumes in New York to discuss these items I should like to make a short estimate of the work so far accomplished, and to survey briefly the task which still lies before the United Nations. I should then like to discuss some other questions of international interest which will not be before the United Nations at this time.
I should say first that the seventh session of the United Nations general assembly, which is proving to be a momentous assembly indeed, has already given us cause for some encouragement and for some anxiety. The main subject, of course, as I have indicated, is Korea. The Korean resolution, which I discussed more fully in my statement of last December, has since that time, as hon. members know, been rejected by communist China and by North Korea and, therefore, unfortunately has not led to an armistice in the unhappy Korean peninsula. Nevertheless I think that this effort, and the resolution which reflects this effort, were of very great significance and importance as a demonstration of unity and solidarity-unity which included all the Asian members of the United Nations. In fact the effort was led by one of the Asian members, India.
Although this resolution has not brought an end to the fighting in Korea, it has become the starting point, the basis for any future action. Finally I believe that it is important that this resolution showed very clearly where the will to peace now lies by exposing the insincerity of communist declarations that they wish to end the war in Korea.
If the United Nations proposal on Korea, which was a fair compromise, had been accepted by the communists who talk so much about a cease-fire we would have been able Long since to enjoy a cease-fire-a cease-fire on the basis of an armistice agreed upon, with prisoners of war already exchanged; and we would now be well on the way to a political conference on outstanding Korean and other Far Eastern questions.
Their summary rejection, and it was a summary rejection by the communists, of this great opportunity for peace exposes the hollowness and hypocrisy of the communist clamour for a cease-fire without an armistice and without an exchange of prisoners-matters which, along with others in the Soviet proposals, echoed recently by Peking, are to

be left for later disposition to a commission which would be set up after the cease-fire and on whose decisions the communist members would have had a veto.
On that important question and other important questions, the general assembly has already shown that even when faced with matters potentially very explosive it is capable of reaching decisions which bear a relation to the present facts and to the possibilities of constructive international action.
It is probable, however, that there will be further far-reaching discussions at later sessions of the general assembly on the reconciliation of domestic jurisdiction as laid down in the charter with the claim that the United Nations is competent to consider and to intervene in any question which anyone may wish to put on the agenda. There is probably no more important long-range problem facing the United Nations general assembly than this.
In the economic, social and legal fields the general assembly did not strike out on any new paths, but it reviewed and developed the work of its various technical agencies. It is possibly worth special mention that there was a decision to recommend a $25 million grant for the expanded program of technical assistance which the economic and social council had already proposed.
Such achievements as the general assembly has been able to make are I think the more commendable in that they were made under the handicap of the uncertainty attendant upon the presidential election in the United States. The general assembly was also faced with serious problems posed for the organization itself by the resignation of the secretary general and by certain difficulties which arose over personnel problems in the secretariat. I shall say no more about these matters now, as they will undoubtedly be discussed at the resumed session.
However, there are some additional subjects on the agenda which promise to give rise to discussion and indeed to opportunities for propaganda. These include, for example, germ warfare, the Polish resolution on "peace" and the Czechoslovak resolution referring to the alleged interference of the United States in the internal affairs of other states. We are now more than half-way through the session of the general assembly, I hope; and while I do not wish to indulge in any idle or unrealistic praise of what it has done or to minimize the difficulties which lie ahead; I think we can take some encouragement from the spirit in which the general assembly tackled the great issues which faced it last

October and from the constructive way in which so many delegations sought for solutions to those issues.
At the United Nations the relations of our delegation were particularly close, as they always have been, with the delegations from the other commonwealth countries and from the United States, and I should like to say a few words at this point about our relations with the United States.
For the past months we in Canada, and indeed the people of the whole world, have followed with mounting interest the constitutional and democratic processes of the United States in connection with the choice of a federal administration by the people of the United States. In Canada, and elsewhere,
I think people were struck by the way in which, once the elections were over, the tumult had ceased, and the television had faded away, the people of the United States closed ranks behind their new administration and took up once again the gigantic task to which destiny has called them at this time.
To Mr. Truman of Independence, Missouri, Canadians owe much and I think will acknowledge a great debt. He met international challenges during the years he sat in the most important office in the most important state in the world with courage and conviction, and he played an indispensable part in laying the foundations which made collective resistance to aggression a reality and in strengthening the sinews of the free world. Now President Eisenhower is taking up this herculean burden. We all know the towering contribution he made to victory in war. It is encouraging today to know that his qualities of statesmanship, and his strength of character, his wisdom and experience will be placed at the service not only of the United States, but of all the free world in our search for peace and security.
The inaugural speech of the new President breathed, I think, both humility and strength. It was an inspiration to all those who were able to hear or read it.
There are no two countries in the world, Mr. Speaker, whose relations are closer and more intimate than those of Canada and the United States. We have our problems and our differences and will continue to have them, problems which arise not only from strictly bilateral questions but also from the position of the United States as the leader of the free world coalition of which Canada is a part. Naturally, as the United States possesses so much the greatest power in that coalition and as its influence is correspondingly, and rightly, greater than others', we others are preoccupied-and at times intensely
External Affairs
so-as to how that power will be used and how that leadership will be exercised.
One problem for any Canadian government in its relations with the United States as the leader of our coalition

and it is sometimes a difficult problem to solve-is to know when we should give up our own particular view in the interests of general agreement and when we should persist in our own policy even if it means disagreement of the kind which gives so much aid and comfort to the communists.
In seeking for the right answer to this question, on the occasions when it is presented to us, there are various factors which I suggest we should always take into consideration. The first is our responsibility to our own people which means, when necessary, stating our own views to our friends frankly but responsibly. Second, it means an understanding of the desirability, indeed the necessity, in the face of the menace that confronts us, of maintaining the maximum degree of unity that is possible. Third, it means a recognition of the special responsibility that the United States is bearing in the effort for peace. All this, I suggest, makes it desirable not only that the Canadian voice in international affairs should be frank and clear and in a recognizable Canadian accent, and also that there should be the greatest possible harmony between that voice and the other members of the chorus, especially the leader.
So far as our strictly bilateral relations with the United States are concerned, if it is possible to separate them from the collective problems which we share with others, they are closer, more complex and more varied than ever before. Take trade, for instance. The currents of trade now criss-cross our boundary with the United States until trade between our two countries has become greater than that between any two countries in the world and, indeed, I believe is greater than trade between the United States and the whole of South America. Every state in the United States and every province in Canada has a part in that trade which reaches farther into Canada as our northern frontiers assume greater importance in the industrial development of both countries.
So, Mr. Speaker, we were glad to hear President Eisenhower, in his state of the union message, urge upon the United States Congress the need for basing foreign trade securely on fair and equitable arrangements, and in particular to hear his recommendation regarding the reciprocal trade agreements act and the revision of customs regulations aimed at reducing obstacles to trade. We hope that this will soon result in enhancing the economic strength of the

External Affairs
whole free world by securing its foundation in rational trading policies which will benefit us all. Political co-operation and economic conflict are difficult at times to reconcile.
In joint defence, if I may turn to another field, our partnership with the United States is also becoming closer and more complex. Today our common defence requirements are greater than ever before, so great, for instance, that it has been necessary for Canadians and Americans to take their places side by side at lonely northern outposts in Canada as protection against possible aggression which, if it occurred, would not be aggression against a nation but aggression against a continent. It must be expected, Mr. Speaker, that as the advances of modern science and technology increase the speed with which an enemy could strike, so it will be necessary to push our continental defences and our continental development farther and farther north.
In this increasing preoccupation with common defence there is ground for satisfaction on two counts. First, Canadians know that the United States government respects our rights and our natural desire to retain in our own hands the responsibility for administration over all our territory, subject of course to the requirements of collective security. Second, the increasing need for northern defence arrangements in turn requires a further development of transportation, communications and other facilities which are making a material contribution to opening up the wealth and resources of our last remaining frontier, the north.
There is one matter, however, in which our American friends have not been able to co-operate with us at the pace we feel the requirements of the situation demand. I am speaking of the St. Lawrence seaway. We have made great progress during the last few months toward the completion of arrangements for the joint development of the power works in the international section of the river, which are essential before we can proceed with the development of the navigation works, either alone or in co-operation with the United States. All arrangements in Canada have now long since been completed. It remains only for the federal power commission of the United States to issue a licence to an appropriate agency to construct the United States share of the power works for this whole project to get under way. We are waiting for the federal power commission to reach a decision on this matter. We hope that it will be soon, and we are disappointed that that decision has not already been reached.

As arrangements for this Canadian project approach completion, there has been renewed interest in the United States in participating in the construction, the operation and the control of the waterway. Our position, which has already been made public, is simply that we must get on with the entire development just as quickly as we can. The need for power has long been urgent. It must be met, and the St. Lawrence river is the last important source of low cost hydroelectric power available to serve this particular area. Once the arrangements for the development of this power have been completed, and only then, we can discuss whatever new proposal the United States may wish to make for participating in the seaway. It has been made clear, however, that the discussion of any new proposal for sharing this task must not delay any longer the whole project.
Canada and the United States have solved many problems together in a spirit of good will and good neighbourliness, with faith in each other's intentions and purposes. Surely they will be able to solve this one, and soon.
I should like to turn for a moment, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to our relations with Latin America, which are growing in importance, both politically and commercially. It has been the policy of this government to do everything it can to foster that growth and to strengthen our relations with this increasingly important part of the world. The importance and influence of the Latin American countries is evidenced not only by their growing trade but also by their growing influence in the world's councils, especially at the United Nations.
So far as trade is concerned, Latin America has become the third largest trading area for Canada, our total trade with it having risen from $33 million in 1938 to well over $500 million in 1952, almost equally divided between imports and exports. Although our trade with Latin America averages only about 6 per cent of our commerce with the world in general, it accounts for about one-quarter of our trade with all countries other than the United States and the United Kingdom. So one of the principal aims of Latin America and Canada in recent years in particular has been to increase trade in both directions.
We were especially glad, as I think all members of the house will agree, to welcome back to the house our colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who has recently made such a distinguished contribution toward strengthening our political and our commercial relationships with Latin America. From all accounts we have received, his mission was greeted with quite

exceptional cordiality in the countries which it visited, and this gives real hope of fruitful results of the kind we are accustomed to securing from the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Gordon Graydon: We cannot see him blushing for the tan.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about our relations with the commonwealth. It is not easy, of course, to bring the commonwealth neatly into any geographical tour since it is as scattered on the map as it is varied in its peoples. It remains one of the most important associations through which Canadian foreign policy is worked out collectively with our friends. It is an association deep-rooted in our history but sensitive to political evolution, as was pointed out so eloquently in this house the other day. Unlike the United Nations and unlike NATO, it has no formal treaty between its members, no formal machinery or firm commitments of any kind; but it is a source of political, economic and moral strength to all of its members and it is of value indeed to the free world which not so long ago it saved from disaster and defeat. Its tried methods of consultation have survived many perils and are always followed by decisions taken by the respective member governments and by agreement on the part of its respective member governments, if only agreement to disagree, which occasionally happens.
The relations, for instance, between the commonwealth delegations at the United Nations are very close and important and it is significant, I think, to realize that at the recent general assembly of the United Nations there were members of the commonwealth who were in what might be termed almost violent disagreement in their approach to certain items on the agenda; but that that never at any time prevented those members of the commonwealth in such disagreement from meeting around the table at a commonwealth meeting to try to iron out their difficulties in private before they were expressed in public.
May I, while I am on commonwealth relationships, mention one other recent consultation, the conference of commonwealth prime ministers held in London last November. It will be recalled that this conference concluded that-and I quote from its communique-
-a more positive policy can now be adopted both by the commonwealth countries themselves, and in concert with other friendly countries, to promote the expansion of world production and trade.
External Affairs
And it emphasized that commonwealth countries-and again I quote-
-have no intention of seeking the creation of a discriminatory economic bloc; rather their object is by strengthening themselves to benefit the world economy generally . . . the commonwealth countries look outward to . . . co-operation with others, not inward to a closed association . . .
That is from the communique at the end of that conference. This conference was no narrow group aiming to improve its position at the expense of or without consideration for others. It was a widely representative meeting seeking to find some basis on which beneficial national action could be taken and from which international co-operation could proceed, but fully aware that such co-operation, to be effective, must have a broader basis than even the commonwealth association.
The effectiveness of this commonwealth conference cannot, of course, be judged finally until more is known of the measures adopted by individual governments following it, and until further discussions have taken place between its members and other governments, particularly the government of the United States, and with various international organizations, particularly the organization for European economic co-operation. The commonwealth countries have, however, taken a useful initiative. In following it up there will have to be co-operation on the broadest possible basis to ease the necessary but not easy adjustments which may have to be made, especially by some of the members of the commonwealth. In this process the Canadian government will naturally wish to play a full and, I hope, constructive part.
Another commonwealth initiative on which I can only touch at this time, but which I am sure will be given consideration later, is the Colombo plan, which likewise was framed in full awareness of the interests of other countries and other organizations, particularly the United Nations. That plan is now nearing the end of its second year and it continues to be one of the most important and constructive elements in our foreign economic policy.
The significance of the commonwealth, however, rests on more than trade and economic development factors. In today's world the effort to bring the condition of men a little closer to the ideal of brotherhood, though an aim which we share with many others outside the commonwealth, can be felt and understood within the commonwealth as something with a special and I think a deeper meaning.
Today the commonwealth, including its Asian nation members, is able to do much

External Affairs
in promoting this understanding and co-operation, especially between the west and Asia. The presence at Her Majesty's coronation next June of representatives of all nations of the commonwealth, whether monarchy or republic, from east and west, will be a striking demonstration of this free worldwide association of which our young Queen is the gracious symbol. Furthermore, since the commonwealth embraces territories which, though not yet qualified for membership, are nevertheless advancing toward self-government, it may before long be faced with proposals for the inclusion of new members. The old empire gave way to the new commonwealth, and that new commonwealth in its turn is developing and changing and gathering, I hope, new opportunities of service and usefulness in the process.
This influence of the commonwealth with its Asian members is one reason why Canadians think more about Asia and the Far East than they did a few years ago. Today the Far East is also close to our interest because fighting is actually going on there in Korea, in Indo-China and in Malaya, and it threatens in other places. We 'Continue to do what we can to end this fighting, especially in Korea, as a prelude to a general settlement in that area.
As I said a few moments ago the most recent attempt at the United Nations general assembly to end the war in Korea has failed. But the effort to that end must not stop, and I am sure it will not stop. The guiding principle of Canadian policy in Korea is to continue to do everything possible to limit the present hostilities to the Korean peninsula, and to take advantage of any opportunity for an early settlement of these hostilities by peaceful negotiation. It follows from this that our general attitude in the United Nations general assembly, as elsewhere, is to support proposals designed to facilitate an armistice agreement, and to oppose proposals which, in our judgment, would impede such an armistice.
On the specific question, for instance, of the disposition of prisoners of war, the Canadian position has been quite clear and consistent. We do not believe that any prisoner should be compelled by force to return to what was once his homeland or should be prevented, through any kind of moral or physical force, from so returning.
We consider also that the purpose of the United Nations in Korea remains the defeat of aggression there, and does not include intervention in the civil war in China. So long as Chinese troops act as aggressors in Korea they must be opposed and that aggression, if

possible, defeated. This does not mean that we who oppose them, by so doing, are committed to the overthrow by force of the government now in effective control of the mainland of China. As we see it we are engaged not in a national war against communist China or in intervening in a Chinese civil war, but as a member of the United Nations in a police action against aggression.
Such action may be, and in this case is, just as bloody and dangerous and as hard to bear for those who are engaged in it, as any war of old. But it does embody a new and heartening concept of arms used to defend international order and law rather than to defend national interests alone. As such the words "police action" do not I think deserve the somewhat captious and disparaging criticism levelled at them the other night by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton).
On this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a few words from a magazine which will be familiar to hon. members, though possibly not on account of its comment on international affairs so much as its humour. I refer to the New Yorker. In an editorial in its issue of November 8, 1952, I find these words:
Korea was undertaken, and stands at this date, as an attempt to honour a prior commitment among nations; that is, the United Nations charter agreement about armed aggression. This fact, without making Korea less bloody, makes Korea unique, and distinguishes it from wars this nation-
The editorial is referring to the United States.
-has known and fought in the past. When a policeman chases a thief, he does so because of a prior decision of the community regarding felony-


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. So far as I can make out there have been half a dozen photographic flashes in this chamber in the last fifteen or twenty minutes. I want to know by whose authority that is done. So far as I know, the Sergeant-at-Arms knows nothing about it. If it is on your authority, that is one thing, and I should like to know if that is so. I should like to know if this is a serious debate or if this is a photographic studio?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: I shall have to make inquiries and advise the hon. member later.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to assure the hon. member who has just spoken that I had nothing to do with these photographic activities that have been taking place.
If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, with my reading of this very pertinent paragraph

from the New Yorker magazine, I believe I had reached this point:
When a policeman chases a thief, he does so because of a prior decision of the community regarding felony. The community of the United Nations, new and shaky and divided against itself, made a decision about aggression, and a bloc of non-communist armies, egged on principally by us Americans, rushed in to enforce the global ordinance in the name of collective security. It may be a mess, and the events leading up to it may lack clarity, but nobody need apologize for police action in support of world belief, and nobody should belittle the word "police". It is a good word, and cannot be dissociated from justice and peace.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What was that magazine?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The New Yorker of November 8, 1952.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not to be confused with the New York Times.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, and not to be confused with the observations made by my hon. friend the other night about police action.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In another debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Another point of importance in the policy Canada holds towards Korea and the Far East generally is our belief that it is essential that western and Asian democracies should maintain in this matter the highest possible degree of unity of purpose and action. We do not believe, accordingly, that the western powers should press for military or economic measures, at the United Nations or elsewhere, which would certainly not be supported and indeed might be actively opposed by important non-communist Asian states, and which without such support would be less effective in ending the Korean war than in extending it.
This principle has guided our policy in this matter in the past, and it will continue to guide us in considering any such proposals which may be made in the future. We think that such proposals should be considered, not emotionally or from the standpoint of our feelings about the communist regime in Peking, which we detest, but in the light of our United Nations obligation to stop aggression in Korea, and from the point of view of whether their value in that respect is more than offset by the risk of precipitating a war on the mainland of China which, it is clear, would not stop there. It is, of course, very natural indeed to desire to hit the aggressor in new places and with new weapons, but it is also wise to realize that in consequence he may also hit us somewhere else and with new weapons. There are, for instance, about two million people on the very small and rocky island of Hong Kong.
When I talk about Korea my mind naturally goes to a subject which will be of particular interest to the hon. member for
External Affairs
Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), a Pacific security pact. He will recall, as I recall, that when I spoke last December I was not able to deal with this subject. I promised him then I would do so at the first opportunity, and this is the opportunity. I should like to say a few words about the concept of a security arrangement in the Pacific along the lines of the Atlantic pact-a concept which we usually embody in the words Pacific security pact.
I have told the house on a number of occasions that, in my view, the time was not yet ripe for a Pacific pact along those lines. I believe that that is still the case. On June 20, 1952, when I last mentioned the subject in this house, I said we were in agreement with the views of Mr. John Foster Dulles, who had said that he did not think it feasible on any quick timetable to associate the countries of Asia in a security pact in the same way as the countries of the Atlantic were associated. Mr. Dulles is, of course, now the United States Secretary of State. We continue to agree with these views which he then expressed and which I believe he still holds. I hope those who hold other views on this subject will produce concrete and impressive evidence in support of them, so we may be given an opportunity, on the basis of that evidence, to consider whether we should change our minds, and will not merely reiterate that we should have a Pacific pact and that we should do more in that respect in the Pacific.
As I see it, there are three fundamental difficulties which remain-and I have mentioned them before-in the way of the early realization of a Pacific pact on a multilateral basis. The first difficulty-and it is a basic one-is which Pacific states should be included and which should be left out; the second is how to get the various countries which might participate to agree to team up with other potential members; and finally there is the lack of community of interest and purpose and policy among some of the potential members.
Until these problems are solved, and they are certainly not solved yet, a Pacific pact which attempted to be the counterpart of the North Atlantic pact would, I think, inevitably be an artificial creation and might well do more harm than good.
The Pacific, however, is by no means a security vacuum. The United States has security arrangements with Canada, of course, but also with Japan, with the Philippines, with Australia and with New Zealand.

External Affairs


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister whether Canada has shown any interest in the ANZUS pact between the United States, Australia and New Zealand?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was coming to that. I shall be glad to gratify my hon. friend's legitimate curiosity on that particular subject in a moment. Except for the last two countries which I mentioned, these arrangements have taken the form of bilateral agreements, none of which constitutes anything like a Pacific pact.
It has been suggested by some-and it has been suggested in the last few seconds-that Canada might adhere to the tripartite security treaty, now known as the ANZUS pact, between the United States, Australia and New Zealand. On April 1, 1952, I expressed in this house the opinion that the objections to broadening this arrangement at this time into a general Pacific pact, or indeed the objections to including any additional states in this arrangement, were accepted as overriding by certain countries whose support for such broadening would be essential; and that certainly means first of all the United States. That opinion has subsequently been reinforced by the communique issued on August 7, 1952, by the ANZUS council itself, at the conclusion of its first meeting. That communique reads in part as follows:
It would be premature at this early stage in its own development-
That is the development of ANZUS.
-to establish relationships with other states . . .
As the ANZUS council itself has taken that attitude not particularly or especially in relation to Canada but in relation to other countries as well, including countries which have a deep and abiding interest in such a pact, I do not think it would be appropriate for us to press for membership at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Has Canada ever asked to join?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when the council of an organization issues a communique which indicates that it considers it inappropriate to broaden its membership, I think it would not be good diplomacy to inquire about the possibility of joining the council at that particular time.


Howard Charles Green: Did we ask to join before that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We made inquiries before that communique as to the nature of the proposed group and also whether or not it would comprise more than three countries.


Howard Charles Green: Yes; but did we ask to join?


An hon. Member:: Who is making the speech?
[Mr. Pearson. 1


Lester Bowles Pearson: We obtained, I think, quite adequate information on which to base the policy which we have followed. So I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that while we are not members of a Pacific security pact along the lines of the North Atlantic pact, and while we are not now members of the ANZUS association, we are just as much concerned with security in the Pacific as we are with security in the Atlantic; because security, like peace itself, is indivisible. But that does not mean, as I see it, that the expression of this concern must be through the same type of collective security machinery everywhere.
When talking about a Pacific pact it is natural, I think, to say a few words about our relations with Japan which would have to play an important part in any collective security arrangement in the Pacific, and this indicates one of the reasons why it is not easy at this time to broaden the more limited association into a wider one.
Earlier last month our colleague, the former minister of fisheries, Mr. Mayhew, took up his new duties as first Canadian ambassador to post-war Japan; and I am sure that in that new post he has the good wishes of all members of this house. He has got down to work at once, as one would expect of him. His arrival in Japan and indeed the exchange of ambassadors with that country not only reflects the developing significance of Canada as a Pacific power, but it also points up the increased importance which both countries, Japan and Canada, attach to their relations with each other.
Canadian interests in Japan are important and varied. In trade, for instance, Japan has again become one of our best customers. The question of our trading relations with her is a difficult one; and some of us may find it hard to approach the problem entirely dispassionately. But I suggest that we cannot afford to ignore it, for Japan is at present our fourth largest market. Last year we sold Japan $102 million worth of goods, about eight times as much as we bought from her.
Political considerations reinforce these economic reasons for reasonable trading relations with Japan. If she is to be retained as a healthy and reliable friend and ally in that critical part of the world, we and the other free countries must be prepared to join with her in working out satisfactory arrangements for maintaining and expanding the trade on which we are both so dependent, and on which she is especially dependent, as she sees her markets on the mainland of Asia being curtailed or possibly being lost because of political difficulties.
As an associate in the free world community, we look to Japan to adhere to her

new-found democratic way of life, and we expect her to make a constructive contribution to collective security in the Pacific. On the other hand, I suppose Japan has the right to look to us to do our part-and by "our"
I mean the nations of the western world, including Canada-to show that her choice of friendly association with us is wise from the point of view of enlightened self-interest.
May I say a word now about another part of Asia which has great strategic and political significance at the present time. I refer to southeast Asia, where the situation in some places has taken a turn for the better during the past year. Burma, for instance, has made considerable strides towards the restoration of internal order, and in Malaya the tide of communist terrorism has receded. But in Indo-China which, in some ways, is the most important part of this southeast Asian area, bitter fighting is still going on to keep this territory under nationalist but out of communist control.
In a resolution adopted on December 17, 1952, the North Atlantic council expressed its wholehearted admiration for these efforts and acknowledged that the resistance of the free nations of southeast Asia was in fullest harmony with the aims and ideals of the Atlantic community, and agreed that the campaign waged by French union forces in Indo-China merited support from NATO members. Indeed there is a close strategic relationship not only between events in Korea and Indo-China, but also between events in Indo-China and in western Europe, because events in Indo-China have a very important bearing on France's contribution to the defence of western Europe.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask a question, and may I say I am sorry to interrupt. Does the minister know offhand how many French troops are in Indo-China?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not the figures to hand at the moment, but the policy of the French government in Indo-China is to build up the Viet Nam army; the proportion of French to Viet Nam forces is continually being changed in the direction of more national forces. But what that proportion is I cannot say. I suggest also that there is a relationship which we should not forget between possible action from Formosa and possible increased action against Indo-China.
In this tour I have reached southeast Asia, and it is interesting to note that there is now only a relatively small geographical gap between southeast Asia and the area covered by the North Atlantic treaty, which goes to the eastern boundaries of Turkey. And so in a debate of this kind it is possibly not as
External Affairs
inappropriate as it might seem to jump from southeast Asia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


Howard Charles Green: Before the minister leaves southeast Asia may I ask him to explain to the house the proposal to set up a co-ordinating committee to co-ordinate defence activities in southeast Asia. I believe press dispatches indicated that the members would be the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia and New Zealand, with headquarters at Singapore.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There have been discussions for the purposes indicated by my hon. friend, to set up a sort of strategic co-ordinating committee with headquarters at Singapore, as he has indicated, and including the countries he has mentioned; but I cannot say anything more about that matter at this time. I would not like to run the risk of saying something about it which is still confidential. However, I shall look into it and see what can be said when I wind up this discussion. I shall see if there is additional information I can give my hon. friend.


Mr. Pearkes:: Before we leave southeast Asia, may I ask if we have recognized Viet Nam, or have our relations with Viet Nam changed since Christmas?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; an announcement was made I believe last month to the effect that we had recognized the states of Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia as states within the French union. It was not a full-fledged recognition, but rather the kind of recognition which had already been given to them by some 35 other states. I had the pleasure today of receiving the ambassador of Viet Nam to Washington, who came to Ottawa and thanked the government here for this recognition, and pointed out the encouragement that it has given his country and government.
All members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and all members of the commonwealth, I think, except Asian members have recognized Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia.
So far as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is concerned, the feeling has recently developed that the high hopes which we placed in NATO not so long ago are not being realized. The claim is being put forward on the one hand that NATO defence plans are inadequate and are being implemented too slowly to meet the threat which soviet military strength still poses in Europe. On the other hand, some people feel that the effort to achieve the military targets agreed to at Lisbon is resulting in economic weakness and social and political division, and

External Affairs
that economic and political co-operation is being subordinated to excessive military planning.
Well, I think myself that both these criticisms are somewhat exaggerated. If NATO has lost some of the momentum of its earliest days and some of the appeal of those days-and I am not denying that that might be the case-it is due, I suggest, to a certain recent tendency, which is a natural one in the circumstances, to mark time during the longish period while the leader of the coalition was changing the guard, and the period between the changing and the mounting of that guard. There was a certain hesitation in NATO activity which extended over some months.
It might also be due to a feeling of lessening tension, as the years go by without attack, and with growing strength on our side which, of course, means heavy defence burdens. That feeling can be dangerous by lulling us into a false sense of security and, indeed, complacency. On the other hand I suggest that it should not be permitted to obscure the fact that the founding and building up of this NATO coalition of 14 nations is, itself, one of the greatest achievements of history in our time. People already tend to take for granted this really revolutionary development which has taken place in less than four years. And so it should be a source of sober satisfaction, though certainly not of complacency, that by the end of 1952 in western Europe, largely because of NATO, the temptation to easy and victorious aggression has been removed, that temptation which is the greatest threat to peace when totalitarian governments are around.
Canada's contribution to NATO forces remains in accordance with the commitments which we accepted at Lisbon. They include 24 warships being made available by the Royal Canadian Navy for antisubmarine and coastal service as part of the Atlantic force, the 27th Canadian infantry brigade which is stationed in Germany as part of General Ridgway's forces, and the two F-86 jet fighter wings already overseas, which will be part of the R.C.A.F. division to be stationed in France and Germany when airfields become available. Canada has also provided, during the past year, considerable help to other member countries by means of our mutual aid program, under which substantial quantities of arms and ancillary equipment have been supplied.
A ministerial meeting of the council was held in Paris in December, not to make momentous decisions but rather to review the progress made since Lisbon on both the civilian and military sides. And there will be another

meeting of the North Atlantic council, under present plans, toward the end of April. At that meeting we will consider the 1952 annual review, which was not completed in December. We will also consider steps to be recommended for the rest of 1953.
On the civilian side, the secretary general's report last December described the work, constructive but still in its initial stages, which has been done in the non-military fields of co-operation, although it has not proceeded as far as some of us had hoped when we signed the North Atlantic pact. Work has proceeded in the field of political consultation through the council, which is now in permanent session, work dealing with population problems, civil defence in wartime, food plans and ship production and supply.
In this connection I think it possibly appropriate for me to refer to the problem posed by the floods which have devastated three of the member states of NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the formal expression of the North Atlantic community. A community is a group of people who act together in a crisis, and it is in moments of emergency and crisis that each of us is made aware of the reality of the community which links the peoples which compose it.
The flood disasters which have recently struck at Britain, The Netherlands and Belgium aroused throughout Canada and the whole community instant sympathy and concern, coupled with a desire to speed aid to the victims. I think this disaster might well be a matter for consideration by our North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


Gordon Graydon: Has anybody moved in that direction?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has been brought to the attention of the council by several members. I should like to say a word on the military side before I sit down. The progress report of the military committee in December showed that great advances had been made in training and increasing the effectiveness of the various national forces assigned to the supreme commander, and in the co-operation between national units and staffs. Substantial advances have also been made in the standardization of international military procedures, notably in signals and in the provision of airfields. At their December meeting the ministers were able to complete the European command structure by approving the military committee's proposal for the establishment of a Mediterranean command. So on the whole there has been a steady advance.

It seems to me rather unfortunate therefore that the tone of the publicity which came out of the ministerial meeting in Paris in December seemed to reinforce this talk of loss of momentum and indeed defeatism. The picture painted in some of the press dispatches emanating from Paris was that of reluctant member countries falling short of the minimum effort required to guard against aggression in spite of dire warnings from various quarters of the consequences of such aggression. If NATO has not done everything that everyone expects of it we should remember that, as in national affairs, an international undertaking of this sort has constantly to fit its plans not only to the capabilities but to the policies and wills of its member states.
It has also to deal first with the most urgent tasks. It was in recognition of this that the ministerial meeting in December directed that more emphasis should be given to increasing the quality of the strength and effectiveness of the NATO forces and the units necessary for their support rather than to the provision of greater numbers of troops at this time.
It has also been recognized that the impact of a collective undertaking of this kind and of this magnitude is bound to have important and sometimes unforeseen results on the economies of member countries, and that political and economic stability must co-exist with defensive strength or else the strongest military force would be but an illusion of security, weakening the very substance which society itself intended to protect.
This does not mean that the governments of NATO countries should forget for a moment that the danger posed by Soviet imperialism to their common heritage of freedom still remains. As I have said, if the threatening cloud of aggression seems now to be less dark in certain parts of the sky over Europe, it is due to the efforts which its members have made to increase their collective strength and unity since the inception of this NATO alliance. The maintenance of the unity and strength of its members and the extension of their joint action into other fields depends, as I see it, in large part on the preservation of our peace and security.
Mr. Speaker, I was going on to discuss other European questions but I gather that the debate should be suspended while other business is transacted.


Mr. Speaker:: According to the notice
which I received and indicated to the house, it is expected that the Black Rod will arrive shortly.
House of Commons
On motion of Mr. Pearson the debate was adjourned.


PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN DURING SESSION OF HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: While I was out of the chair a few minutes ago the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) brought to the attention of the house the fact that some photographs were being taken from one of the galleries. I should like to say that during the afternoon I was requested by a photographer to allow him to take a few pictures of the press gallery. I told him that I had no objection provided the press gallery wanted the pictures taken. It was also my understanding that the pictures would be taken, either at six o'clock, at the close of the sitting today, or at six o'clock tomorrow night or before the opening of the eight o'clock sitting tomorrow. I am sorry there was a misunderstanding, and I hope hon. members were not disturbed when they saw the flashes. May I assure the house that I shall never allow photographs to be taken of hon. members or of the house in session without advising the house and obtaining its approval of the taking of the photographs.


Gordon Graydon: I suppose we will get pictures of the press gallery eventually.


Mr. Speaker:: The press gallery are most generous I am sure.


Mr. Weir:: I was wondering if the hon. member for Greenwood would care to modify his reference to the pictures being taken when the Secretary of State for External Affairs was making his speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure the house that there were no photographs taken of the Secretary of State for External Affairs while he was speaking. There was no photograph taken of any hon. member.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In the light of what has just been said I think I should make it clear that I made no such suggestion. Before I raised any question at all I sought to find out if permission had been given. I actually inquired of a member of the press gallery, who incidentally seemed not to have been advised of this, and I inquired of the Sergeant-at-Arms. It was only when the photographs were being taken that I raised the question. I am grateful for your reply. I cannot in the least understand what the chief whip meant by saying what he did, because I made no suggestion that it was connected with the minister who was speaking.
1858	HOUSE OF
The Royal Assent PRIVILEGE


MR. ROBICHAUD    REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN OTTAWA &quot;JOURNAL&quot; OF FEBRUARY 11
Mr. A. M. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. An article in the Ottawa Journal of today is entitled "Farmer M. P. would Relegate Lawyers to Place called Limbo". Then later in the article this sentence appears:
The answer came from a Liberal, A. M. Robichaud of Gloucester constituency.
I wish to have that corrected, because I am certainly not a Liberal.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: You were lucky once in your life.


Mr. Gauthier (Sudbury):: You will not be there long either.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Barbara Carrique Cordeau.
An act for the relief of Frederick Kenneth Hare.
An act for the relief of Frances Wavertree Harris McClure.
An act for the relief of Nicole Jeanne Andree Marion Comys.
An act for the relief of Joseph Mattioli.
An act for the relief of Gabrielle Bertrand McCullough.
An act for the relief of Katherine Jessie McArthur.
An act for the relief of Fernande Robitaille Viel.
An act for the relief of John Joseph Francis.
An act for the relief of Olga Andrews Martin.
An act for the relief of Lois Hattie Adelstein Green.
An act for the relief of Nellie Slade McCue.
An act for the relief of Jean Davis Brady.
An act for the relief of Dominique Fiorito.
An act for the relief of Pearl Elmeda Clarke Staples.
An act for the relief of James Arthur Bruce.
An act for the relief of Bernice Rosen Rapps.
An act for the relief of Murray Cecil Day.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Florence Robson Hamilton.
An act for the relief of Winniefred Ann Maltby Gurlevitch.
An act for the relief of Marie Claude Audette Isabelle Boulanger Douglas.
An act for the relief of Gaston Courtemanche.
An act for the relief of Norma Bernstein Cohen.
[Stage Direction]

An act for the relief of Mina Eisenthal Hamer-man Segal, otherwise known as Mina Eisenthal Segall.
An act for the relief of Agnes Charlotte Quamme Higgins.
An act for the relief of Agnes Mary Perkins Pereira.
An act for the relief of Rosalia Marie Sepchuk Maniloff.
An act for the relief of Anne Reddie Banks Car-ruthers Beaudoin.
An act for the relief of Doris Isabell Dalzell Bennett.
An act for the relief of Costanza Marzitelli Boisvert.
An act for the relief of Gladys Emily Miller Young.
An act for the relief of Francoise Ernout Fisher.
An act for the relief of Margaret * Girvan Hill.
An act for the relief of Fernand Ratelle.
An act for the relief of Charles Meela Voyino-vitch Seifert.
An act for the relief of Lily Isenberg Kwavnick.
An act for the relief of Doreen Mae Walmough dit Watmough Colson.
An act for the relief of Robert Gordon.
An act for the relief of Helen Isabelle Hammond Dadson.
An act for the relief of Harold Gordon McFarlane.
An act for the relief of Dezso Ferenc Cross.
An act for the relief of Eric Ernest Auclair.
An act for the relief of Napoleon Jean-Paul Chayer.
An act for the relief of Marie Josephte Gilberte Belanger Byrne.
An act for the relief of Nina Difiore Statner.
An act for the relief of Tillie Tietlebaum Victor.
An act for the relief of Elina Iacurto Floyd.
An act for the relief of Jennie Miller Solomon.
An act for the relief of Elia Kuczerian.
An act for the relief of Ruth Audrey Lorraine Beauchamp Laderoute.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Newman Lunan.
An act for the relief of Helen Doreen Cave Crawshaw.
An act for the relief of Armand Frenette.
An act for the relief of Florence Brown Boyaner.
An act for the relief of Eileen Mercedes Hudson Walsh.
An act for the relief of Madeleine McCartney Ratcliff.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Mary Wilkinson Paraskiewicz.
An act for the relief of Georges Chaput.
An act for the relief of Florence Anna Carsh Laing.
An act for the relief of Beatrice Miriam Kert Beloff.
An act for the relief of John Alexander Stronach.
An act for the relief of Raymond Gelinas.
An act for the relief of Anna Madeline Patterson Cotter.
An act for the relief of Claudia Marie Boudreau Leblanc.
An act for the relief of Lily Belzberg Bigman.
An act	for	the	relief	of	Joseph	Arthur Lesage.An act	for	the	relief	of	Minnie	Gruhn Boon.
An act for the relief of Jane Louttit Dormer.
An act for the relief of Roger Loiselle.
An act	for	the	relief	of	William	Oscar Gilbert.An act	for	the	relief	of	George	Magner.
An act for the relief of Teodora Szablity Szen-tirmai.
An act for the relief of Arthur Piche.
An act to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
An act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
An act respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.

An act to incorporate Peace River Transmission Company Limited.
An act respecting Beaver Fire Insurance Company.
An act to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1933.
An act to amend the Representation Act, 1952.
An act to amend the Loan Companies Act.
An act to amend the Trust Companies Act.
An act to amend the Judges Act, 1946.
An act respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
An act respecting the Royal Style and Titles.
An act to amend the National Defence Act.

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue this debate on the
Business of the House motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to refer his estimates to the standing committee on external affairs. Then we will take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance respecting the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944; Bill No. 46, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act; and two resolutions of the Minister of Resources and Development respecting the Yukon Act and the National Housing Act, 1944.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
U.S. Import Restrictions


[Stage Direction]
February 11, 1953
Text of note presented by the Canadian Embassy in Washington to the State Department concerning the continuation and extension of United States restrictions on the import of
dairy products.
The Canadian ambassador presents his compliments to the Secretary of State and has the honour to refer to the Canadian embassy's notes of August 27, 1951, and of January 17, 1952, regarding the restrictions imposed upon imports of fats, oils and dairy products under section 104 of the defence production act of 1951.
The Secretary of State will be aware that these import restrictions were considered at the sixth and seventh sessions of the contracting parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade and that resolutions were adopted recognizing these measures to be contrary to the provisions of the agreement.
On the occasion of the announcement on December 30, 1952, of further import restrictions, relating to dried milk products, the Canadian government re-examined the situation resulting from these restrictions. On the basis of this review the Canadian government would again express its serious concern at this infringement of international agreements to which the governments of the United States and of Canada are parties. The government of Canada wishes to call the attention of the government of the United States to the effects of these measures not only on trade between the United States and Canada but also on the broad commercial policy interests of the two governments.
The government of Canada considers that such departures from accepted principles of commercial policy by the leading trading nation can hardly fail to weaken the force of those principles and to damage seriously the development of world trade on a constructive basis.
Both Canada and the United States, recognizing the weakening effect of continued reliance on import restrictions on economies of friendly countries, have frequently encouraged them to seek solutions to their balance of payment difficulties through increasing exports rather than curtailing imports. Actions by the United States government such as that represented by these import restrictions tend to undermine the confidence of overseas deficit countries in their ability to approach a balance by increasing their dollar earnings. These measures may in consequence have the effect of discouraging attempts which might be made by such countries, in the face of great difficulties, to change the general direction of national policies away from reliance on discriminatory import restrictions as methods of achieving international balance.
The government of Canada, accordingly, takes this opportunity to urge once more that the import restrictions imposed under section 104 of the defence production act of 1951 be removed as soon as possible.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 12, 1953