1953-04-22

QUESTIONS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many officers of the armed forces have travelled by Trans-Canada Air Lines between April 1, 1952 and to date?
2.	What was the amount paid to the Trans-Canada Air Lines for such transportation?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	4,676.
2.	$629,402.
Taking into account the saving in time, it is more economical for officers to travel by air than by rail.


COLWOOD MAGAZINE, ESQUIMALT HARBOUR, B.C.
Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	When was the Colwood magazine, on the west side of Esquimalt harbour, British Columbia, constructed?
2.	How many acres did this magazine comprise?
3.	What was the total cost of construction of the various buildings, ammunition stores and jetties?

4.	How much was spent on fencing the area?
5.	How much has been spent on the construction and maintenance of roads?
6.	To what purpose will the area be put after the magazine has been removed to Rocky Point?
7.	Does the government propose to dispose of the area?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	During the period: 1937 to 1939.
2.	261-39 acres.
3.	In so far as existing records show, the total cost of construction was $413,742.17.
4.	Included in the above figure is the cost of erecting a chain and link fence- $15,559.68.
5.	Included in the answer to No. 3 above is an item for roadwork at $4,500. Only minor expenditures on road maintenance have been made.
6 and 7. Not yet determined.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Lennard:: What were the total purchases, giving cost, quantities, varieties, and from whom purchased, of suspenders for all branches of the armed forces, during the period from April 1, 1951 to December 31. 1952?


Mr. Dickey:: Name and address of supplier
Donahue Corp. of Canada Limited, St. Hyacinthe, P.Q	
Donahue Corp. of Canada Limited, St. Hyacinthe, P.Q	
Montreal Suspenders & Umbrellas Limited, Montreal, P.Q....
Donahue Corp. of Canada Limited, St. Hyacinthe, P.Q	
Princeton Suspender & Neckwear Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont	
Donahue Corp. of Canada Limited, St. Hyacinthe, P.Q	
Montreal Suspenders & Umbrellas Limited, Montreal, P.Q....
Montreal Suspenders & Umbrellas Limited, Montreal, P.Q....
Montreal Suspenders & Umbrellas Limited, Montreal, P.Q....
Promislow Bros. Ltd., Regina, Saskatchewan	
Total	
Commodity description	Quantity	Estimated total costBraces	175,000	$ 105,000Braces	7,000	3,920Braces	2,060	958Combat braces....	10,000	5,400Combat braces....	10,240	5,530Braces	75,000	45,000Braces	28,480	15,931Braces	15,500	8,602Braces	500	318Braces	480	342324,260	191,001
Questions



CHICOUTIMI, LAPOINTE AND LAC-SAINT-JEAN COUNTIES, QUE.-DEFENCE EXPENDITURES

Mr. Gagnon:: Since January 1, 1945, what amounts have been spent in the counties of (a) Chicoutimi; (b) Lapointe; (c) Lac-Saint-Jean, by the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production?


John Horace Dickey: This question has been discussed with the hon. member, both by myself and by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. The hon. member has agreed to have the question dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



NAVIGATION LOCK, CANSO CAUSEWAY

Mr. Fleming:: 1.	What persons or corporations submitted tenders for the construction of the navigation lock at the northern end of the Canso causeway, and in what respective amounts?
2.	Was the sum named by T. C. Gorman (Nova Scotia) Limited, in its tender $4,817,777 a firm fixed over-all price or a sum based on unit prices to be paid for estimated quantities?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Canit Construction Limited, Montreal, P.Q., $4,608,600; T. C. Gorman (Nova Scotia) Ltd., Halifax, N. S., $4,817,777; Northern Construction Company and J. W. Stewart Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., $5,279,500; Arthur A. Johnson Canada Limited, Toronto, $5,441,725; Atlas Construction Co. Ltd., Montreal, $5,520,875; C. A. Pitts General Contractors, Toronto, $5,611,450; B. Perini and Sons Canada, Ltd., Toronto, and R. K. MacDonald Construction Co., Antigonish, N.S., $5,665,120; the Foundation Company of Canada Ltd., Montreal, $6,135,205; Pentagon Construction Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $6,518,165.
2.	The amount of the T. C. Gorman (Nova Scotia) Ltd., Halifax, tender is based on unit prices to be paid for quantities as estimated by departmental engineers.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-MOTOR CARS, OTTAWA

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Are motor cars owned by the Department of National Defence used in Ottawa by persons other than high-ranking officers?
2.	Are there civilians in Ottawa who have been authorized or permitted to call upon the Department of National Defence to supply motor cars for their own personal use?
3.	Are motor cars and motor vehicles owned by the Department of National Defence used by the staff of Government House at Ottawa?
4.	If so, by what authority are such vehicles supplied?
5.	For what purpose are the said vehicles required and used?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1 and 2. At the request of a senior official, permission may be granted to a departmental employee to use a motor car for the performance of a specific duty when that duty is sufficiently urgent or important to require such transportation.
3,	4 and 5. No service vehicle is attached to Government House, but in accordance with long standing practice a truck is made available on rare occasions such as an official visit when additional transportation for baggage is required. In such cases this is arranged by the director of supplies and transport at army headquarters.



POST OFFICE BUILDING, WINNIPEG

Mr. Sinnott:: 1.	Are plans and specifications completed for the new post office building in Winnipeg, Manitoba?
2.	If not, When are plans and specifications to be completed?
3.	What is to be the type of construction?
4.	Is Tyndall stone to be used or specified?
5.	Have tenders been called for construction?
6.	If not, at what date are tenders expected to be called?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	No.
2.	Late this year.
3.	Structural steel and reinforced concrete floors, brick walls with some stone trim.
4.	Specification will call for Canadian limestone.
5.	No.
6.	Late this year.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Poulin:: 1.	What department is responsible for the printing of cheques on behalf of the various departments, boards, commissions, companies and other official agencies of the federal government?
2.	From January 1 to December 31, 1952, how many cheques have been issued on behalf of each of the said departments, boards, commissions, companies and other agencies?
3.	How many of the above-mentioned cheques were printed (a) in French only; (b) in English only; (c) in both official languages?



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Is it the policy of the federal government to purchase photographic equipment and supplies for the use of the armed services on a centralized or a decentralized basis?
2.	Are tenders called for in respect of such purchases?
3.	What companies supplied photographic equipment and supplies in 1951 for the use of the Department of National Defence, and to what amount in the case of each such company, in that year?



INDIAN RESERVATIONS, SASKATCHEWAN-LEASES OP LAND

Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Have any persons leased land from each of the following reservations in Saskatchewan, since 1945:
(a)	Duck Lake-109: Beardy's 96, Duck Lake; One Arrow's 95, Duck Lake; Okemasis 97, Duck
(b)	File Hills-Qu'Appelle-114: Little Black Bear
84. Balcarres; Ikanese 82, Balcarres; Starblanket 83, Balcarres; Peepeekisis 81, Lorlie; Muscow-petung 80, Cupar; Piapot 75, Cupar; Assiniboine 76, Sintaluta; Pasqua 79, Muscow; Standing Buffalo 78, Muscow.	__ _ , ,
(c)	Crooked Lake-108: White Bear 70, Carlyle; Cowessess 73, Broadview; Sakimay 74, Broadview; Shesheep 74A, Broadview; Kahkewistahaw 72, Grenfell; Ochapowace 71, Grenfell.
2.	If so, what are the names of such persons?
3.	How much acreage was leased during this period to each person?
4.	What were the terms of the lease in the case of each person?


Mr. Harris:: Return tabled.



TRANSFER OP WHARVES, NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Have wharves in Newfoundland been transferred by the Department of Public Works to the Department of Transport?
2. If so, how many such wharves have been transferred and where are they located?
3.	Is it proposed to transfer other wharves in Newfoundland to the Department of Transport?
4.	If so, how many and where are the present locations of same?
5. Is it proposed to turn over the wharf at Portugal Cove to the Department of Transport?



DESIGN CRAFT LIMITED, TORONTO

Mr. Fleming:: 1.	Was a contract awarded to Design Craft Limited, of Toronto, for the dismantling of a booth and new construction at the Canadian international trade fair?
2.	If so, what were the date, nature, terms and price of the said contract?
3.	Were tenders called for the contractual work and, if so, how were they advertised?
4.	If tenders were called, who submitted tenders and in what amounts?
5.	What specific work was done under the contract?
6.	What was paid for such work?
7.	Were any used materials salvaged from the previous structure, and how were they disposed of? If they were sold, who purchased them, and what was the price paid for them, and who received credit for this price?



PROVINCIAL LABOUR STANDARDS

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the federal Department of Labour a memorandum or document of recent date giving information as to provincial labour standards in Canada, including (a) statutory school-leaving ages; (b) minimum ages for employment; (c) maximum hours of work; (d) minimum rates of pay; (e) fair rates of pay; (f) workmen's compensation provisions, etc.?
2.	If so, what are the details of the information contained in any such memorandum or document?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: Return tabled.
Motions for Papers



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all letters and telegrams, since the first day of January, 1953, that have passed between members of the association of insurance agents for the province of Ontario, or individual agents or persons, and the Department of Justice and/or the combines investigation branch, and replies thereto, with reference to complaints regarding the action of the board and non-board automobile insurance companies, in reducing by a uniform percentage the rates of commission paid by such companies to local agents.



HIGHWAYS, ALBERTA-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION

Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the federal government and the premier of the province of Alberta, or any member of the Alberta government, since January 1, 1953, relating to federal contribution to the building of highways.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to this motion, provided there is the usual reservation, that the consent of the government of Alberta will be requested.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed, in conformity with the statement of the Prime Minister.
HARVEY LUNAM Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams or other correspondence, since the first day of February, 1952 and to date, which have passed between the Department of Public Works and representatives of any department of the federal government in the city of Regina or elsewhere in the province of Saskatchewan, and the replies thereto, in connection with efforts to locate Mr. Harvey Lunam of the Lunam Construction Company Limited.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this motion stand for today. I saw it only this morning, and I should like to look at it.


Mr. Speaker:: Stands.


Mr. Graydon:: You may be able to locate him in the meantime.



CONSTRUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Is he now in a position to answer the question I asked him on Monday, as to whether there is any government white paper outlining plans for housing, public works and other developmental projects? If so, will the document be tabled?

Halibut Fishery Convention Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): There is no such white paper.



THE CORONATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Has the government decided to send a representative of the Canadian Indian race to the coronation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, the government has not so decided.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF BOARD OF GRAIN COMMISSIONERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would he give the house information as to when we may expect the tabling of the annual report of the board of grain commissioners?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The annual report of the board of grain commissioners is still in the hands of the queen's printer. We have been pressing the queen's printer for some time to furnish it. Thus far, this has not been done. I shall see that another message is sent to him today, to hurry it up.



FISHERIES


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to approve and confirm the convention between Canada and the United States of America for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the northern Pacific ocean and Bering sea, signed by Canada and the United States of America in Ottawa, on the 2nd of March, 1953, and to provide for the carrying 6ut of the provisions thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, the house has already been informed of the purpose of the convention. That information was given in a statement made earlier at this session, on the day the convention was signed.
(Mr. Knowles.]
The purpose of this resolution is to secure parliamentary approval for a revised convention for the preservation of halibut in the northern Pacific ocean and the Bering sea. There are four changes in the new convention, the first of which is in respect of the actual name of the treaty.
When the treaty was first signed in 1923 it was known as the international fisheries treaty. It was the only international fisheries treaty at that time. Since then there has been a series of international treaties signed by Canada for the preservation of fisheries on our coasts and the costs of other countries. It has been thought that we must now be more specific in our designation of this commission, and the commission will henceforth be known as the international Pacific halibut commission.
The second change is made at the request of the Americans. In the United States the control of fisheries rests principally with the states rather than with the federal government. In the past, as their representatives, the Americans have had as their two commissioners one representative of the federal government and one of the state of Washington. The Americans would now like to give representation to the territory of Alaska, and have asked that the number of commissioners for each country be extended to three, so that they may make that provision.
The third change will give authority to the commission to establish more than one season for the catching of halibut. At the present time the scientists of the commission set the total catch to be made each year, and when that catch has been made the season is ended. Actually it now takes less than two months of fishing on the halibut banks off the Queen Charlotte islands to catch the quota which last year I think was 62 million pounds.
The scientists feel that instead of having just one open season it might be better to have two or perhaps even three at different times of the year in order to exploit fully the different banks. The industry is interested in this because it will mean that instead of having one catch which would have to be held in cold storage for ten months, the fish will remain in the sea and two or three open seasons will allow the fish to be caught at more regular intervals.
The last change is a very minor one. While fishing on the halibut banks themselves is controlled, halibut can be caught on the west coast in other areas incidental to fishing for cod or sole or other ground fish. We have had regulations to control the disposal of such halibut when caught

during the closed season, but there have been no regulations to control halibut caught incidental to other fishing during the open halibut season. The new convention makes provision for that.
When the bill is given second reading it is proposed to refer it to the standing committee on marine and fisheries.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, we are indebted to the minister for giving us a brief review of the changes being made in connection with the international fisheries commission which is now to be called the international Pacific halibut commission. The international fisheries commission has been giving general satisfaction during the time it has been in operation, which is some 30 years. There have been one or two minor changes made since the commission was started in 1923, but the major changes now being suggested are the result of considerable discussion which has taken place on the Pacific coast as to the advisability of introducing further revisions to the original treaty.
The reason for the change in the name is quite obvious. I understand that all the powers of the original commission are contained in the present convention.
I should like to examine briefly one of the major changes which are being made, namely, the splitting of the halibut season. As I said previously, discussions have been taking place which resulted in its being considered advisable to split the season. I think it has been the desire of the smaller fishing companies and the individual fishermen that such a change should be authorized. It would enable the owner of a small fishing vessel to catch halibut during the halibut season and then be able to catch other species of fish during the closed season for halibut. As the seasons for different species sometimes overlap, it is desirable to have this split season so that the fishermen may go out and for part of the time catch halibut and then perhaps catch salmon, and then later on in the year, during the second or third portions of the season, catch halibut again. That would seem to be advantageous, particularly to the smaller fishing concerns.
I understand that it has not been possible until now to authorize a split season because the scientists have been doubtful whether it would be in the best interests of conservation
Halibut Fishery Convention I should like to ask whether this split season will enable the quota of halibut to be increased. I understand at present it is in the neighbourhood of 55 or 56 million pounds each year. Possibly a decision has not yet been reached as to whether the quota can be increased, but my understanding is that the scientists believe that by splitting the season it will be possible, perhaps in the near future, to increase the quota without affecting the yield in future years. I hope the minister will be able to say something with regard to this.
The number of representatives on the commission has been increased and I understand that Canada is now to have three members, the same as the United States. 1 presume they will be appointed by this government and not by the province, in the same way that the members of the United States group are to be appointed, one from Alaska and one from the other states. Perhaps it will be possible for the minister to give the committee the names of the representatives. I notice that the treaty fixed the salaries to be paid and perhaps the minister could say a word on that.
My understanding is that the clause dealing with incidental catches merely extends the regulations, which are now applicable during the season when halibut cannot be caught, to the period when halibut can be caught.
I think these are all the points that I have to make in connection with this new convention. My understanding is that it is acceptable to the industry and to those officials who are responsible for the conservation of fish.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, there is very little that needs to be said on this resolution as it is merely renewing the agreement between Canada and the United States, an agreement which has worked well in the past. The changes in the new agreement seem to have been indicated by the developments during the past few years in the halibut industry.
These agreements are arrived at after careful study by representatives of Canada and the United States who are interested in conserving the halibut fishing industry and getting the best out of it, for both countries. The renewal of the agreement has my approval, if that is worth anything.


Mr. Fulton:: I could not hear the minister's statement very well because of people moving around, and so on, in the house. I should
to increase the quota of the halibut catch.
I understand from the minister's statement that the scientists have agreed to the splitting like to ask whether this convention, which of the season, and may even be prepared is between Canada and the United States to recommend an increased quota.	alone, is going to be affected by any action

Halibut Fishery Convention which the Russians may or may not take, and whether or not we are in a position where we are compelled to and should consider the propriety of trying to negotiate with Russia with respect to the preservation of this fishery. I notice that the resolution refers to the halibut fishery of the northern Pacific ocean and Bering sea. Would the minister say a word about the relationship of the Russians to this problem?


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, before I answer the points raised may 1 first of all express my appreciation of the manner in which the convention has been received. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, of course, and the thirty years of international halibut control have been a wonderful thing for the industry on the west coast. The hon. member for Nanaimo asked whether split seasons would result in a quota increase. The bill does not say that there are to be split seasons. The bill will make provision to give the commission authority, if the scientists so recommend, to have split seasons. What will probably happen will be that the next season will be split and the scientists will watch the results.
The scientists do feel that there are some banks on which halibut are not mature at the time of the open season on the main banks. If the fishing could be conducted later on these banks it would be possible to have a larger catch, but that will be a matter to be determined by scientific control. Certainly the quota will not be less because of the split season. He mentioned the fact that this convention has resulted in a very happy relationship both between ourselves and the Americans, and within the industry between fishermen, operators and the scientists of the international halibut commission.
The representatives for Canada are appointed by the federal government. At the moment we have just two and the Americans have just two under the existing convention. Our two representatives are the assistant deputy minister, Mr. George Clark, who is a product of the west coast and who was in the halibut fishery for many years, and a representative of the fishermen and industry, Mr. George Nickerson of Prince Rupert. When the commission is expanded to three we would hope to be able to have a representative of the fishermen and a representative of the processors instead of just a single representative for these groups. The commissioners get no payment. They get their expenses but no payment even on a per diem basis. That is also true of the other fisheries commissions.

That situation does not raise a problem as far as the government representative is concerned, nor does it raise too great a problem as far as the representative of the industry is concerned, but it does present a problem with respect to the fishermen's representative who has to take time off from his job of fishing in order to sit on these commissions. Both we and the Americans are now reviewing the position with respect to some sort of payment for attendance at the meetings.
A question was asked by the hon. member for Kamloops as to the effect on our relationships with the Russians in the north Pacific. This treaty actually has covered the waters of the north Pacific from San Diego up the American coast, up the British Columbia coast, up the Alaskan Panhandle and around into the United States half of the Bering sea. At the moment there is nothing to prohibit the Russians, or for that matter the people of any other maritime nation, from sending their ships into the deep sea offshore waters of that area to fish for halibut. The first real step forward in that regard is the new convention which was passed by the house a little earlier in this session, the Canadian-United States-Japanese treaty for the control of the fisheries in the north Pacific, under which each of these nations agrees to abstain from fishing offshore in the other nations' areas for those stocks which are under scientific study, which are under proper protection and control, and which are being fully exploited.
On our side of the Pacific that includes today the salmon, the halibut and the herring. So far as the Russians are concerned, at the moment they are not competitors at all in fishing in the north Pacific. It is the Japanese of course who are the great fishers on the east side of the Pacific. This convention is one of the treaties which will be respected under the new Canadian-United States-Japanese convention. We have the halibut under full scientific study, full conservation and control, and we are fully exploiting the fisheries.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Sinclair thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 341, to implement a convention between Canada and the United States for the preservation of the halibut fishery.	.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the second time?


James Sinclair: I wonder if we could have
second reading now and refer the bill to the standing committee on marine and fisheries?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave. Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: the second reading of Bill No. 341, to implement a convention between Canada and the United States for the preservation of the halibut fishery.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of holding up second reading of the bill but I would be remiss in my duty if I were to allow second reading to pass without expressing to the government the great satisfaction which will be felt by the halibut fishermen of the Pacific coast that the treaty has been amended in the form that it has. It would be too much to expect any hon. member other than myself to remember that I spoke at some length on this subject on the 28th of June, 1950, at which time I urged upon the government revision of the treaty to make provision for split seasons, giving reasons therefor, and also giving the consensus of opinion of the fishermen of the Pacific coast. They will welcome this most heartily.
I should also like to say that the provision enabling the United States to appoint a commissioner representing Alaska is one which meets with the wholehearted approval and support of the fishermen of the Pacific coast. Canada, as the minister has said, will now appoint an additional commissioner. Without implying any criticism whatever of those already appointed, I would urge in the strongest manner possible that the third commissioner should be one with a practical knowledge and appreciation of the problems of halibut fishing from the point of view of the men who actually go out and catch the fish. I can assure the minister that the convention in its present form will have the wholehearted support of those who catch halibut on the Pacific coast.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 332, to amend the Canadian Forces Act-Mr. Claxton-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Canadian Forces Act
On section 4-Ordinary residence of members of regular forces.
Louis-René Beaudoin: When this bill was under consideration before we were dealing with clause 4, Canadian forces voting regulations.


Mr. Campney:: Mr. Chairman, just before the house rose on Monday evening, while we were considering clause 4 of this bill, the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings was good enough to refer to my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and myself in very kindly words. The hon. member for Greenwood went a step further and included the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings himself in the kindly references. He further made the beneficent suggestion that if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings and I would confer we might be able to clear up the little difficulty which seemed to be developing about clause 4. That advice was acted upon. As a result, I would like now to propose three amendments to clause 4 which I hope will commend themselves to all hon. members of the house.
One of the points discussed when we were considering clause 4 was the provision for an extension of the period within which those persons who were members of the forces as of June 21, 1952, might elect as their place of residence for purposes of having their votes recorded. As the house will remember, that period expired on September 21, 1952. We have since found that approximately
20,000	personnel had not at that date made their election. The amendment proposed in clause 4 is to the effect that these "delinquents" should have until dissolution of parliament to make their election. There was some suggestion the other evening that there ought to be a fixed time limit as an alternative to the date of dissolution. The amendment which I will ask one of my colleagues to move will provide that persons in the class I have mentioned will have two months from the date that this amending bill is assented to to make their election or until dissolution, whichever shall occur first.
In considering the voting regulations governing members of the forces, paragraph 27, of the Canadian forces voting regulations, which the house will remember is a schedule to the elections act, provides that as soon as possible after the publication of the notice in daily orders on form 5 setting out that the house has been dissolved, the date of the election and other details which I do not think I need to give the house, the commanding officer shall prepare a list of names. There was some feeling among members that the words "as soon as possible"
4210	HOUSE OF
Canadian Forces Act
with which the clause begins were perhaps too indefinite and it was therefore suggested that there be a definite time specified rather than a nebulous period. X will therefore ask that paragraph 27 be amended by deleting "as soon as possible" and substituting for those words the words "within two weeks".
The third amendment is a consequential one which provides for renumbering of the subclauses of clause 4. If the house permits I would like to have my colleague move three amendments to clause 4 to give effect to what I have briefly stated.


Alphonse Fournier: I so move.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Mr. Fournier (Hull) moves:
That clause 4 be amended by deleting lines 7, 8 and 9 and substituting therefor the following:
"(2) Before the dissolution of the twenty-first parliament or before the expiration of two months from the day on which the Canadian Forces Act, 1953, was assented to, whichever is the earlier, every member of the regular forces who was such a member on the twenty-first day of June, 1952, shall" and also
That clause 4 be further amended by inserting after sub-clause (2) the following sub-clause:
"(3) Paragraph 27 of the said regulations is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'27. Within two weeks after the publication of a notice in daily orders, in form No. 5, each commanding officer shall, through the liaison officer, furnish to the special returning officer for the appropriate voting territory, a list of the names, ranks, numbers and places of ordinary residence, as prescribed in paragraph 23, of Canadian forces electors attached to his unit; the commanding officer shall also furnish to the deputy returning officer a copy of such list for the taking of the votes of the Canadian forces electors attached to his unit; at any reasonable time during an election, such list and the statements referred to in paragraph 23 shall be open to inspection by any officially nominated candidate or his accredited representative, and such persons shall be permitted to make extracts therefrom.' " and also
That sub-clauses (3), (4) and (5) be renumbered as (4), (5) and (6) respectively.
I presume that there is an amendment for the corresponding section in part II?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the kindly words which I directed the other night towards the Associate Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration were justified by the results which have accrued. I am not sure whether the suggestion of the hon. member for Greenwood added to that situation, but at least the three working together yesterday I think accomplished in this matter something which is a distinct improvement over what we had in the committee the night before last.
I still think that it was unfortunate that the situation had to arise regarding these


amendments. I think they are an improvement upon that which was originally brought in but the situation is still not as good as it would have been if the report of the elections committee last year had been acted upon and the necessary steps taken at that time. However, as that was not done, we were faced with an unfortunate situation. I know that yesterday both ministers tried to meet the views which were expressed and in the end the amendments which are brought before the committee this morning, although not the most satisfactory in the world, are a definite improvement, and I am sure since it was necessary to have them they will contribute towards the working of the regulations.
I might say that in our discussions yesterday we all thought of other amendments which perhaps could have been made and which would have improved the regulations. I am sure that in some future time after we have had the experience of trying these amendments they will be subject to review. When that does take place, whatever committee is operating at that time should try to re-establish the principle which was established last year.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the amendments
carry?


Mr. Harkness:: I am not quite clear on the purport of the second amendment as far as the lists are concerned. As I understand the matter, the commanding officer of each unit will have a list prepared and I think the amendment provides that it will be sent to the deputy returning officer. Does that mean that the list which is prepared by the commanding officer might very readily contain the names of men who are going to vote in a hundred or more different constituencies? Does it mean that the names of men who are going to vote in each particular constituency are to be sent to the deputy returning officer of that constituency-or is there just this one list which contains the names of people voting in a large number of constituencies and which will be in the unit office and available for inspection?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I am not
familiar with the exact routine that is followed. It must be in accordance with what is set out in the regulations and paragraph 27 thereof provides that each commanding officer after publication of this order shall, through the liaison officer, furnish to the special returning officer for the appropriate voting territory a list of names of Canadian forces electors attached to his unit with ranks, numbers and places of ordinary residence, as described in paragraph 23 which we are amending. Whatever

detailed procedure the commanding officer follows in that regard is not being changed in any event. The only change is that instead of an indefinite time, which might be interpreted differently by different people, his duty as indicated here is limited to a period of two weeks. In other words, he must have the list of his unit prepared and forwarded to the special returning officer, not in an indefinite period but within two weeks. Otherwise, the procedure followed is whatever the routine is in regard to this section.
I am not familiar with the step by step details of the duties of the commanding officer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I take it that this list
prepared by each C.O. will be available in his own office where it can be inspected by the local candidate. In addition to that, I presume he sends a copy of this list to the special returning officer who will be, I suppose, an officer at national defence headquarters. I presume that officer will then make a consolidated list of these people, and will have a list of the men voting in each particular constituency, which list will be available in Ottawa. I should like to ask the minister if these lists will be available to the candidates.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not going to presume anything in regard to the procedure, but as I understand it the lists that are prepared pursuant to the sections are available for inspection by any person concerned. It is for that purpose they are made. Just how that is done or what steps are taken to accomplish it I cannot say. I am not familiar with it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think we should have
something a little more definite than that. The minister says he is not familiar with this matter, but none of us is familiar with it. Just reading the regulations the only conclusion to which one can come is that there will be a list for each unit in the particular unit office and there will also be a copy of the list sent to this special returning officer who will be here at national defence headquarters. I think the minister should be able to tell us whether this consolidated list at national defence headquarters will be available, because it would be the only list from which candidates from any particular constituency could find out what people are going to vote in their constituency.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I shall get that information in a moment.


George Randolph Pearkes: Dealing with subsection 2
which is mandatory in that it says that every member of the forces shall, after the
Canadian Forces Act
expiration of a time or within two months after the date when this act has been given royal assent, do certain things, I should like to point out that the average soldier, sailor or airman would never know when this act was given the royal assent. What opportunity has a man serving in Korea or on a ship, or even in a station in Canada, to know when this act has been given the royal assent? It seems to me quite unreasonable to expect a private soldier or able seaman, who is not particularly interested in politics, to know when the act has received the royal assent.
Surely, the obligation of informing the individual man through the normal channels should rest on the minister. He should inform the men when the royal assent has been given, and then they could be required to sign the necessary forms. It seems to me that if that is not done, then a very unfair obligation is placed on the serving man.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I intimated on Monday evening when this section was under consideration, it is proposed that when the terminating date is established by royal assent to this bill the position will be fully set out in orders. We are contemplating also-we have not firmly decided this as yet-writing to each one of the men who have not elected, setting out what is open to him and the time within which it must be done. We are anxious, as I am sure all hon. members of the house are anxious, that every possible step be taken to decrease to the lowest possible number those people who have not elected and who may therefore have to be dealt with at the poll on polling day. At the moment we are studying all possible means which might be effective to that end. I can assure the hon. member that the matter will be given every attention by the department, by the minister and also by the services who are anxious to have the matter cleared up as completely as possible.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think it is more than a matter of writing letters. The discussion which took place about these amendments was based on the fact that the department requires more time to get these declarations. The average person felt that the period of two months was too long, and it should be shorter. We realize, however, that there are troops scattered throughout Korea and western Europe. The department felt it needed time in which to ensure that as many of these men as possible had signed. The department can write letters if they want to do so, but I doubt if that is the best way of dealing with this. If, when the minister leaves this building today, he were to cause

Canadian Forces Act
a signal to go out to every commanding officer of every unit in the world, I have enough confidence in the efficiency of these officers and men to believe that they would see to it that within two weeks 90 per cent of the men would be pledged. I think that is the procedure which should be adopted; at least, that is why we think too much time is being taken.
In so far as the lists are concerned, to which the hon. member for Calgary East refers, this is the first time that provision has appeared permitting access to these lists. It was not there before. I might say for the benefit of the minister, who has not had experience with the administration of the lists and some of his officials who have not had that experience, that in many cases these lists were not prepared at all. I think, if the minister is going to write any letters, they should be letters to the commanding officer giving directions as to how this matter should be carried out, and impressing upon him the fact that the best qualified officers and N.C.O.'s should be detailed to do the work.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has not
answered my question.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Dealing with that question, it is now my understanding that the commanding officer prepares a list of the personnel of his unit, together with their place of residence, and in addition to sending it to the special returning officer for the respective territory, of which there are three in Canada, also sends a copy-perhaps I should read that provision:
-the commanding officer shall also furnish to the deputy returning officer a copy of such list for the taking of the votes of the Canadian forces electors attached to his unit; at any reasonable time during an election, such list and the statements referred to in paragraph 23 shall be open to inspection by any officially nominated candidate or his accredited representative, and such persons shall be permitted to make extracts therefrom.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The difficulty I see is how
a candidate or his accredited representative could see this list. How does he know where it is going to be? A member for a Nova Scotia constituency may quite readily have a couple of hundred people stationed in Calgary, Alberta. How is the candidate or his representative to see the list? Naturally, he is not going to be able to see it in Calgary. As I understand what the minister has said, these lists are sent to three particular places in Canada for the forces as a whole, and in each case the list is sent to the special returning officer for this area. Now, is it at the area that the candidate or his representative will see these lists, or where is it?


Ralph Osborne Campney: He may see lists either at the unit through the deputy returning officer or through the special returning officer of the area. In either place all these names are available.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Let us take a practical example. Let us take a constituency in Nova Scotia. In Calgary there are a couple of hundred people from that constituency who will be registered in that constituency in Nova Scotia. Where are the candidates in that constituency in Nova Scotia going to see these lists? They cannot travel out to Calgary; they have not facilities for appointing agents in Calgary, and so forth.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I understand the regulations, if the candidate or the accredited representative of a candidate wants to check across the country he must do so through representatives in the different places. I do not think there are any provisions otherwise in the regulations as they exist now and as they were put in the statute by the committee which considered this matter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps we can find out what an area consists of. Is there any sort of master list made for all the units for the particular area concerned which the candidates or the candidates' representatives could look at and get the people from their own constituency?


Ralph Osborne Campney: To answer the first question, according to the regulations special returning officers are appointed (a) for Ontario and Quebec; (b) for the maritimes; (c) for the western provinces and lastly in areas where Canadian forces are serving overseas, such areas being as designated by the chief electoral officer.
I am informed that so far as these lists are concerned they are not, as the hon. member calls it, master lists; they are lists as they cpme in from the emits to the special returning officer in the area.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do these lists also come into any central office here at national headquarters where they might be available?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, I am informed they do not. Once the election is called, the administration of these regulations, as I understand it-except in these particulars where commanding officers are specifically authorized or instructed to do some duty-is under the jurisdiction of the chief electoral officer the same as all other administrative regulations in regard to voting. He is the man who interprets and carries out these regulations. The taking of the vote is not a matter of administration for the army as such nor for the Department of National Defence.

These regulations set out the duties that the officers and personnel of the Department of National Defence have to perform but the actual carrying out of the electoral regulations is not within our jurisdiction. It is under the jurisdiction rather of the chief electoral officer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is not the matter of carrying out the vote that I am talking about.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In regard to lists or anything else pertaining to the election, all is under the chief electoral officer who, I take it, is governed by the regulations.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The point is that the act
provides that the candidate or his representatives shall have access to these lists and see the lists; but from the practical point of view, if the lists are posted up in the hundreds of different stations across Canada, or are available in hundreds of different stations where troops are to be found across Canada, that provision really means absolutely nothing. Unless there is, or are, some central place or places where these lists are available, the provision might just as well not be there. That is what I am getting at, as to whether these lists can be made available at some central area. It seems to me there should not be any undue difficulty in having that done. Is the minister going to comment on that? What is to prevent these lists being sent here to national defence headquarters and being available here?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not think I can make
any comment beyond this. I will certainly see that the observations of the hon. member are taken into consideration. I do not think I can say anything more.


George Randolph Pearkes: Will the candidate or his
agent be able to see not only the lists of personnel who would record votes in his constituency, but the places where all the other service personnel in that station will be recording their votes?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand the list shows
the places of residence of all the members of the units, together with the places where they are resident for the purpose of casting their vote.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the section as
amended carry?


George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask one question on
subsection 2. There is an addition there. The addition reads:
But where the member is serving outside Canada or in a ship and none of the foregoing clauses (a), '!*'. or (c) is applicable-
Canadian Forces Act
It seems to me that there may be certain personnel in these services to whom these clauses will not be applicable, and who will not have had any place of ordinary residence in Canada at the time of enlistment. For instance, suppose a person enlisted into the armed forces from outside Canada. We have certain musicians from Holland who were enlisting in the armed forces of Canada. I do not know that they would have a vote, but there would certainly be men from the United Kingdom who will have joined the armed forces in the United Kingdom, and perhaps are now serving in western Europe. The time will come, if it has not already been reached, when they will be eligible to vote in Canada. They would never have had any ordinary place of residence in Canada, and none of the three clauses (a) (b) or (c>
would be applicable.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In reply to the hon. member, I understand that this particular portion of the clause which he is reading was designed to cover the cases he has mentioned. If a man has the right to vote, he must have come into Canada once and gone out to make the clause applicable, in which event his place of residence would be where he was while in Canada. If a man has never been in Canada I do not think he is covered.
It would appear to me that if he had a spouse or relative in Canada, under the right of election section he could take the residence of his spouse or other dependent or relative. If he has no relative in Canada and has never been in Canada even for a day, I doubt whether he would have the right to vote under the regulations.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would he not have the right to vote if he had served the required time in the Canadian armed forces? Would that not entitle him to citizenship?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand not unless he had actually been in Canada; but if he has served for that length of time in practically all cases he would have been in Canada at some time at least for a day. There might be one type of person who would not fit into any of these particular regulations. I do not think they would be very numerous.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes; I think you might have men who enlisted in the United Kingdom, perhaps men who had been in Canada with the R.A.F. and had received their training here, but then they would not have been members of the Canadian forces. There must be a certain number of men who are
4214	HOUSE OF
Canadian Forces Act
enlisted directly from European countries or from the United Kingdom who will be serving in the armed forces of Canada and who, it may be assumed, will take their leave, and all that sort of thing, in the United Kingdom. They would have no permanent residence here. These persons do not seem to be provided for, when they become entitled to a vote.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In the narrow circumstances outlined by the hon. member, I should think that if a man had no relatives in Canada, and had never lived here, he could not vote at large. There would be no constituency with which he could be identified. He would have no status, so far as voting is concerned, i do not know where he would poll his vote.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is the question I was raising.
Section as amended agreed to.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Hon. members will notice that sections 5, 6 and 7 are duplicates of sections 2, 3 and 4, which have already been carried. Therefore I would assume that they would be carried as well.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would have an amendment to section 7.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Ordinary residence of members of regular forces.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have had an amendment
to section 7 prepared, to give effect to the amendment passed this morning to section 4, and I would ask my colleague to move it.


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That in part II, clause 7 of the bill be amended by deleting lines 24, 25, and 26 and substituting therefor the following:
"(2) Before the dissolution of the twenty-first parliament or before the expiration of two months from the day on which the Canadian Forces Act, 1953, was assented to, whichever is the earlier, every member of the regular forces who was such a member on the twenty-first day of June, 1952, shall complete, in duplicate,"


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That clause 7 be further amended by inserting after line 6, page 11, the following as sub-clause (2):
"(2) Paragraph 26 of the said regulations is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'26. Within two weeks after the publication of a notice in daily orders, in form No. 5, each commanding officer shall, through the liaison officer, furnish to the special returning officer for the appropriate voting territory, a list of the names, ranks, numbers and places of ordinary residence, as prescribed in paragraph 22, of Canadian forces electors attached to his unit; the commanding 

officer shall also furnish to the deputy returning officer a copy of such list for the taking of the votes of the Canadian forces electors attached to his unit: at any reasonable time during an election, such list and the statements referred to in paragraph 22 shall be open to inspection by any officially nominated candidate or his accredited representative, and such persons shall be permitted to make extracts therefrom.' "


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That sub-clauses (2), (3) and (4) be renumbered (3), (4) and (5) respectively.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 340, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need add much to what was said last night in the discussion on the resolution preceding the bill. The proposed amendment to the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, provides authority for granting to the corporation out of the consolidated revenue fund amounts that equal the taxes collected under the Excise Tax Act on the sale of sound broadcasting sets and apparatus, and similarly for granting to the corporation, on account of television, an amount equal to the taxes collected under the Excise Tax Act on the sale of television receiving sets and tubes.
The proposed amendment continues the provision of funds to the corporation by statutory provision, and does not alter the basic principle for the provision of adequate funds to the corporation, therefore retaining the autonomy which is inherent in the present legislation.
The proposed amendment is one section in the bill, and the repetition of that section also appears. The second one will be repealed when the Revised Statutes of Canada come into effect.
Hon. members will recall that already at this session we have considered Bill No. 225, to amend the Excise Tax Act, and that it has been passed. Section 11 in that bill made provision for the repeal of section 6 in schedule I, and section 6 (a) was substituted therefor. I need not read it in full, but that section now refers to phonographs,

record playing devices, radio broadcasting receiving sets or any combination of the foregoing, and the tubes therefor; and states that they shall be subject to a tax of 15 per cent. Then paragraph (b) deals with television apparatus, and makes specific reference to television receiving sets and tubes therefor, as well as any apparatus or device that enables a person to see, or to see and hear, television programs distributed by any means whatever, or television radio broadcasting programs distributed by any means whatever. And in that case, again, the tax is 15 per cent.
If hon. members will recall the discussion that took place when that bill was before the house they will recall that it had, as its purpose, the clarification of all those things included that would have to do with television sets, and this included what are known as rediffusion sets.
I believe that is all the comment I have to make at this time.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, there was some discussion last night at the resolution stage, and I do not propose to repeat now what I said at that time. I do draw attention to the fact, however, that the bill is open to all the objections to which, in my remarks last night, I said it was open, having regard to the observations of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) at the resolution stage and those of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) when he referred to this matter in his budget speech.
The amendment to the act is very brief. It may be simple in appearance; nevertheless it has the effect of setting up continuing legislation under which revenue will be paid over out of the consolidated revenue fund by the Minister of Finance year by year to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, without any further reference to parliament and without need of any further authority from parliament. That is a fundamentally unsound procedure, having regard to the necessity of maintaining strict parliamentary control over all moneys drawn from the consolidated revenue fund.
The minister has said this amendment continues in effect the scheme that has been in existence for a long time. It is quite true that under the combined effect of the Radio Act and the Broadcasting Act as in effect hitherto, the $2.50 licence fee on radio receiving sets has been paid over, under statutory authority, by the government to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. But hon. members will recall that parliament was
Canadian Broadcasting Act called upon each year to make provision in a specific item of the estimates for the collection of that radio receiving licence fee. Parliament was thus afforded an opportunity every year at least to debate this whole question.
Under the amendment before us there is no such right. There will not be anything before parliament-unless, by any chance, in his budget proposals the Minister of Finance recommends some change in the excise tax, either by way of the percentage of the tax or in the matter of its application.
I think the house ought to understand clearly that if the amendment is passed in its present form, this will be an end to any annual opportunity for discussion as to whether parliament should make provision in this form and in these amounts for the needs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I indicated last night that there may be a specious coincidence in amounts as between the amount collected hitherto from licence fees on radio receiving sets and the amount it is calculated will be paid under this new amendment to the corporation for sound broadcasting, being the amount collected by way of excise tax on radio receiving sets and tubes. That happens to be a coincidence and it is nothing more. It is no excuse for ignoring and defying sound parliamentary principles.
It was indicated last night that if given second reading this bill will be referred to the committee on radio broadcasting where it will be further reviewed. If that course is followed I hope the committee will be prepared to propose amendments to this bill because in its present form it is open to the serious charge that it simply lifts control over a substantial amount of money year by year completely out of the hands of parliament. If this measure is passed in this form the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) can go on from now until eternity paying out of the consolidated revenue fund all the amounts collected from the excise tax on the goods mentioned in section 6 of schedule I of the Excise Tax Act. I consider that that is an utterly unsound way of proceeding.
As I said to the house last night, there are additional reasons why parliament should consider this matter annually, why parliament should address itself in each annual session to the consideration of how much it ought to provide to meet the proper expenses of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, both with respect to sound broadcasting and to television. These are matters of vast importance. Because it happens at this particular moment that the amount that the

Trade with China and North Korea
government thinks will be required for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation happens to coincide approximately with the amount that is being yielded at this time from the excise tax on the goods in section 6 of schedule I of the Excise Tax Act, we are being asked to pass this legislation giving the minister power to pay over all the amounts collected from this Excise Tax Act to the corporation.
That is no way to go about meeting this problem. This coincidence in amounts that exists today may not exist in six months' or a year's time. I do not think one would be rash to say that it will not exist in two years' time, in three years' time or in four years' time. Then why do we pass legislation of this kind which has the effect that from now until eternity parliament will not have an annual opportunity of reviewing this whole matter?
This is not doing justice to the obligations of parliament with reference to the very important task that it has placed upon the shoulders of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Surely they are entitled to have their affairs and financial needs carefully considered year by year in parliament. If this bill is passed in its present form it will preclude that. I say that if the bill is given second reading I hope the committee on radio broadcasting will be able to send back a much better bill than the one that is now before us.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on broadcasting.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Green.

Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Speaking the second time?


Mr. Casselman:: The first time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks that I should like to make with reference to the amendment introduced last evening by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), to the motion that the house resolve itself into committee of supply. This matter is of recent origin, going back to what happened in the house just two days ago.


May I recall to hon. members precisely what happened in this house on Monday morning of this week, this being Wednesday morning. Among other items of business the house had before it for consideration a number of amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. This bill had been before the house previously, but the house in committee of the whole reviewed the various amendments on Monday morning. It was noted at the time that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) did not remain in the house to pilot the amendments through the committee of the whole, but left the chamber. The amendments were approved in due course, the bill was given third reading and passed on its way to the other place.
After the house had spent but a few minutes . in the transaction of some other business, to the surprise of hon. members the Minister of Transport made his appearance just prior to the one o'clock adjournment and proceeded to ask permission to revert to motions. That permission was granted and he thereupon tabled two copies, in English and in French, of order in council P.C. 1953604, passed on Friday, April 17, under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act with respect to the control of trade by sea with mainland China and North Korea.
The full significance of what the government has done I think is now abundantly apparent. This was an order in council made in the usual secrecy last Friday. The government must have known about this matter for weeks in advance. In any event they made this order on Friday, April 17. They had ample opportunity last Friday night in announcing the business that would come before the house on Monday, April 20, to refer to this matter. That would have been the time, if they were determined to proceed by order in council, to have acquainted the house with the fact. Much better still, that was the time to notify the house that amendments would be proposed on Monday morning, when the Canada Shipping Act amendments were before the house, to carry into legislative effect in the proper constitutional and parliamentary manner what the government has now done by this order in council.
But, no, the government did not proceed in that manner. The government did not choose to acquaint the house with the facts on Friday evening. The government did not choose to acquaint the house with the fact on motions on Monday morning. Why was it that the government did not take advantage of the opportunity to have announced this order in council on motions? Oh, no, this order was held back, and held back deliberately, until

the house had concluded its consideration of the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. Nothing could be more obvious.
They did not want this subject discussed in parliament. That is equally obvious. Therefore they held it back until the Canada Shipping Act amendments were out of the way. Is this the kind of method that hon. members of this house are going to approve? I put that question to hon. members of this house who are accustomed to support this government. I ask every one of them if he approves the way in which the government has flouted and ignored this House of Commons and denied to the House of Commons information on a matter of very considerable importance as to which there would have been an opportunity on Monday morning for adequate discussion in the parliamentary manner. That is question No. 1, Mr. Speaker.
Let us follow that a little further. How did the government proceed? Where did they seek to find a method of dealing with the problem, a problem that was described by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) last night in his very angry and ill-tempered speech as contraband trade? This House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, does not take second place to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the government in its determination to see that proper measures are taken to prevent trade in contraband with. communist China. Why does the government not trust the House of Commons? The House of Commons is capable of prompt action. It has shown that on more than one occasion where conditions required prompt action. But oh no, the government did not choose the parliamentary method. They wanted to do this by their secret and favourite method of legislating by order in council.
They might have approached the matter through the Canada Shipping Act, but they did not do so. They went to a statute which has now acquired a very ugly and notorious history, the Emergency Powers Act. This is a measure that has had as much discussion at the present session as any measure that has come before the house. No legislative measure that has come before the house this year has been subjected to as lengthy debate or as critical comment as the bill to extend the Emergency Powers Act.
That measure was criticized because of the breadth of the powers that the government sought to take from parliament to do virtually everything that parliament can do with the exception of taxation, arrest, detention and deportation. Everything else in the way of transfer of absolute powers they grasped from parliament. When we in this quarter of the
22, 1953
Trade with China and North Korea house criticized that measure, when we said that no self-respecting parliament could pass a measure virtually abdicating its powers to the executive branch of government, we were told by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in the most soothing terms, in the intervention he made in the debate in its late stages on March 26, that the house need have no fear, that the government would be so careful in the exercise of these powers, that the utmost regard would be had for all democratic privileges and considerations, and that the house might well subdue all fears that it entertained about placing in the hands of the governor in council powers that could be used virtually to subvert the entire constitution of the country and stop all pretence of parliamentary government. Such was the assurance that the house received from the Prime Minister.
Some of us were very critical of the way in which the government in the two years that this measure has been in existence had proceeded to legislate by this method while parliament was in session and quite capable of providing anything required in the way of legislation. What was the record that we pointed out then? In 1951 nineteen orders in council were passed under the Emergency Powers Act and every one of them was passed while parliament was in session, because that year parliament sat from January 30 to December 29; and as to parliament being actually sitting while the orders were passed, every one of them was passed at a time when parliament was actually sitting and not in recess. In the year 1952 five orders in council were passed under the Emergency Powers Act, and three of the five were passed while parliament was actually sitting and quite capable of enacting anything that was required to meet any legislative lack at the time.
We raised this question and raised it repeatedly, and one would have thought that the government would have enough regard for the institution of parliament to have refrained from proceeding to legislate by this order in council method while parliament was actually in session. The order in council in question in this debate was passed on April 17, last Friday. The house was in session that day from eleven o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock at night. Again on Monday, April 20, the house was in session from eleven o'clock on, and I have already pointed out that a bill was under debate in the house that morning under which this measure could have been introduced by the government as a proper amendment to the Canada Shipping Act.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have it crystal clear that this government does not care whether
4218	HOUSE OF
Trade with China and North Korea or not parliament is sitting. They have the powers under the Emergency Powers Act, and use those powers they will in whatever way they choose, whether parliament is sitting or not. In the view of the government, when a situation like this arises parliament as an institution might just as well not be in session. We might just as well pack our bags and go home so far as the government is concerned.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They do not take us into their confidence. They do not discuss problems of this kind with us. They just go ahead and follow their secret and favourite method of proceeding to legislate by order in council.
Let there be no doubt in the mind of any hon. member, Mr. Speaker, or in the mind of any Canadian that this is legislation. This is not some matter of regulation, some small matter that does not require the direct attention of parliament. This is not the sort of thing that parliament sometimes makes provision for by way of regulations to carry out the intent of a statute. This is legislation. No legislation enacted by parliament this year is more directly legislative in form or effect than order in council P.C. 1953-604.
We have here now-and let the public fully realize it-two law-making bodies. We have parliament containing the elected representatives of the people sitting here transacting public business in public for all to see and so that the public may form its judgment upon the way in which its business is done in parliament. At the same time we have another legislative body that meets in secret and by star chamber methods proceeds to pass legislation just as binding upon every Canadian as the legislation enacted here in parliament in due parliamentary form. Which is the democratic method? The parliamentary method is a method that has been tested down through the centuries and has been found to be the one method that will guarantee the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people. Long ago secret methods were found to be the kind that make it easy for executive bodies to trespass upon the rights of the people.
The executive branch of government, historically and in fact, has never been the champion of the rights of the people. It has been parliament and parliament alone that has fought the battles for the preservation of the rights and freedoms of the people. Parliament and the people have an opportunity now of seeing under their very eyes parliament proceeding to legislate in the traditional parliamentary and democratic method, and side by side a cabal consisting of twenty men proceeding to legislate by star
rMr. Fleming.]

chamber methods that were found three centuries ago to be so notorious that men were prepared to shed their blood to exterminate them. There was no occasion whatever, Mr. Speaker, no need whatever, for the governor in council to proceed by this method. Parliament was in session. Parliament was dealing with matters directly cognate with this very subject matter, and it would have been a relatively easy matter to have introduced this subject in the house on Monday morning by way of an amendment to the bill then under consideration in the house. So, Mr. Speaker, you will never have a more flagrant case than this of the government deliberately choosing to ignore parliament, abandoning parliamentary methods and proceeding to legislate in secret by order in council.
Now, sir, what were the excuses, the pretexts offered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) last night for this attack on parliament in his angry speech? There were two excuses which he gave, Mr. Speaker, and the first was that the end justifies the means.


Mr. Fraser:: That is pretty flimsy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, when parliament's position is at stake, when the parliamentary and democratic process is challenged, we of the official opposition say most directly to this government and to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the end cannot justify the means, when you deliberately choose autocratic and unparliamentary means. There is no excuse here for the way in which this government went about it. It was an empty and hollow pretext which the minister sought to put forward last night, and it will convince no one. I do not think that the minister even convinced himself.
Then the minister said: That is the way they did it in the United States and in the United Kingdom. Well, the minister ought to know perhaps better than most members of this house that under the system prevailing in the United States, with congress enacting general legislation, it is their policy and practice to leave matters to the executive branch of government which we, under our system of responsible government, would not think of vesting in the executive branch of the government-at least until this house came to be dominated by an autocratic administration here which had lost all knowledge of true parliamentary processes.
The reference on the part of the minister to the United Kingdom was indeed interesting because it sheds a clear light on something which the Minister of Trade and Commerce said last night in attempting to stampede this house into thinking that this was a

matter of real, desperate urgency. He said it was a time for action and not for talk. Well, you see that to his autocratic mentality parliament is just a place for talk, and therefore, he has no patience with it. He has shown that many and many a time. His mentality is obviously not adjusted to parliamentary processes because it is quite true that parliament is a place where people talk. That is the democratic method that has been found by a process of long experimentation to be the kind that is safe and the kind that preserves the rights and freedom of people-so that anything that even resembles talk is anathema to him. To the Minister of Trade and Commerce action is the thing that matters; action is what he demands. Well, the House of Commons is quite prepared to move as quickly as is required, Mr. Speaker.
As I have indicated, his references to the United Kingdom approach to this question have some very interesting light to shed upon the atmosphere of urgency that the Minister of Trade and Commerce sought to throw about this matter. What do we find, Mr. Speaker, to be the fact-the fact that was not stated to this house last night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce? When we look up the records of the United Kingdom we find that their order was made on March 13, 1953-over a month before this matter became one of such desperate urgency last Friday that this government could not even tolerate the idea of putting it before parliament. It was laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom on March 16, 1953, one month and one day before the cabinet here proceeded to pass this order in council. It came into operation on March 17, 1953, one month exactly before this government considered it necessary to pass this order in council-this notorious order in council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is the order in council in the United Kingdom also notorious?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know what reasons prompted them to proceed the way they did over there; but I doubt very much if the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows very much about the legislation under which it was passed over there; so that any reference he made was based upon a very superficial review of the situation there. I will tell him that if he had taken the trouble to study the facts, instead of contributing more heat than light to the debate last night, he would have been frank enough to have told this house that this matter did not have any of the urgency which he attempted to attach to it last night. The matter was settled over a month ago in the United Kingdom.
22, 1953
Trade with China and North Korea


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend might at least tell the parliament of Westminster how to run their affairs.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not tell them that but I do tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce that if there is anybody in this house who has demeaned parliament, who has treated parliament with utter contempt, time and time again, it is he. There is nobody who is a greater menace in this house to all parliamentary processes than the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot make a statement of that kind. He must withdraw it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Show your contempt for parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot allow it to stand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask which remark you mean?


Some hon. Members:: All of them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I heard the hon. member say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was a menace to parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That he demeaned parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot allow that statement to stand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will correct that, Mr. Speaker.


Alphonse Fournier: You will withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Before correcting it the hon. member must withdraw the statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am told by those who are around me that I did not say that the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no use denying it.*


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot allow an argument about this. I heard what the hon. member said and he must withdraw the statement he made that the minister was a menace to parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If that is what I said I will certainly withdraw it in view of your ruling; but I will say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has repeatedly treated this House of Commons and parliamentary institutions with the utmost contempt. What he said last night-


An hon. Member:: That is the same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member can say that the minister has treated this parliament with contempt.
See also page 4226.
4220	HOUSE OF
Trade with China and North Korea


Donald Methuen Fleming: With great respect, sir, that very remark has been made in this house-


Clarence Decatur Howe: By yourself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And others.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this is the time I should stop it. I do not think I should allow any hon. member to refer to a minister as treating parliament with contempt.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The way to correct that is
for the minister to change his attitude.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should clear the matter up now. The hon. member must withdraw the statement he has made that the minister has repeatedly treated this parliament with contempt.


Clarence Decatur Howe: So withdraw it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will have something to say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has undertaken to give orders to both yourself and myself now. I want to make a submission with regard to that remark.


Mr. Speaker:: I would first like the statement cleared up. I would like a withdrawal from the hon. member who has accused the minister of treating parliament time and again with contempt.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is no question about that statement. I have certainly said that. This is not the first time I have said it.


Mr. Martin:: Withdraw; the Speaker has made a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I should not have allowed it in the past, and I am not allowing it now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Show your own respect for parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will you permit me to suggest to Your Honour that you are going a little farther than you would intend to go-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are telling the Speaker?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am suggesting, not telling, which is the minister's habit. I am suggesting that perhaps Your Honour is going a little farther than Your Honour would intend to go if, as I understand it, you are about to rule that the statement that the minister has been in contempt of parliament or used parliament with contempt is unparliamentary. On page 97 of Beauchesne's second edition, I find a list of expressions, and while I am not saying it is all-embracing it is the result of a good many experiences of this sort, and in a quick examination I do 

not find that the use of the word "contempt" in that sense has ever been held to be unparliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: They are merely examples. Certainly to suggest that the minister is in contempt of parliament is unparliamentary.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The expression is "has used parliament with contempt." I am sorry; I used the wrong expression.


Mr. Speaker:: I feel, and I am sure the hon. member for Eglinton will agree with me, that it is unparliamentary. But Whether or not he does agree I must ask him to withdraw the statement that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has treated, and is treating, parliament with contempt.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, you know me well enough to know-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that if I had thought for one moment the expression was unparliamentary I would not have used it, no matter how strong my feelings may be on the subject I was discussing. This is the first time, after that expression has been used on a number of occasions, that any objection has been taken to it in the house as being unparliamentary.
Now, if you compel me to withdraw it, then I have no course but to withdraw it. I do want to say this. I remind the house that it has been used before, not once but many times, and never before has objection been taken to it by the Chair or by the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member has, in view of my ruling, withdrawn.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said that your ruling
compels me to withdraw, and I have no alternative but to withdraw it.


Mr. Marlin:: That is not a withdrawal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I have to say it again to the ministers over there who are engaged in these overtones of raucous interruption, that your ruling compels me to withdraw. I have no alternative but to withdraw in view of your ruling, and therefore I withdraw.


Murdo William Martin: That is fine.


Gordon Graydon: That is what he said before.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is what I said before,
precisely. I will say this. This government is going to be called to account for the way in which it has treated parliament. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

We had a very good example of it last night on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this amendment, but since I have noticed that in the last couple of days we have gone over one o'clock and over ten o'clock at night, I am wondering if you would not consent, since it is only three minutes to one, to having one period short of one o'clock.


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


Mr. Sinnoti:: If the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) does not wish to go ahead, I will.


Ernest George Hansell: If the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) wishes to go ahead I do not mind, but I do not want to lose my place in the debate. I have not risen to speak as yet. I am only rising to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Ernest George Hansell: When the house rose for the luncheon recess we were discussing the amendment that was proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) in respect to the order in council which was passed the other day while parliament was in session.
Last night I listened with a good deal of interest to the speeches that were made on that amendment. It is not necessary to repeat what the leader of this party said last evening in putting our position plainly before parliament in respect to this action and in respect to this amendment. Our leader said that we supported the amendment because we believed that it was a negation of the right of a democratic parliament. I do not believe there is one argument against that position. I believe the position taken by the government is indefensible.
Much was said last night with regard to the right thing being done the wrong way. Perhaps a good deal of emphasis was placed on that phrase. It is all very well for a government that does something in the wrong way to rise and point the finger at opposition members and say: "Well, did we do right?" Of course that is tantamount to putting the opposition on the spot, so that they will declare whether they agree with it or not. I do not believe it is a matter of doing the right thing in the wrong way at all. I think 68108-267
22, 1953	4221
Trade with China and North Korea it goes farther than that. It is a matter ot the government assuming that they are right, and that they alone are capable of determining what is right.
It is not so long ago, as a matter of fact, just a few short weeks ago, that we were discussing the Emergency Powers Act under which the government was able to pass this order in council. What arguments took place then? The whole opposition in that debate were opposed to that measure, mainly because the government assumed power under it to take action while parliament was in session. At the time the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) became more or less an apologist for the government along that line.
It amazes me, Mr. Speaker, that after that act was passed, after all the arguments were used, even after the Minister of Justice, by inference anyway, agreed that it was not the proper principle to apply, orders in council should without necessity be passed while parliament was in session. They wanted the powers of the Emergency Powers Act so that they would be able to do things in an emergency when parliament was not in session. It amazes me that just so soon after the passing of that act and the arguments put forth, the government has turned around and done the very thing which they admitted at the time was, under our democratic processes, an objectionable thing to do. How they could do that, I do not know. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself, during the debate on the Emergency Powers Act, admitted that to pass orders in council while parliament was sitting was an objectionable thing to do.
I recall particularly the statements he made, although at the time he was talking particularly of a secret order which was passed in compliance with certain actions that were taken by the North Atlantic treaty nations. What did the Prime Minister say at that time? He said, as reported at page 3318 of Hansard:
All those who are parties to the North Atlantic alliance share with each other top secret Information because of our confidence that there are measures being taken for the proper protection against or the anticipation of sabotage and espionage.
It is unfortunate to have to live in a world where that has to be done. It is unfortunate that we cannot feel that everybody in the world is going to behave in a manner befitting a Christian gentleman, but that is not the world we are living in. There are certain things that we are reluctantly forced to do if we attempt to discharge the responsibilities that happen to be ours.
Well, as I say, I know he was talking about a particular secret order, and I am not one, and never have been one, to object
4222	HOUSE OF
Trade with China and North Korea particularly, if a time of emergency arises, where a secret order has to be passed by a responsible government. I have never criticized the government on the action they took at the time the spy scandal broke out in this country. I have never criticized them for setting up the commission to investigate that matter and denying counsel for the time being to those who were suspected of sabotage. I have never criticized them for that action. It was an emergency at the time. I do not think parliament was in session. It may have been, because I happened to live next door to Mr. Gouzenko's apartment, and I wondered what it was all about at the time. Unfortunately, that was the situation. The government took the bull by the horns and acted according to the power granted them. I have never criticized them for doing that. In fact, I believe I have said in my public meetings that it was the proper thing to do, that I would have done the same thing under ordinary circumstances. And I say "I"-but of course I never will have a responsibility of that kind.
I never have criticized the government for that. I do not criticize them for doing the right thing at the right time. But if, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself admitted in the debate on the Emergency Powers Act, to do such things would be objectionable, even though he were applying the law to a secret order, how much more objectionable is it when it is not necessary that the order be kept secret, and when parliament is sitting. Upon the face of it, and in the light of the government's own admission as stated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the Prime Minister, how much more objectionable is this.
I say we have reasons for supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) in connection with the order in council which, as he says, was passed while parliament is sitting. I must admit that I do not know what happens in a cabinet meeting. I do not know how they discuss their orders in council.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Howe discusses them.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) does.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And he is not denying it.


Ernest George Hansell: I am almost tempted to think there are so many orders in council that have to be passed-and I am not referring only to orders in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act-and there is so much for the cabinet to do, that someone in the civil service shoves a lot of orders in council in front of them and says, "Sign."
IMr. Hansell.]

They sign. And then they awaken to the fact-"by golly"-


An hon. Member:: Careful, careful.


Ernest George Hansell: -"we have signed something here we should not have signed. Let us place it on the table. It will be all right there." It is either that or, knowing full well what they are doing, they do something that is objectionable to parliament, and know that someone will talk back to them about it. It is one thing or the other; you cannot have it both ways.
In my imagination I go up to the council chamber and take a little keyhole peep at the cabinet in session. I can see an order in council of this kind coming before them. Now, I have always said the Prime Minister is an honest man, and I think he is.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Have you any doubt?


Ernest George Hansell: Well, I mean to say that I judge by what he says in the house, and how he reacts to certain arguments. For instance, I remember when not long ago the house was discussing horses. He rose in his place and admitted certain things-and that was the gentlemanly and the nice way to do it.


George Harris Hees: It is the only thing you can do when you are caught.


Ernest George Hansell: I can go only by what I see and hear; but I do not view the Prime Minister as a slippery politician, at all. I do not, and I never have.


Mr. Byrne:: Can't say the same for you.


Ernest George Hansell: Who said that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne).


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are too many remarks being made, and I am unable to hear them. If hon. members wish to make any statements they should rise in their places and make them loud enough so that I can hear what is being said.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; let him rise in his place and say that anyone here is not honest. If the remark was directed to me, let him say it now.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member for Kootenay East.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The remark, if it was made, should not have been made.


Ernest George Hansell: It is all right; I do not mind if it is on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: But I would not allow it to remain on the record.


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not ashamed of a single, solitary thing I have ever done in the political field or in this House of Commons.
Now, let me get back to the keyhole again, if I may. Here is an order in council, such as we are now discussing. The Prime Minister says, "Well, boys, we have this matter of ships entering Chinese ports"-and so forth and so on; or it may be something else. "What are we going to do about it?" Someone rises and says, "Well, it is the right thing to do." The Prime Minister says, "It may be the right thing, but do you not think that the way we should do it is not the right way?" The Minister of Trade and Commerce says, "Huh! Huh!"
I can imagine looking through that keyhole during a session of cabinet and the Minister of Trade and Commerce saying, "Huh". But when he has the nerve to say it in the House of Commons, that is too much for me. I cannot understand it.
Then the Prime Minister says, "Well perhaps we had better pass it." And the gentleman sitting at the end of the table, the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), is asked by the Prime Minister, "What do you think about it?"


George Harris Hees: Wake him up.


Ernest George Hansell: He pops up and says, "Well, Mr. Prime Minister, I just was not listening. Anything you say will be all right." And then, speaking to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), "Mr. Minister of Public Works, you are responsible for the conduct of the business of the house. What do you think about it?" "Oh, it is all right; pass it. We will have enough Liberal backbenchers there who will heckle so much that no one will understand what the opposition are saying, anyway."
The order in council is passed. Eventually it is laid on the table. And we are now in the process of debating whether or not it is a negation of the democratic rights of parliament. I say, and I do believe, that the government should admit it has made a mistake in doing what it has done while parliament is in session. It should tell us whether it was an order in council signed along with a million others, or whether it knew what it was doing at the time. Did they know what they were doing, right on the heels of their being given power by parliament under the Emergency Powers Act, and having been made aware of all the objections to exercising it while parliament was in session? Knowing that, did they deliberately 68108-267J
22, 1953	4223
Trade with China and North Korea flout the desires of this parliament by preventing a matter which is not secret being brought before us for discussion?
The action involved in the order in council is right; and if they had come down with a measure, I am sure it would not have taken more than an hour or two of debate for us to have said that-


Clarence Decatur Howe: And to get it through both houses?


Ernest George Hansell: -this is the right thing to do at this particular time. It is the obvious thing.
Let me ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) if his attitude is that it was done because it would take too long. Is that the reason they passed the order in council, because they thought that if this legislation were brought down it would take too long to discuss it? Is that the reason? No answer. I think that they should give us a reason. They have not given us a satisfactory answer yet.
We are not discussing whether it is right, we are discussing whether or not the government should set itself up as the high potentate and great umpire over those who are able to say what is right and what is wrong. We in this house have the right to say what is right and what is wrong before the thing is done. Those are our objections. I think they will hold water, and if the debate has done nothing else it has served to indicate that the government should go a little slower with orders in council while parliament is in session. Whether they will take any notice of it, I do not know. I would suggest just one thing, that if they do this again it will indicate what the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was trying to say this morning.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, when the motion to go into committee of supply was moved last night and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) got up and objected to this order in council which had been passed, I was reminded of a drowning man grasping for a straw.


An hon. Member:: Out in Springfield.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You boys can have your fun, but I am going to say what I have to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I want to make it crystal clear that there was no secret order passed whatsoever. I want to quote what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) said, as reported on page 4089 of Hansard of April 20:
Mr. Speaker, may I have permission to revert to motions and to table two copies in English and in French of P.C. 1953-604, an order in council passed on Friday, April 17, under the provisions of the

Trade with China and North Korea
Emergency Powers Act with respect to the control of trade by sea with mainland China and North Korea. This order provides that no ship registered in Canada shall, after the 20th day of April, 1953, proceed to the mainland of China and North Korea without a licence. This order is being passed pursuant to discussions which took place between the British and the Americans in Washington following the visit here of the Right Hon. Mr. Eden, and after those discussions the hope was expressed that we in Canada would pass a similar order in council.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister whether the United Kingdom and the United States have adopted similar measures?


Mr. Chevrier:: Yes, both countries have.


Howard Charles Green: Is this order identical with the provisions made by the British and the Americans?


Lionel Chevrier: I can say that it is identical with the British order because I have seen it, but I have not seen the American, although I am told that it was the hope of both the American and the British governments that this be done.
That was the end of the discussion. Later on the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, being the shrewd politician that he is, decided that here was a straw that could be grasped by the Conservative party and decided to bring up this thing again. I speak as a backbencher on this side and I want to say that I do not at all times follow the lead of the government. But I do want to express my own personal opinion about this order ^ in council which was passed for the protection of every man, woman and child in this country. Who on the opposition side can say that the government did not know that there was a load of contraband near Korean or Chinese waters?
As soon as the government could do so they indicated that they had passed this order in council on Friday last. Nothing was concealed, nothing was hidden, nothing was done that should not have been done. It has been admitted by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) that this was the proper thing to do, but it was done in the wrong way.
It may be true that amendments should have been put through on Monday but, as I said before, who knows that there may not have been half a dozen ships filled with contraband near these waters at that time and this order may have been necessary.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It should have been passed a year ago.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: No one knows better than the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has given every assurance that orders in council would not be passed unless they were essential and necessary for the protection of this country. I want to indicate with these few remarks that my opinion is that this order was passed with all good intentions and that political


capital should not be made out of something that does not exist.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), indicated last night, we shall support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) because we believe that this parliament should pass a vote of censure upon the government for what it has done in passing this order in council under the Emergency Powers Act even though parliament was in session at the time.
The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) has expressed his view as one member on the Liberal side of the house. I was interested in looking up the views of another member on the Liberal side who had something to say about this question when we were debating the emergency powers legislation earlier this year. I refer to the hon. member for London (Mr. Jeffery) whose remarks will be found on page 2107 of Hansard for February 19. He made it clear that the only reason he was prepared to vote for this legislation was that he felt that it might be needed during a time when with an election being held there would be no parliament to call into session.
On that occasion that Liberal member said that he took second place to no one, not even to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), in his opposition to emergency powers legislation. So far as he was concerned, it was wrong in principle and he was against it. Nevertheless he did say that he was going to support the government on that occasion because he felt that they might have to have this kind of stand-by power during a period when because of an election there was no parliament.
I am satisfied that the view expressed by the hon. member for London was held by a good many members on the Liberal side of the house. I am satisfied that there are many of them who do not like this legislation but who felt that there was sufficient weight to the argument made by the hon. member for London to go along with the government in support of this measure. Therefore, I suggest that there will be members like the hon. member for London and others in the Liberal party who will be just as annoyed as we are that so soon after the passing of the Emergency Powers Act, presumably for the purpose of having it when parliament was not here, particularly for the purpose of having it when there was no parliament at all, it is used simply for the purpose of avoiding debate on the floor of parliament.

When we of this group expressed our opposition to this measure in the debate that took place earlier this session we indicated that we had come to the conclusion that the government regarded the emergency powers legislation simply as a convenience. Indeed, I took the trouble to indicate some of the orders in council that had been passed under the emergency powers legislation and pointed out that in many cases that was all the government had done; it had just used that legislation as a convenience. I remember, for example, that one of the measures passed had to do with the foot-and-mouth disease. The government said that they thought they could have passed it under other legislation but since there was some doubt they used this legislation which was there for them to use. Then there were other items, an item with reference to the content of the Canadian five-cent piece and others of that kind which certainly made it clear to me that the government has had emergency powers legislation for so long that they regard it as a convenience which they are not prepared to do without.
I submit the sequence of events in this case is evidence of the fact that the government is just using the Emergency Powers Act as a convenience, as a means of bypassing discussion in parliament. I have had to be out of the chamber a part of the time today because the committee on industrial relations is meeting and dealing with a couple of very important pieces of legislation. Therefore I may have missed some of the points that have been made, but I should like to make this point whether or not it has been made before. The order in council which we are now discussing-and please bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that we are not discussing the subject matter of the order; we are discussing the method by which this law has come into being

was passed by the governor in council, in other words, by the cabinet, on Friday, April 17 last. That means that when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) came into the house at eleven o'clock on Monday morning, April 20, he must have had the order in council in his pocket. If he did not have it physically in a pocket in the clothes he was wearing, he at least had it with him and could have tabled it at eleven o'clock that morning, on motions.
That is the time when documents of this kind are usually tabled in the House of Commons. But no, the Minister of Transport did not choose to table this order in council, passed on the previous' Friday, at eleven o'clock on Monday morning I wonder why. There is in this case circumstantial evidence
22, 1953
Trade with China and North Korea that is going to be pretty hard for the government to answer. The fact of the matter is that the Canada Shipping Act was up for discussion that very morning and it follows inevitably that if an order of that kind had been laid on the table of the house at eleven o'clock there would have been discussion on it during the consideration of the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. But no, the Minister of Transport held back the tabling of the order in council until his parliamentary assistant had successfully piloted the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act through the house. A little later that same morning, just before one o'clock, the Minister of Transport then rose and asked the house to revert to motions so that he could table this order in council which had been passed the previous Friday under the Emergency Powers Act.
I submit that that makes it clear that all the government was trying to do was to by-pass a discussion in parliament. I submit that it is not of consequence whether that discussion might have taken five minutes or five hours. The point is that the right way to put legislation on the statute books of the country is to have it passed by parliament, and any faith that some people, like the hon. member for London (Mr. Jeffery) and others of his party who expressed the views they did during an earlier debate, have in the government so far as its use of emergency powers is concerned must be badly shattered by this early use of these powers for this purpose.
A great deal has been said about the need for getting this legislation into effect quickly but, as I believe has already been pointed out, the British experience was that their order in council was passed on March 13, tabled in the British House of Commons on March 16 and came into effect on March 17. I am not condoning their action in doing it by order in council, but the point I am making is that it appears that the decision of the three governments, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Canadian, to pass orders of this kind was apparently made back in the middle part of March. Yet the government waits from the middle of March, when Mr. Eden was here, until the 20th of April and then tells us there is such hurry about this matter that it has to be done by order in council rather than by putting it through parliament in the proper way.
We did not like the emergency powers legislation itself. We opposed it when the votes were called earlier this session, and we are still against it. We raised particular objection to the use of these powers when parliament is in session. We have objected

Trade with China and North Korea on other occasions to the additional power the government took in 1950 to keep any order in council secret. We suggest that the present experience will increase the doubts of many people as to the wisdom of parliament in having given the government these emergency powers, and we hope that after the censure now being made of the government through the terms of this motion, and through the support I hope there will be for it, there will be an end to this sort of practice on the part of the government. It is bad business, and it should cease.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Just prior to the noon adjournment there was a discussion in the house during the course of which you asked me to withdraw certain words, which I did. In the course of that discussion you will remember that there were a good many interruptions and interjections hurled across the floor from the ministerial benches. At the time I could not distinguish them all. 1 did not distinguish one that I now find was made and which is a breach of the rules of the house. One member thought he heard it and spoke to me afterward and told me that I should check it up in the transcript of the Hansard notes. I have done that and this is what I find in that transcript.


An hon. Member:: Did you change it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I did not change it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is another slur from the other side of the house and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rebuke the hon. member who interjected it. This is how the passage reads in the transcript:


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am told by those who are around me that I did not say that the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no use lying about it.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot allow an argument about this.
And so on. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you could not have heard, as I did not hear, the remark made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he said, "There is no use lying about it", and in that way imputed a dishonest statement to a member of the house. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to require the minister now to withdraw that remark which is in breach of the rules of the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, in reading the transcript I myself noticed it. I knew it was unparliamentary and I communicated with you, Mr. Speaker, and after that changed the transcript to read "denying it". I am now making a full confession. If my hon. friend would like me to expunge the line I will do
IMr. Knowles.]
that. I am sorry I made the remark. I was a little annoyed at my hon. friend and I think he was a bit annoyed too. That is the story. What would my hon. friend like me to do more than that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that is quite sufficient. I am glad the minister has spoken as he has.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate with considerable reluctance, for the simple reason that I have a terrific regard for the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Lorne MacDougall: I dislike very much to have to rise to my feet and, according to my conscience and the principles which I hold, disagree with them on this matter. If my memory serves me correctly, it seems to me that when the Emergency Powers Act was being discussed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I may interrupt for a minute, perhaps I should say with respect to the statement made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) that it had been my intention to bring the matter to the attention of the house when it resumed at 2.30 this afternoon, but the hon. member was not in his seat at that moment. I am pleased that he raised the matter as soon as he came into the house.


John Lorne MacDougall: You are not referring to me, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: No.


John Lorne MacDougall: With respect to this whole problem, I think we must recognize that Canada has won its nationhood by the blood of Canadian men and women in two world wars. I am proud of the fact that I am a Canadian and, by virtue of that, I cannot particularly conform to either the executive action of the United Kingdom in dealing with this matter or the executive action of the United States in dealing with this matter. To me, we are not a satellite of either one or both of those countries and as a result, if that argument is correct, then we have a perfect right, our own Canadian right as representatives of Canadian people from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to decide rightly or wrongly how matters such as this should be dealt with.
In addition, we recognize the fact that for the maintenance of peace, order and good government this parliament has delegated certain powers to the government. As a Liberal with a capital "L" I have never been too enthusiastic in my support of emergency

powers but this year, of all years that we have granted emergency powers, it seemed to me they were justified. That was because of the fact that, and I think most hon. members will agree with me, during this year there are going to be a number of days when Canada is not going to have a parliament. Consequently there will be a period when Canadians will have what might be termed a dead parliament and a dead parliament cannot in any emergency be whipped back to life. Therefore, it seemed to me that this was the one year where emergency powers were necessary and I fully supported the granting of those emergency powers-largely along the lines mentioned by the hon. member for London (Mr. Jeffery) when he said that in his opinion this was the year that we should have the emergency powers because a certain period of the year was going to be void of parliamentary authority, and that additional powers should be given to the government in the event of an emergency arising.
I might have misunderstood the words used by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) with respect to the invoking of the emergency powers, but I am convinced in my mind that the words which he used were such that led me to believe that these emergency powers would not be invoked when parliament was in session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Lorne MacDougall: I think I am justified in assuming that was the case, and if it was the case I wonder whether this action was absolutely necessary at the time. I am not going back over the speeches made this morning or this afternoon with respect to the matter, but it certainly would seem to me that it could have been dealt with as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, regardless of whether it took five minutes or five hours. Again I must agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) because I, a very ordinary backbencher, feel that we do waste a lot of time in talking and I do not very much blame him on occasion for getting a little annoyed. Just the same, that is our parliamentary process and it is the fundamental essence of democracy-regardless of what type of political thought dominates the majority in the House of Commons.
Therefore, sir, under those circumstances I cannot believe that it was necessary to take this step in the manner in which it was taken-and because of that I am inclined to believe that in any business or any government mistakes are made. They may be mistakes of omission or of commission, but
Trade with China and North Korea the fact remains that we cannot be right all the time and no man will substantiate that statement more readily than my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I think on occasions in the past he has stated that if he was right 40 per cent of the time he was pretty lucky, and I think that goes for all of us. However, I am forced to make the statement although I personally have opposed the granting of emergency powers other than for this year when I did go along with it, that when we are today meeting in parliament assembled so soon after these emergency powers were granted by this parliament, we have been, to say the least and to put it mildly, slightly remiss in our responsibilities.
Further than that I would like to say that the people of Canada, with respect to each and every individual in this house, have attributed to us certain powers of discernment, or at least they thought that we had certain powers of discernment. They thought that those powers were in line with a fairly average intellectual quotient. In other words, if the electorate of Canada figured for one moment that we were low-grade morons they would not have voted for us. They considered that we were above that category and on many occasions when the electorate individually or collectively cannot express their ideas on certain measures in this house they expected that the elected representatives of their ridings would have a sufficient I.Q. to stand up in parliament and put principle before everything else in respect of decisions on things that vitally affect the Canadian people from coast to coast.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the one and only reason I rise in this debate today. As I have already said, like the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), I am not a keyhole gazer and I hope I never shall be; but I do maintain that there must be some solidarity to cabinet support of any measure. There is no doubt in my mind that after due consideration the cabinet decided that this was a wise step to take. Someone will possibly say, the cabinet having decided that we should do so, why should Jack MacDougall rise to contradict the opinion of a majority of the cabinet? I do it, sir, because I feel that perhaps the cabinet has made a mistake in invoking this power when the parliament of Canada is in session. I think that my people in Vancouver-Burrard would consider me remiss in my duty if, in an emergency like this, I did not express my opinions in connection with the function of parliament. I care not, sir, whether the majority of the electors of Vancouver-Burrard
4228	HOUSE OF
Trade with China and North Korea agree with me or not; but I maintain that the fundamental principle of the political faith to which I have subscribed all my life is that principle is more than party.
Therefore, sir, I am sorry that I cannot support the government on this measure. I think it is right and proper that I should so express myself amongst my colleagues. I certainly feel that an active, virile democracy, which Canadian blood bought and paid for on the battlefields of the world, is something that is greater to me than any picayune bill regardless of whether it concerns contraband or non-contraband.
Sir, in conclusion I wish to say that, having spoken against the principle involved in this measure, I shall find myself duty bound to oppose it.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has definitely left the opinion with me, and I think with other members, that the reason this measure was passed by order in council instead of by the normal channels through the house as an amendment to the shipping act, was that the government felt there would not be sufficient time for it to go through in the regular way. By saying that, the minister is simply stating that the government believed there would be opinions expressed against this measure. After all, Mr. Speaker, it is only by expressing opinions against the measure that a measure is held up.
I think it is obvious, from what has been said in this house since this matter first came up, that this measure would not have met with opposition from any member. All members of this house feel that this is a good and necessary measure to be passed. We object to the manner in which it has been put through. If the government had come before this house and let it be known that it was essential to put this measure through in a hurry, this measure would have gone through this house and the other place in a matter of hours. There is no doubt about that. There is, therefore, no excuse for this measure having been put through by order in council instead of through the normal parliamentary channels.
I should like to ask the minister, if there was this great hurry in this case, then why was this measure not put through a month ago when the British government put it through? This government knew that the measure was going to be put through, and if there was the great haste which the minister has led us to believe there was, the measure could have been put through weeks ago. The excuse that it would have taken too long to


put it through the two houses of parliament, is one without foundation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think this all goes to illustrate very clearly what we have said many times concerning this government, namely that it prefers to operate by order in council rather than by putting measures through the ordinary parliamentary channels. I suppose that is what you have to expect when a government has been in office for 18 years, and has come to believe that it rules by divine right. Without question this government resents parliament, and wishes we did not sit at all. It would far sooner be allowed to run the business of the country by order in council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It wishes we had a few more mature minds over there.


George Harris Hees: The Minister of Trade and Commerce became very touchy this morning when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) implied that the minister treated this house with arrogance. To back up what the hon. member for Eglinton was saying, I want to quote from what the minister said last night. It is found at page 4197 of Hansard for April 21, 1953, and reads as follows:
If we have overstepped our powers. I make no apology for having done so.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce does not care whether the government overstepped its powers; he makes no apology to this parliament. They want to do it, so therefore they go ahead and do it. As he said on that other memorable occasion, "If we wanted to get away with it, who would stop us?" If that is not treating this parliament with arrogance, I do not know what is.
I believe that one of the main purposes for putting this Emergency Powers Act into force was a strictly political one. I have reason to believe that one of the purposes which prompted this government to introduce this measure was so that they could do something similar to what they did before the election of 1945 when, exactly 28 days before the election, they brought in sweeping tax reductions on a wide variety of products, by order in council, obviously with a considerable political appeal. I believe that this government intends, after this parliament is dissolved and before the election date, to introduce some measure of state medicine, without having the matter brought before the representatives of the people, before the representatives of the medical profession or the representatives of the provinces. I believe that that demonstrates beyond doubt that this government, in introducing these emergency powers, is far more interested in the political welfare of the Liberal party than in the welfare of the people of this country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You believe also in Santa Claus.


Angus MacInnis: wish to put myself on record, Mr. Speaker, as being opposed to the action that was taken in passing this order in council, not in what the order in council did but in doing it in this manner. I am not sure that we can make the best case in our opposition to this order in council and how it was passed if we are going to follow the line taken by the member for Broadview (Mr. Hees). Let us stick to the matter before us, because I think there is sufficient in that to condemn the government without drawing upon our imaginations for something that may or may not happen.
First of all, may I say that when we were discussing the Emergency Powers Act, I drew attention to the fact that the danger in having such powers was that it was the easy way for a government to do things. If there were anything to be done which seemed a little difficult or a little embarrassing if brought up in this house, then the natural thing for the government to do would be to try and do it the easy way. They would say, "Well, we can do this under the Emergency Powers Act without the bother of going through all the rigmarole of introducing a bill in the house and having it go to the Senate, and all the debate on it in the process." Well now, that is just what has happened. One thing after another comes up, and the government gets into the habit, as any government would, of doing things in the easy way.
Usually I am impressed with the arguments advanced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I doubt if there is any minister in the cabinet who can bring forth better reasons for doing things, and bring them forth more concisely, than he can. But after reading what he said in regard to this order in council, I must say that he did no* make the usual good case. On page 4197 of Hansard for April 21, 1953, he said:
We used the Emergencv Powers Act because if there ever was a purpose for which the Emergency Powers Act was appropriate, it was meeting a situation that is causing damage to our efforts in Korea. We were told some time ago that there was a growing trade in war materials into red China and something had to be done about it.
How long ago were they told this? If they were told some time ago, why did they not bring in a bill in the house some time ago and deal with the matter in that way? That kind of argument just does not hold water.
Then he goes on to say:
Canadian ships will no longer take any part in that trade, although I am happy to say that of the list of ships I saw that had been active in the trade, no Canadian ship was involved.
Let me draw to your attention, sir, the fact that this order in council is effective 68108

22, 1953
Trade with China and North Korea only against Canadian ships, and if no Canadian ships were involved at this particular time, what was accomplished by passing this order in council that could not be accomplished any time by an act of parliament? I repeat that once you give a government the power to do a thing in the easiest way, that government, no matter what government it is, is going to take advantage of that way of doing things. This house on this occasion should say that it is opposed to governments doing things by order in council that could be done just as effectively in other ways.
I am told on many occasions that this is a Liberal government, which means that it is only a government for people who are Liberals. As far as I am concerned it is my government, too. I am interested in what the government does, and in preserving the integrity and honesty of the government in everything that it does, because it is my government. And when it appears that they are doing things not in the regular, prescribed parliamentary way it hurts me as much as it hurts anybody else. For these reasons this house should condemn the action that was taken, because there was no reason in the world why it should be taken at this time. A bill by this parliament would have dealt with the matter, and I am basing my argument solely on the argument used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that ministers have other duties to perform and cannot be in the house at all times, but I think one is entitled to draw attention to the fact that the action under attack at this time is based on the order in council passed on the insistence of and tabled in the house by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). One should recognize the fact that apparently the minister taking the brunt of the attack, because he is the minister having entered the defence of the action that was taken, is the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). But I do think it is a perfectly proper observation for any member in the house to make, to wonder why the Minister of Transport, who presumably assumes responsibility for the situation, has not defended the action that was taken.


Mr. Benidickson:: May I make a comment in that respect on a question of privilege? Last evening the Minister of Transport had a duty to perform in Toronto and was there when this debate originated. I had another duty in the city of Toronto the same evening and accompanied him on that trip. The minister was ill. He performed his duty
4230	HOUSE OF
Trade with China and North Korea very creditably notwithstanding the fact that he returned late last night, but is home sick today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear the explanation. I said that we appreciated the fact that ministers are not able to be here all the time, and I accept of course the explanation-


William Moore Benidickson: Your leader just came into the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -as a perfectly satisfactory one. But I wonder why the parliamentary assistant has not entered this debate to attempt to justify a perfectly unjustifiable action. The parliamentary assistant is here. It is significant that there has not yet been heard from the government benches a single statement to justify in detail this action that was taken by the Minister of Transport, although his parliamentary assistant is here.
The absence of the Minister of Transport is explained perfectly satisfactorily, but I believe that no other minister has entered this debate to justify the action, nor has any parliamentary assistant entered it because they know it cannot be justified.
When the Emergency Powers Act was passed we were given a number of explanations as to why the government felt that that act was necessary. As I recall it, one of them was the emergency of an apprehended election. We have heard no other justification; we have heard no satisfactory explanation as to why it was necessary to introduce and pass that Emergency Powers Act. The explanation of that act is that the government insisted it should be done.
It has now been drawn to my attention that there is not a cabinet minister in the house at the moment. I do not know whether I should make any other comment on that, other than saying that probably the reason is they are having a cabinet meeting to decide whether or not they should revoke this order in council. I hope that is what they are doing. But in the absence of any satisfactory explanation as to why the Emergency Powers Act was pushed through this house, we are left with the statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that it was because of the emergency of an apprehended election.
In the light of that statement, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with this situation from which I suggest there is only one obvious conclusion to draw. The government know that it had no basis in fact, no justification in fact, for having insisted on pushing the Emergency Powers Act through the house, and when they contemplated the necessity of justifying that action in the election campaign, in the emergency of an apprehended election, said


to themselves: "Well, we had better pass an order in council under the Emergency Powers Act to justify its existence and to justify our having passed it." And so they looked around and they decided: Well, we will dig up a subject which it will be difficult for parliament or anybody in the country to criticize us for having dealt with. And perhaps the best subject for us to pass an order in council on from that point of view is one that will prohibit the shipping of contraband to communist China. That was a ready-made and obvious subject for them to deal with, and so they decided to deal with it by order in council, and bring it into the house and then have a debate on it and use exactly the line of argument which the Minister of Trade and Commerce used last night. In other words, to suggest that there was the necessity for the greatest speed, and that they could not possibly have taken the time necessary to put through legislation to deal with the situation.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that no member of the house, and I am confident that no Canadian in the country, will fall into the trap which the Minister of Trade and Commerce tried to set last night. They say that in attacking the action of the government in passing this order in council we are attempting to suggest that there is not the necessity of immediate and vigorous action to deal with the possibility of trade with communist China. Of course there is the necessity of immediate and vigorous action to deal with the situation. That necessity is not new; that necessity has existed for over a year. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has been pressing for over two years for legislation to be introduced dealing with the communist problem and the problem of trading with communist countries, and the government has steadfastly refused to introduce such legislation.
Under the guise of emergency, a disguise which is said to be used to dispel all opportunities of criticism, we have the argument that we had to deal with this thing speedily, and therefore an order in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act was the only way with which to deal with it. Never was there a more obvious subterfuge used to justify the existence of a totally unjustifiable piece of legislation, namely, the Emergency Powers Act. We were told that the Emergency Powers Act was to be in existence only as a stand-by to be used in case of emergency.


John Horace Dickey: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am a little tired of these questions-but, oh, yes.


John Horace Dickey: Can the hon. member quote to the house where that was said, and by whom?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hesitate to correct the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), but I think he knows as well as I do that it is not permitted to quote from previous debates in the same session. And I am not going to allow the hon. member to have an opportunity to suggest to Your Honour that I am out of order.


George Harris Hees: Nice work, Davie.


John Horace Dickey: I challenge the hon. member to find it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And I suggest to the senior member for Halifax that he look it up in the debates himself, where he will find ample basis for what I have said.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should be more strict, and remind the house that it is against the rules even to refer to a previous debate of the present session on a question not now under consideration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, Mr. Speaker, this order in council, which is the subject of this amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), is of course based on the Emergency Powers Act. And it seems to me hardly possible to discuss that matter without referring to that circumstance-although, as Your Honour has pointed out, it is not necessary to discuss the merits or otherwise of what was said in debate on the earlier occasion.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a certain assertion as to what was said in debate, and it is not correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are now told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that it was necessary to do it by order in council because there was an element of emergency in the situation, in which-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said nothing of the kind, Mr. Speaker.


John Horace Dickey: Misrepresentation again.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This man couldn't-well, all right; it is unparliamentary. I intended to say something else.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can imagine the Minister of Trade and Commerce is rather irritated by the fact that last night I felt it necessary to draw attention to certain inaccuracies in a speech he made over the radio two weeks ago. And now he is irritated-


Clarence Decatur Howe: No one listens to those speeches.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can understand his irritation. If he wants to criticize me, or to say harsh or soft things about me, I can assure him it will not worry me, because it will not be the first time he has said them.
68108-268J
22, 1953
Trade with China and North Korea


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does not the house think we would make more progress if we discussed the amendment before the house?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I agree with you entirely, and I am endeavouring to do that. And perhaps if hon. members opposite would curb their desire to interrupt I would be able to get along with the task I was trying to do.
I think we have to ask ourselves whether there is in fact any emergency which would justify the passing of this order in council. The Minister of Trade and Commerce in his argument last night relied upon the fact that the British have dealt with it by order in council. I point out to him that the British passed their order in council over a month ago. And if therefore it might conceivably be argued that there was some emergency confronting them, it was not a new subject over there. There could hardly be said to be an emergency confronting us, when apparently it was within the knowledge of the government that they had taken action in Britain to deal with it over a month ago.
I do point out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the house, and ask hon. members to consider this in deciding what attitude they will take when the vote on the amendment is taken, that in the British House of Commons they had the grace to lay on the table of parliament an order in council passed the day before it came into effect. Now, I hesitate to enter into-


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was done here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Trade and Commerce says that was done here, does he? I do not think it was. I do not think the Minister of Trade and Commerce is right. This order in council was laid on the table of parliament here on April 20.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What day did it come into force?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The order in council was passed on April 17, and it is stated in the order that it will come into effect on April 20.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The day it was tabled.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It came into effect on the same day, the day it was tabled.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was passed on the 17th and tabled on the 20th, and came into effect on the 20th.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what I said. And in the British House of Commons it was tabled on the day before.
4232	HOUSE OF
Trade with China and North Korea


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a great difference! I hope you can win an election on that!


Edmund Davie Fulton: And there we have a perfect illustration of the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce toward parliament. The minister does not think that there is any importance attached to the fact that in the British House of Commons the order in council was tabled the day before it came into effect. Parliament would be entitled to express an opinion or, if it did not express an opinion, could have it examined. But obviously the minister does not think that opinions expressed here matter.
I suggest to you that it does matter to the country whether or not parliament is disregarded because, whether the minister realizes it or not, parliament is elected to represent the people of this country, and the people would like to have the opportunity to express their opinions as to the wisdom or otherwise of government action, before that action is put into effect.
That is the principle which was recognized in the British House of Commons. And, recognizing the importance of parliament, and the importance of getting the opinion of the people's representatives, they tabled their order in council in parliament the day before it became effective. That is the distinction, and that is the importance of the matter which obviously the Minister of Trade and Commerce cannot understand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is terrific.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is an importance which the Minister of Trade and Commerce would not be expected to understand or to attach to this matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: One of the best points I have ever heard made in this House of Commons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I beg your pardon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: One of the best points I have ever heard made in this house by my hon. friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not object to interruptions by the minister; I welcome them, because they illustrate very clearly his supreme indifference to the institution of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Once again, hon. members are conversing with one another, not addressing themselves to the Chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The next point it is important to ask hon. members to consider, when they are deciding how they will vote on this amendment, is the other debating point made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Occasionally he does attempt to make a debating point, although when real points are
[Mr. Fulton !

made by others he disregards them and calls them only debating points.
But he attempted to make an argument, in justification of what the government had done, on the basis that to take this action that would prohibit trade with communist China, and to do it by way of legislation, would have taken too much time. In criticism of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) he said, as reported at page 4197 of Hansard, in an attempt to ridicule the arguments put forward:
The contraband must be allowed to continue until the usual processes of this parliament are carried out. If any serious result occurs that is just too bad, but it cannot be helped as the opposition has said, "Let it go until we can put a bill through the house."
And then he went on to say:
We were told some time ago-
"Some time ago."
-that there was a growing trade in war materials into red China and something had to be done about it. It is customary when something has to be done in a matter of this kind to do it and not talk about it.
The minister there was dealing with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that proper action could have been taken by way of an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, as was taken in 1938, or by way of an amendment to the Criminal Code. Trying to ridicule that argument, the minister was suggesting that the legislative process took too long, and that parliament was not capable of dealing with an emergency. The minister showed extreme forgetfulness-perhaps not for the first time -of his own previous experience in dealing with legislation in parliament having to do with emergency situations. It was the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who introduced that amendment to the Canada Shipping Act in 1938, which dealt with the shipping of contraband to potential enemy countries.
Just in case the minister has forgotten it, may I remind him that the bill was debated in the house for I should judge only three quarters of an hour on February 11, 1938. The debate started on page 372 where it is indicated that the minister moved the second reading of the bill. The debate continued on second reading and in committee up to page 382, and at that time the bill had been dealt with completely in committee except for one clause. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is so scornful of the procedures of parliament as they are applied today and of parliament's readiness to deal with

emergent situations, is on record on page 382 of Hansard as having said:
I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
On that occasion the debate was adjourned on the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The bill was not debated again until May 30 of the same year, and on that date it was not debated at all. Perhaps I should read what occurred, and I quote from page 3346 of Hansard of that date as follows:
The house resumed from Friday, February 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 9, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934-Mr. Howe-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Prohibition of shipment of articles of war to countries in a state of war.


Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Chairman, I understand this section was discussed fully in committee, but was not passed on the former occasion in order to permit any further observations hon. members might wish to make.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
The bill was debated for a total of 10j pages of Hansard in 1948 and that bill dealt with trading in contraband with potential enemies of the country. Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce seriously going to suggest that a parliament which would pass an important measure dealing with a matter involving the interests of Canada in a debate taking up a total of ten pages of Hansard, or at the maximum perhaps three-quarters of an hour, in 1938 would not deal in the same expeditious manner with an equally important measure today?
Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a totally different opposition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What does the minister mean by that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no resemblance at all. The opposition in 1938 was a business opposition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And this opposition is what?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You name it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the difference is-


Mr. Speaker:: Is this examination in chief or cross-examination or what? I think all hon. members should address the Chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So do I. I think the situation is that the opposition has not changed, but the government has changed. In 1938 we had a newly-elected government which was mindful of its responsibilities to the people; in 1953 we have a government grown too used to power, a government grown careless of its
22. 1953
Trade with China and North Korea responsibilities to the people of Canada. I point out to you that the indications that we have had from the attitude of the government with respect to this matter show clearly that it is not the opposition that has changed. The opposition is just as willing to deal expeditiously with a matter of importance to Canada as was the opposition in 1938. But the government has changed completely its attitude.
In 1938 the government dealt with this matter by way of legislation although we still had the War Measures Act on the books. The change in the situation is that they did not have the Emergency Powers Act on the books so the government was forced to deal with it by way of legislation. That is the difference. It is a difference in the government, not a difference in the opposition. It is a difference in the fact that the government now has the Emergency Powers Act right in its hand and so it does not have to introduce legislation. It does not want to introduce legislation because it finds it convenient to deal with it by order in council although all the evidence points to the fact that it was not necessary to deal with it by order in council. It was merely more convenient to deal with it by order in council and it was a ready-made way of by-passing parliament.
The same minister who is advocating this action today is the minister who introduced the legislation in 1938 and he sits over there making these pitiful excuses in a solitary attempt to justify this highly and completely improper action which has been taken by his government, deserted by his colleagues except for the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), who is after all the leader of the house and will support his colleague to the hilt.
Although I have not been privileged to observe a meeting of the cabinet, even through a keyhole, I point out that we could not have had a more clear or definite illustration of the way in which power corrupts. The same minister who dealt with this legislation in 1938 then went through all the wartime years when he dealt with matters by orders in council and spent more of the money of the Canadian people than any other minister has ever spent in the whole history of this parliament. He has become used to perpetuating emergency powers and has grown used to that way of governing. It now comes to the point where instead of introducing legislation to deal with exactly a similar situation he prefers to deal with it by order in council. He is so forgetful of past history, he is so forgetful of his own past experiences, he is so forgetful of the relationships which should govern the attitude of the government.
4234	HOUSE OF
Trade with China and North Korea in its responsibilities to the people that he is willing and happy to rely on these poor excuses, not realizing, because he has grown so used to this method of governing, that he is doing something which if persisted in will completely destroy the institution of parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my hon. friend one question. I ask this from an eminent lawyer for purposes of information. If instead of passing this order in council by virtue of the Emergency Powers Act the government had passed it by virtue of its powers under the Canada Shipping Act, what would have been the views of my hon. friend?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister told us last night that it could not have been done under the Canada Shipping Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was a very close decision.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I take it that in that instance the government decided to be governed by the law. They felt that it would not be legal to do it under the Canada Shipping Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not sure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Until the minister is sure, perhaps he will not ask me to answer a hypothetical question.


Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution preceding the legislation pertaining to emergency powers was up for discussion on February 20 I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), who was then steering the legislation through the house, a question which is reported on page 2281 of Hansard. I asked him first:
Will the minister outline to us fust what situations have arisen during the past two years wherein the interests of the country would have suffered if the government had not possessed these powers?
My second question was:
-will the minister outline to us definitely what situations he visualizes may occur that will demand the exercise of these powers by the government when they could not possibly be exercised by parliament or by calling parliament?
In answer to my first question the minister replied as follows-


John Horace Dickey: May I ask the hon. member from what he is quoting?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am quoting from
Hansard, page 2281.


Alphonse Fournier: This session?


John Horace Dickey: My point is that I believe the hon. member is quoting from a previous debate in the same session, which I understand is out of order.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It is a question whether we are now discussing the Emergency Powers Act which was passed or the amendment raised by the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: The house is debating the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. It is not in order to quote from a debate during the present session on another subject. I have not stopped a reference to that debate. Someone raised the question during the address of the previous speaker, and I then pointed out that if the rules were enforced strictly even a reference to a previous debate would be out of order, although I had not stopped such a reference. This is the first time any hon. member has attempted to quote directly from that debate, and it would not be in order.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Am I in order to quote the minister's statement in answer to my questions on that occasion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless there is unanimous consent I cannot allow it, and there does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Instead of quoting directly I shall simply refer to the fact that when that measure was under consideration the minister deliberately pointed out to us that the government wanted those powers because between now and August, 1954, there must of necessity be a general election, there must of necessity be a period during which there would be no parliament, and if during that period a state of war or other emergency arose it would be necessary for the government to have the powers which the Emergency Powers Act confers upon it. The minister who guided that measure through parliament, if not in actual words certainly by implication, assured us that the government wanted these powers to be available in case of such an emergency. The opposition not once but many times-


John Horace Dickey: I rise on a point of order.
Mr. Nose worthy: Why not make your own speech?


John Horace Dickey: I intend to speak. As a matter of fact I rose at the same time as the hon. member, but he caught the Speaker's eye and I did not. My point of order is that I think the rules of parliament are quite clear that there should be no reference to or quotation from previous debates in the same session. I believe Your Honour also indicated the principle earlier today when you indicated to the hon. member for Kamloops that the prohibition was really to any reference to

a previous debate. The position in which we are getting ourselves in this particular debate is that these references are being made to alleged statements in a previous debate. When I speak I intend to simply say that these suggestions are not based upon fact and that the imputations as to what was said at that time are not correct.
But if hon. members are going to be permitted to quote indirectly, surely Your Honour will have to permit some answer to be made. I do not think that is the purpose of this debate or that it would be proper to have an extended debate on what was said in a previous debate in this session. I would submit that if you are going to permit the hon. member to continue his present argument it will be necessary for you to permit one or more speakers from this side to transgress the rules of the house as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that this matter was not brought to my attention previously. Hon. members will recall that during the day a number of speakers have referred to the debate on the emergency powers bill. I did intimate that it was not in order to do so. If it is the wish of the house I can enforce the rules strictly. I certainly do not intend to allow a revival of that debate at this time. I shall be guided from time to time by the remarks which are made by hon. members. If the hon. member for York South has a brief reference to make, I shall allow him to do so, but I hope he will not pursue this subject unduly.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, without engaging in any extended debate at the moment I need not remind Your Honour that the purpose of the rule to which reference has been made is to avoid the revival of a debate or debates in the same session. That is the thought which must be borne in mind in examining the effect of what is done. In this particular case there is a motion before the house which seeks an expression from the house that it was not proper to proceed in the manner in which this matter was dealt with on this occasion. It would seem to me that in such a case it is appropriate to make reference to such assurances as were given as to the kind of action that would be taken under the act which gave the government the power to pass the order in council under discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: As the Leader of the
Opposition has said, the purpose of the rule is to prevent the revival in the same session of a debate that has been concluded. It seemed to me that the hon. member for York South was going so far that it might have resulted, and if he continues it might result,
Trade with China and North Korea in a revival of that debate. I would therefore ask him to restrict his reference to that debate as much as possible.


Joseph William Noseworthy: My point was that when that measure was before the house the government gave no impression whatever that the power was needed for use under such circumstances as it was used in the matter of this present order in council.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has indicated that the government did the right thing in what he believed was the right way. The government has done by the issuing of an order in council exactly what opposition members and some government supporters felt the government would do at the time the Emergency Powers Act was before the house. The government has used the powers conferred upon it by that act, at a time when parliament was in session, to deal with a matter that could have been dealt with at any time during the six weeks preceding the passing of the order in council. It was a matter which could have been brought before parliament, and if the government had respected the powers of parliament it would have been brought before parliament instead of being introduced by way of order in council.
It was the wrong way to bring that matter in, by order in council, at a time when parliament was in session. It was the wrong way to bring that matter in iby order in council six weeks after the matter had been brought to the attention of the government by the officials of the United Kingdom parliament, six weeks after the government had the measure under consideration; and the only excuse the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) gives, which he gave last night, is "We did it without too much debate. It was done promptly."
Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is to be the standard by which we are to judge the efficiency of parliament then let us have all government legislation done without too much debate and done promptly-by executive orders, which is exactly the way Stalin throughout his regime did things in Russia, and exactly the way in which Hitler in his regime did things in Germany. Why have a parliament at all if the criterion of success of that parliament is to be getting things done without too much debate and getting them done promptly? Certainly any cabinet, any government, can do things by executive order much more promptly than they can be done through the democratic processes of parliament.
That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the arguments used against democracies and democratic institutions by those who favour dictatorships. It is simply one more example of what has been said by many in the press and on the
4236	HOUSE OF
Trade with China and North Korea platform and all across this country, that today Canada is not being governed by this parliament but by a small group of cabinet ministers. Today we have government by that small group, and certainly through the medium of orders in council that small group can get things done without too much debate and can get them done very promptly.
I was rather surprised to find the Minister of Trade and Commerce in a Liberal government holding up as an example the executive action of a Conservative government in the United Kingdom and the executive action of a Republican government in the United States. That, it would seem to me, is a new departure in Liberal political history. I think you will have to go back a long way before you will find any other Liberal leader excusing his action on the ground that similar action was being taken by Conservative executives in other countries. Of course times have changed. Time may even have changed the old Liberal party. It is just possible that the Liberal party under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Minister of Trade and Commerce and a few other cabinet ministers is in actual fact the Conservative government of this country, probably more Conservative than the Conservative government in the United Kingdom. That may be the reason the Minister of Trade and Commerce holds up as an example the executive action of a Conservative government in the United Kingdom.
Government by cabinet is very easy. They can get things done. Government by order in council can get things done without too much debate, and it can get them done promptly; but it is not democratic government, and no good reason has been given to us why the order in council now under consideration could not have been brought before parliament in a democratic way.
The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) pointed out that the cabinet may be wanting to justify their action in asking for these powers and, consequently, may have had recourse to an order in council which they knew no member of the opposition would want repealed. We are not questioning the content of that order in council; what we are questioning is the government's, the cabinet's disregard of the fact that parliament was in session and that there was opportunity-there had been ample time, there had been six weeks since the government's attention was called to this by Mr. Eden-for the matter to have been brought before parliament and for parliament to pass upon it. The action of the government is a distinct slur upon this parliament and a direct indication that as far as the present 

cabinet is concerned they feel they can get things done without too much debate and much more promptly by order in council than by using the democratic processes of parliament.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house for more than a moment but I do think in view of several statements that have been made in this debate that I should perhaps say a word.
When the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) was speaking I felt that I should have risen on a question of privilege, but I decided that the better course would be to wait and speak briefly when he had finished. There is a rule of procedure in this house, Mr. Speaker, which prevents members from imputing motives to their fellow members. I consider that the argument made by the hon. member for Kamloops, in imputing motives for not speaking to members of the government, parliamentary assistants and other members who are supporters of the government in this house, was clearly an improper implication of motive and a completely inaccurate assessment of the facts. That, of course, is perhaps not surprising but I can assure hon. members that the motive he imputed to us is not correct, and that is one of the main reasons that I rise to speak.
The hon. member then went on to construct a most devious argument which was just a moment ago supported by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy). They imputed a motive to the government as to why this order in council was passed. I think that probably was also out of order. Certainly it is completely incorrect, and all that argument can possibly prove is the kind of devious mind that would think of it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the motive of the government in passing this order in council is, I think, crystal clear and will be crystal clear to the people of Canada. The motive is to co-operate with our partners in the North Atlantic alliance in doing anything that we may be required to do to prevent the possibility of Canadian vessels engaging in contraband trade with our enemies in Asia. That has been done. I think not only parliament but the Canadian people would expect the government to do that job in an efficient and legal way. As has been indicated in this debate, there is a grave question as to whether or not it could have been done effectively and legally under the Canada Shipping Act. The Emergency Powers Act clearly indicates that the kind of executive

action that has been taken in this case is specifically the kind of executive action that the act authorizes the governor in council to take. There can be, therefore, no question as to the legality or effectiveness of the order in council.
The act requires the government, in passing orders in council of this kind if parliament is in session, to place the order in council before parliament within five days. That has been done. I submit there has not been the slightest suggestion of any action on the part of the government that is in any sense a slight to parliament or a derogation from parliament's duties.
The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), as well as several other members of the opposition, have, by reference to the debate in this house on the Emergency Powers Act, given rise to a completely false impression. I questioned the hon. member for Kamloops when he was speaking, but he obviously misunderstood my question. I did not ask him to quote from any debates in this house. I simply asked him to inform the house where, when, and by whom any such statement as he was suggesting had been made. He avoided answering that question by indicating that he was prevented from quoting by the rules of the house. I was aware of the rule of the house, and did not ask him to quote. I was aware also of the rule of the house to which Your Honour drew attention, indicating that in his reply he had shown he was out of order in the line of argument he had been following.
I simply want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the impression which it has been attempted to create here, that the action that has been taken by the government is one which was indicated would not be taken in that previous debate, is completely incorrect. It is a misrepresentation of what was said in that debate.


George Alexander Drew: It seems, Mr. Speaker, that there has been some departure from the purpose of the motion before the house. The motion makes it clear that what is sought is a declaration from the members of this house that they do not approve the procedure that was followed in this case. There is no substantial issue introduced by this motion as to the subject matter of the order in council. In response to a statement to that effect, some suggestion came from the government that it did not make very much sense to object to something simply because the procedure was wrong if the result was right.
22, 1953
Trade with China and North Korea
The government have made it clear, both in the debate which is now in Hansard which took place last night and in the discussion which has taken place today, that in their opinion if the result is right the method does not matter. That is the fundamental point in issue. Under any dictatorship many good things may be done by dictate. Many people, however, object to government by dictate. They prefer government by elected representatives through their executive body, where the executive body has that power, and through parliament where it should be the responsibility of parliament to decide any question that may arise. By dictate a dictatorship may build good roads, may construct good hospitals, may do a number of things that would, in themselves, be to the advantage of the people of that country. It may give good medical services or might do a number of good things by dictate. But it is generally conceded that a bad method does not become good simply because a bad method happens, on particular occasions, to produce satisfactory results.
We have seen all too much evidence within recent years that shortcuts which challenge the responsibility of parliament under the name of efficiency, speed and the avoidance of delay can prove very dangerous and have, in fact, proven dangerous for the whole world. In this case the method was wrong. No matter what the subject matter of the order was, it was particularly wrong because of the reasons given earlier this session for the renewal of the Emergency Powers Act. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make reference to the order which has been mentioned on different occasions earlier this afternoon. It is obvious that there is a substantial misconception as to what the rule really is. The rule to which reference has obviously been made is rule 293, and it reads as follows down to the end of part (a):
Besides the prohibitions contained in this standing order, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(a) refer to any debate of the same session on any question not then under discussion;
The words that are important in what I have read are "not then under discussion." The rule is intended to avoid the renewal of debates which have already been disposed of at a time when the subject matter is not under discussion. In this case, Mr. Speaker, I submit that what took place in the debate prior to the adoption by a majority of this house of the measure which was designed to re-enact the Emergency Powers Act is very relevant to the discussion of this motion, because we sought at that time to find out

Trade with China and North Korea why it was that the government asked to have these wide and sweeping powers renewed on this occasion.
It will be recalled by hon. members that there was a long debate on the Emergency Powers Act. That debate was lengthened because the government failed to give any satisfactory explanation as to why it wanted that legislation re-enacted. Over and over again we urged the government to give us illustrations of the kind of circumstances which would call for special powers of this nature. We were told that while the house was not in session some situation regarding box cars might arise that would call for' action. We were told that while the house was not in session something might arise-


Alphonse Fournier: On a point of order, I do not want to interrupt, but the hon. gentleman is just repeating and not observing the rules of the house. He tried to make us believe that the same question was under discussion today by quoting citation 293, referring to any debate of the same session on any question not then under discussion. The Emergency Powers Act was discussed, voted on, carried and came into force. The terms of the Emergency Powers Act are on the statute books. It was passed this session. I believe the hon. gentleman knows that he cannot revive that debate. He is a very skilful speaker, and I noticed the trend he was taking to distract our attention so he could repeat what he said and what others said in that debate. I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) wants to comply with the rules of the house, especially after the ruling made by Mr. Speaker today. In view of that I do not believe he will insist on continuing that trend.


George Alexander Drew: I was referring to the reasons that were given for the adoption of this legislation. The motion now before us refers to the propriety of the proceedings that were taken on this occasion. I am pointing out that amongst the very vague and uncertain explanations which were given as to reasons for adopting the emergency act under which this order in council has been passed, not one suggestion was made that powers were sought to deal with something relating to the shipping of this country.
We did point out that if special powers were sought in relation to shipping or transport, it would be wise to introduce amendments to the Canada Shipping Act or to other acts now in force; that the administrative power of the government would then be defined by the act itself; that it would be necessary for the government to be dealing with administrative powers under the general

authority of an act which related to a particular subject; that whatever objections we may have to administrative orders at any time, they are not so objectionable if that administrative authority is conferred by some act which relates to a particular subject and gives administrative authority in relation only to that particular subject.
There is a reason why this is of immense importance in this discussion. It is quite clear that the order in council which has been passed by this government, and which was tabled on April 20, is part of some understanding between the government of Canada, the government of the United Kingdom and the government of the United States. Let us see then what the situation is. The government of the United Kingdom dealt with this subject by order in council on March 13 as a result of the understanding between these governments in regard to the need of something of that kind. This government obviously knew of that situation, because it has been indicated to us that this was part of a general agreement. Therefore this government knew on March 13, at the very latest, of the need for some legislative provision of this kind.
The Emergency Powers Act was under debate in this house until March 26, thirteen days later. Although this government knew that it was called upon to act either by legislation or by order in council to deal with this subject, not a suggestion was made to hon. members that this act was to be used for the purpose of dealing with that particular subject. No; reference was made to box cars, to elections and to other things of that kind, but not to the subject now under discussion, not to something that as the result of an understanding was dealt with by order in council in the United Kingdom thirteen days before this bill became law in this house on March 26. It was on March 26 that we had the last explanation of the reason the government sought these wide powers.
The government sought these wide powers, according to the government itself, to meet unforeseen exigencies. This was not an unforeseen exigency; this was an exigency that had already arisen, had been discussed, and in regard to which the government of the United Kingdom had acted thirteen days before. Mr. Speaker, the question of government responsibility, of government good faith, is raised by these dates and by the explanation given by the government itself as to the relationship between the order in council passed in London on March 13 and the explanations given to this house for the necessity of passing the Emergency Powers Act as late as March 26. No, Mr. Speaker; if the government, with knowledge that it

was going to act under the Emergency Powers Act, withheld that information from hon. members, then what other act may be contemplated by now of which we have had no explanation whatever?
The government has introduced the subject of elections into this debate. Therefore it cannot be suggested that this is brought in gratuitously. Since the government is obviously thinking so much of elections in discussing this particular subject, then it is possible that it is withholding from this parliament certain things of great importance which we have asked to have brought before the house, so that they may deal with these things under this very act at some later time when their conduct cannot be examined and the propriety of the details of the measure placed before hon. members.


George Harris Hees: That is the answer.


George Alexander Drew: After all, we do not know. We do know that in this particular case the government of the United Kingdom had acted thirteen days before we were told that there was nothing definite in the mind of the government, but simply that they wanted stand-by powers.
Then we are told there are other reasons why this course was followed. We were told this afternoon that the motive of the government is crystal clear. Well, of course, it all depends from which side one looks at this subject. You know, Mr. Speaker, there has been some indication that certain members supporting the government are sensitive when there is any hint of motives on the part of the government. We have listened to hon. members opposite suggest motives over and over again. We have heard members on the other side of the house impute motives of supreme purity to the government, motives such as no government ever possessed even in the best governed countries. Apparently it is only when one does not impute the kind of motives the supporters of the government attribute to it that there is anything wrong in imputing motives.
Most certainly hon. members must ask the government why this course was followed. It is no explanation to say that it was necessary so we could co-operate with our associates in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It was known on March 13 that something of this kind was going to be done, and this is April 22. Legislation could have been introduced and dealt with long ago, which would have disposed of this subject in a proper, parliamentary way.
Then there is another point which should be disposed of. It is perfectly true that there has been extended debate on many measures that have come before the house. There was
Trade with China and North Korea extended debate on the bill concerning the Emergency Powers Act, under which this order in council was passed. And there should have been an extended debate. Indeed, it is clear to me that the debate should have been even more extended, because it is obvious that the government contemplated taking action which it did not disclose to hon. members when they asked us to pass the bill.
The members of this House of Commons who should be demanding explanations now are the members who voted for that bill. They are the ones who accepted the explanation given by the government. They are the ones who said that this was only to meet some unforeseen circumstances in the future, when the house was not in session. They are the ones who acted with that assurance. They are the ones who should be asking now that the government give an explanation for this extraordinary procedure taken so short a time after the bill was passed.
And there is something else demanding an explanation from the government. Again this is something about which hon. members who voted for the bill continuing the Emergency Powers Act should be anxious to learn. It was only as recently as April 20 that the Canada Shipping Act was before the house. That is the act that deals with Canadian shipping, the very same subject matter that is dealt with by this order in council. An order in council had already been passed on April 17. The time when orders in council are ordinarily tabled is when the house meets, immediately after the opening. Why did not the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) table that order in council when the house opened on April 20?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do you want an explanation of that?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The reason is that an order has to be sent to the governor in council for signature before it is available for tabling. It was passed on Thursday, and it was not returned in time for tabling on Friday. Therefore it was tabled on Monday.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Why not on Monday morning?


George Alexander Drew: It was tabled in the house after the Canada Shipping Act bill had been passed. The order in council had already been passed, and the bill concerning the Canada Shipping Act was coming up on Monday. If the minister had wanted to have the Canada Shipping Act dealt with on Monday, he could very easily have obtained the signature of the governor in council to that order in council before eleven o'clock, and had it tabled in the ordinary way. Then hon. members would have known that this had been done.
4240	HOUSE OF
Trade with China and North Korea
Certainly members of the house want something done to prevent the shipping of supplies to any enemy, real or potential. We have been asking for that for two years. Over and over again we have sought some action in regard to the Ming Sung company, which was trading with the enemy, and doing so under the Canadian flag and by special permission from this government. This was a subject of great interest. The government finally did the very thing we had been asking it to do. And this was a matter of very real interest when the Canada Shipping Act was being discussed in the house.
I suggest that those hon. members on the other side of the house who voted for the continuation of the Emergency Powers Act, with the assurance from the government that it was to deal only with unforeseen exigencies in the future, should ask the government why it was that the Emergency Powers Act was invoked, and that information in regard to that action was withheld until after the Canada Shipping Act had been disposed of. It was only after the act was passed that, following a very unusual procedure in circumstances of that kind, the Minister of Transport then tabled his order.
There is another reason why those who voted for the Emergency Powers Act should now be asking for an explanation from the government. While it is true that there are extended debates on many occasions, members of the government know perfectly well that a number of measures have passed through this house in a single day, where reasons for prompt action were discussed in advance and substantial argument put forward in favour of speedy action. Hon. members will recall the way in which legislation in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease was dealt with. It was put through as rapidly as possible.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Two days.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, two days. A similar order in council was passed by the government of the United Kingdom on March 17. If this subject had been discussed here on the same day, this would have been law on March 18; and we have now reached April 22.
There are other occasions where this course has been followed. When the government in this instance points out that the matter was dealt with by order in council in Great Britain, I would ask it to inform the house that in Great Britain it is the practice for the head of the government to inform the leader of the opposition of any administrative order of this kind, in advance, so if there is any objection it can be indicated before the order is tabled in the house and becomes
FMr. Drew.l

effective. That is the procedure which the government could tell us is the general practice in England in regard to matters of this kind.
Since we have been asking for something of this nature, and since we have objected to the shipping of goods and supplies to those who are actually engaged in a very real war against our young men, we most certainly would have supported legislation dealing with this subject; and it would have been passed promptly by the house several weeks ago. That explanation simply does not hold water at any point. It simply adds insult to injury when hon. members of this house are asked to swallow an explanation of that kind.
The real and important issue before us is that the government has made it clear that it does not feel bound by any of the assurances given to this house when the Emergency Powers Act was passed. That is something that hon. members on the other side who voted for that act should bear in mind. This order in council serves notice on this house that the government accepts no limitations arising out of the assurances it gave prior to the passing of that act.
In this case it was no future and unforeseen exigency, it was something that had been done ten days before by the government of the United Kingdom when this house finally, after long debate and over the objection of the opposition, passed the Emergency Powers Act.
I submit that the most serious thing of all is that in this particular case we see very little evidence on the part of the government that they are concerned in any way about what they have done. This is the statement by the government, and I emphasize "by the government". We are not dealing here with the action of any single minister or the explanation of any single minister; we are dealing with the action of the government of Canada under an act which received third reading on March 26 after certain assurances had been given to this parliament.
That government, already knowing they were going to be called upon to do something of this nature, offered no indication to the house; they withheld all indication of this when the Canada Shipping Act was before the house as recently as April 20. They denied to hon. members in general the opportunity to discuss this in the form of legislation, and when perhaps legislation could have been improved and extended. That is something I should like to point out.
During the course of this session there have been a number of improvements made in legislation as a result of the acceptance by

the government of suggestions from the opposition. While it is true that on occasion members of this government show little inclination to listen to arguments in regard to legislation, the fact remains that from time to time they have accepted suggestions. In this very session a number of suggestions from the opposition have been incorporated in legislation.
This is an important subject, and we should have been given a chance to examine it since we have been asking for it for two years. When the government finally acceded to our request to do something, we should have had a chance to see whether this met all our suggestions or whether there were improvements which could have been put into effect.
We have been told that the Canadian people would expect the government to act in a legal way. Yes, the Canadian people not only expect the government to act in a legal way, the Canadian people expect the government to respect parliament. The Canadian people believe in the business of this country being returned to the control of the people themselves through their elected representatives in this house. It is in the face of those circumstances, circumstances in regard to which members opposite should be asking questions and demanding explanations, that we have the statement of the government which stands as the position of the government in this debate, as reported at page 4197 of Hansard of April 21, as follows:
If we have overstepped our powers, I make no apology for having done so.
In other words, no matter how far we have exceeded our authority, no matter how far we have denied the responsibility of parliament, no matter how far we have challenged the supreme authority of the people through their elected representatives, we apologize for nothing as long as we can get away with it. That is the position of the government.
It is to direct attention to that situation that this motion is before the house. I would hope there would be some reassurance to the people of Canada in the fact that members on the opposite side would rise now and demand from the government some explanation as to why the government has acted under this Emergency Powers Act as they have instead of introducing legislation in the house and having it dealt with in the proper parliamentary manner.


Mr. Catherwood:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Roberge Robertson -Robinson Rooney Rousseau St. Laurent Schneider Simmons Sinclair Sinnott
Smith (Moose Mountain)
Smith (York North)
Stick
Studer
Tremblay
Valois
Viau
Ward
Warren
Weaver
Welbourn
Whiteside
Whitman
Wood-136.


Mr. McCubbin:: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.



COLLECTION BY MANITOBA OF ALLEGED OVERPAYMENTS TO OLD AGE PENSIONERS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour leaves the chair there is another matter that I feel I should raise in the house at this time. It arises out of discussions that have taken place in the house-on orders of the day at any rate-with regard to the relations between the federal department of health and welfare and the province of Manitoba, in respect of the collecting of alleged overpayments made to persons while they were in receipt of the pension under the former Old Age Pensions Act. I do not now need to go into all the details to arrive at the grievance which is now before us, but there are one or two points in the history of this matter which I believe I should indicate to the house.

being abolished they should not be penalized the next year by being asked to pay back the alleged surplus out of their old age security pensions of only $40 per month.
In due course all the provinces of Canada except Manitoba discontinued the effort to collect any of these alleged overpayments. Manitoba, however, continued until very recently to hound these older people to make repayment of these alleged overpayments. There was considerable discussion back and forth as to whose responsibility it was, whether it was that of Manitoba or that of the federal government; and quite a volume of correspondence was exchanged between Ottawa and Winnipeg with respect to this matter. I have read it with interest although I must say it is very technical. After trying a number of times to put a question to the minister on the floor of the house in a way that would get action, I think it is fair to say that I finally succeeded in doing that on January 29 of this year as recorded at page 1435 of Hansard, where I put a supplementary question to a question I had already put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). This is from Hansard:


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Can the minister say whether this practice is being pursued in any other province than Manitoba?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the question again? I want to make sure so that I can give a correct answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I asked the minister if he can say whether the practice referred to in my question is being pursued in any other province than Manitoba.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.
That was a very brief answer, but it did the trick. It annoyed the provincial government of Manitoba to be publicized in that way, as the only province in the country that was still exacting repayments from these living pensioners.
May I interject at this point to say that in this discussion today, and in that question of January 29, the reference is only to one phase of this matter, namely to the collecting of overpayments from living pensioners. The issue I am discussing now does not relate to the matter of collecting from the estates of deceased pensioners. That is another matter.
Shortly after the new Old Age Security Act came into effect some of us began asking for the repeal of the former Old Age Pensions Act so that living pensioners would not be hounded for the repayment of alleged overpayments. These alleged overpayments arose because in 1950 or 1951 some persons received other income which gave them a total slightly in excess of the ceiling that was in effect at that time. The feeling on the part of those people was that since the means test was

However, as a result of the statement made to this house by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that Manitoba was the only province that was still doing this, as I have already said the government of Manitoba became annoyed and more letters were exchanged between that provincial government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare or his deputy minister. As a matter of fact, that correspondence is all a matter of public record because in response to a

motion of mine which was passed on February 9, 1953, this correspondence was all tabled on March 16, 1953, in the form of sessional paper No. 89A.
At any rate, as the result of another exchange of correspondence between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the minister in Manitoba, Hon. Mr. Bell, Manitoba joined with the rest of the provinces of Canada by discontinuing the practice of collecting this money from these living pensioners. We were very glad that Manitoba saw fit as a result of the little word the minister said in this house-the one word "no"-to discontinue that practice.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think in the light of what I will come to in a moment as the present grievance, I should point out that there was a dispute, highly technical and highly legal, as to who was to blame for the continuation of this practice in Manitoba. At any rate I think it is fair to say that the letter which the Minister of National Health and Welfare wrote to Mr. Bell on February 9, 1953, certainly was the kind of letter that gave Manitoba the green light to discontinue the practice of collecting these overpayments. It is a long letter of some six pages, so I shall not read it all; but the minister pointed out in this letter that at the end of 1951, when the time was running out for the former means test pension, his deputy, Dr. George F. Davidson, wrote to the various provinces and asked them to supply Ottawa with a list of the persons who owed money on account of alleged overpayments.
There are some little details that I need not give, because I do not think they materially affect the story. In due course the minister said this, on page 4 of the letter:
It was assumed that after supplying the lists complete to December 31,	1951, the provincial
authorities would leave the matter there and await a final decision from Ottawa as to the further action which the federal government itself would decide to take under section 95(3) of the Financial Administration Act, or the further action, if any, which the federal government might wish to suggest that the provinces themselves should take.
Then the minister went on to point out that because of that assumption that the provinces would leave the matter there, the other nine provinces did just that and discontinued the practice of collecting these overpayments. May I point out that most if not all of the other nine provinces discontinued that practice as from January 1, 1952, the day the Old Age Security Act came into effect. Well, I think the Hon. Mr. Bell, the minister, and the Manitoba government were perfectly justified on receipt of the letter of February 9 from the minister in
Overpayments to Old Age Pensioners taking the position that they now had the green light to discontinue collecting these alleged overpayments. The Manitoba government also decided that they had been wrong in making the collections which they had made between January 1, 1952 and February of 1953 when the practice was discontinued.
As I say, I was most annoyed that the Manitoba government followed this practice for so long, but having expressed that annoyance I must now congratulate the provincial government, even if they had to be prodded into it by a statement from the minister here, on finally discontinuing the practice. I find now that the Manitoba government desires to go one step further, and it is a very logical step. That government has decided that if it was the only province of the ten that was collecting this money during that period of 14 months, it was wrong for it to have made those collections; and if it was wrong for it to have made those collections, it should now refund them. By reference, for example, to the Winnipeg Free Press of Thursday, April 16, 1953, I find that the Manitoba government has decided to make restitution. The provincial government decided it should never have collected that money from these people. No other province in Canada was doing it. They had the green light to discontinue the practice, as well as a rebuke from the Minister of National Health and Welfare for doing it, so the Manitoba government has introduced, and I presume the legislature has passed, legislation to provide for repaying that money which was wrongfully collected.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think the hon.
member really wants to use the word "rebuke" because that does not really represent the situation. If I did not point that out, then my hon. friend would argue that I had acquiesced in the term he has used. It may suit his purpose, but it does not really represent the situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I accept the minister's
interjection. I am absolutely certain that he did not intend what he said to be a rebuke. As a matter of fact, if you read the whole of his answer under date of January 29, 1953, to which I am referring now-the answer to my initial question-you will discover that it is as carefully worded as the minister's answers always are. It is clear that he did not intend it to be a rebuke, but the Manitoba government took it as a rebuke. It was as a result of their annoyance over being publicized as the bad province in the country that this change came about.
At any rate, as a result of the publicity to which I have just referred, and as a

Overpayments to Old Age Pensioners result of the minister's letter of February 9, the Manitoba government has discontinued the practice. Now they have gone one step better. Mind you, I do not think they have any particular credit coming to them for going that one step better. I think it follows that they should take that step, once they came to realize that they were wrong in collecting the money. The only proper course for the Manitoba government to follow is to repay that money. I understand from the press that the government of the province introduced a bill to make provision for repaying some $14,000 all told to these 385 persons. I emphasize again that these are living persons. These are people over 70 years of age, and in many cases considerably more than 70 years of age. Their only income now is the present old age security pension. There is no question of estates being involved in this at all.
Now, to get on with the story, I may say that Manitoba has decided to make this restitution; but in the meantime, following the law, Manitoba remitted to Ottawa 75 per cent of the money which had been collected from these living pensioners. This was in accordance with the law because the former old age pension under the means test was paid 75 per cent from the federal treasury and 25 per cent by the province. When there were any collections for overpayments, therefore, the amount collected had to be divided in that same proportion. It appears now that the Manitoba government has not yet been assured by Ottawa that Ottawa will return that 75 per cent.
That, Mr. Speaker, is my grievance. I am sorry it has taken quite so long to get to it, but I felt it was necessary to give the background so the house would understand it. Let it be clear that I think Manitoba was wrong in the first place because it collected this money, but Manitoba stopped collecting it because of the letter written to Mr. Bell by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on February 9. After reading the minister's letter they felt they had been wrong in collecting this money during the previous 14 months, so they decided that the money should be returned to the people from whom it had been collected.


Murdo William Martin: Will the hon. member help me a little bit? He says that as a result of the correspondence that has ensued between the federal government on the one hand and Manitoba on the other we have indicated Manitoba was wrong in collecting the money. My hon. friend uses a group of words that, again, I do not think really depicts the situation. I think he ought to 
point out what the law is and where the obligation rests to carry out that law, and then from that the situation will flow in the clarity which I know he would want to give it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know of no better way to demonstrate the clarity which the minister attributes to me than by quoting from his own letter. I find on page 4 of the letter of February 9, which he wrote to Mr. Bell, after the paragraph which I quoted a while ago, the following:
In the case of the other nine provinces-
That is, the other nine apart from Manitoba.
-this is exactly what happened,
That is, that in the case of the other nine they discontinued collecting these overpayments. I go on from the letter:
-and the statement which I made in reply to a question recently In the house is literally correct, namely, that no province with the single exception of Manitoba has been endeavouring to take further action on its own initiative with respect to the recovery of these overpayments. Since these lists have been furnished to us the federal government has recognized and accepted this position. It has not objected or written to any of these provinces to insist that they continue to make further efforts to recover these overpayments.
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that the federal department wrote to each of the provinces at the end of December, 1951, and said to them:	"You furnish
us with a list of the people who might owe any of this money, and let the matter rest there until some decision has been made." The other nine provinces took that as an indication that they need not collect any of this money that had been overpaid. Manitoba did not take it that way; but when Manitoba received this letter I think Manitoba was perfectly justified in feeling that they misunderstood the previous correspondence and that it was a mistake, shall I put it, on their part to have made these collections. If they were led to feel that it was a mistake on their part I think they did the right thing in deciding to refund that money. I also think Manitoba is perfectly justified in expecting Ottawa to return to Manitoba the 75 per cent of that $14,000 which in the meantime Manitoba had remitted to Ottawa.
If Ottawa is not prepared to remit that 75 per cent, look at the discrimination that results, emanating from Ottawa, as between living pensioners in one province and living pensioners in the other nine provinces of Canada. It would mean that roughly $10,000 would be in the federal treasury, collected from living pensioners in Manitoba on this basis; whereas there would be no such

money in the federal treasury collected on that basis from living pensioners in the other nine provinces of Canada.
Every time the minister has got up to interrupt me during the course of these remarks I dared to hope that he was going to take my speech away from me by stating that this issue had been settled favourably. I hoped the minister would say that negotiations between Ottawa and Manitoba on this point have now been concluded with the result that 75 per cent of that $14,000 will be refunded to Manitoba, so that Manitoba in turn can pass it back to these 385 pensioners in my province from whom this money was collected.
The case is unanswerable, Mr. Speaker. We are really amazed that there has been any delay on the part of the federal government in dealing with it in a fair and proper way. It has been a sorry story across these past 15 or 16 months, the way in which people who drew pensions under the former Old Age Pensions Act have been hounded by the ghost of a means test which supposedly died so far as those 70 and over are concerned on December 31, 1951. It is particularly annoying to me that this should be done with respect to older Canadians in only one province. It has also been annoying the way in which this has been tossed back and forth between provincial and federal governments.
I think both governments have been to blame. I certainly do not give the Manitoba government a clean bill of health in this matter. I feel that long ago they should have interpreted that letter, the one back at the end of 1951, in the same way the other nine provinces did; but they did not do it that way. Since they made the mistake of collecting the money, they had to be brought to time in the way I have indicated.
It seems to me that this government should now put this matter on an even keel across the country by refunding the money that Manitoba sent to Ottawa, so they can give back in full what they collected from these 385 pensioners and end this sorry story on a much more pleasant note than it has had up to this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend, in his
zeal, I think has not given the house-I know he has not done it intentionally-the true situation. As my hon. friend knows, under the Old Age Assistance Act administration of the measure -
22, 1953
Overpayments to Old Age Pensioners


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister means the
Old Age Pensions Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. Administration of that
act is left to the provinces, and if the provinces choose to collect overpayments that is something that flows from a responsibility that arises out of its assumption of the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act.
After the passage of the Old Age Security Act Manitoba continued to recover overpayments that had been made in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act. What my hon. friend is asking me to do is to accept the responsibility for the action of a province. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that is neither a fair suggestion, nor is it one that I can possibly accede to. The provinces administer this measure in accordance with agreements executed between Canada on the one hand and the provinces on the other.
My hon. friend referred to the letter I wrote to Mr. Bell on February 9. Since he has done so I think it should be placed on Hansard in its entirety to indicate what the situation is. While the letter is a little long, I propose to do that. On February 9 I wrote to the minister of health and public welfare in Manitoba as follows:
Dear Mr. Bell:
I have your letter of February 2 on the subject of overpayments under the former Old Age Pensions Act. I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding and confusion about this matter, arising in part at least out of the fact that a number of separate questions have at various times been under discussion and the subject of correspondence.
I note, for example, that in one of the Winnipeg papers for Tuesday, February 3, you are quoted as being "amazed" at what I said recently in the House of Commons in reply to a question on the subject of overpayments; and you are alleged to have indicated that it was the opposite of what I told you in letters written March 4 and April 8, 1952. If you will examine the text of those letters, you will see, I am sure, that nowhere did they refer to, touch upon or deal with the subject of overpayments at all. Those letters dealt rather with the subject of recoveries from estates and with the repeal of the Old Age Pensions Act. They were written in reply to letters directed to me by your predecessor Mr. Schultz under dates of February 20, March 11 and March 15; and once again, if you will examine those letters and the resolution of the Manitoba legislature which prompted Mr. Schultz to write me on those occasions, you will see that Mr. Schultz' letters and the resolution passed by the Manitoba legislature dealt similarly with the questions of recoveries from estates and the repeal of the Old Age Pensions Act, and that, in fact, the resolution passed by the Manitoba legislature specifically excluded the question of recovery of overpayments from the subject matter of its recommendation.
I have carefully reviewed all the correspondence that has passed between this department and your department on the subject of overpayments, and

Overpayments to Old Age Pensioners
so far as I have been able to discover, this subject, as distinct from recoveries from estates and the question of the repeal of the Old Age Pensions Act, has never been dealt with at any time in correspondence between Mr. Schultz, your predecessor and myself. Most of the correspondence between our two departments has dealt with the questions of the repeal of the act and recoveries from estates, and very little has been directed to the question of overpayments.
I note, however, that in a letter dated January 3, 1952, my deputy, Dr. Davidson, wrote to your Mr. McNeill-as he did to the corresponding officials of all provincial governments-setting forth the legal position and advising as to the attitude of the federal government on the subject of overpayments. In that letter, it was pointed out that, so far as the legal position goes,-
And I think it is important to emphasize this.
-overpayments are technically and legally debts owing by the pensioner to the provincial government, and that consequently the collection of them was basically a provincial responsibility. It was pointed out further that the Old Age Pensions Act had not been repealed, and that the legal position of the provinces with respect to the recovery of overpayments was therefore the same as it had always been, and that this would continue to be the case until the actual repeal of the Old Age Pensions Act.
Having thus outlined the legal position, Dr. Davidson then went on to point out that the means by which the provincial pension authorities had traditionally endeavoured to recover overpayments,-namely, suspension of pension or partial reduction,-would no longer be available to them after December 31, 1951, when pensioners were transferred to the new Old Age Security Act. In recognition of this fact, the federal government had included a provision in its Financial Administration Act, which made it possible under certain circumstances for the federal authorities to take over from the provinces the responsibility of further recoveries by way of deduction from federal payments such as old age security. In consequence of the passage of this new legislation, Dr. Davidson requested the provincial authorities in Manitoba and in the other provinces to undertake the preparation of lists of all outstanding overpayments as at December 31, 1951. He further indicated that if these lists could be prepared on the basis of certain detailed information which he outlined in his letter, it would facilitate the task of the federal authorities and, in the final instance, of the federal treasury board in determining the steps which the federal government should take under section 95(3) of the Financial Administration Act to effect recovery of these overpayments.
I have dealt in some detail with the contents of this letter of January 3, 1952, because, so far as I can determine, it is the only letter which has ever dealt in any detail with the position of the federal government respecting overpayments. An identical letter was sent under the same date to each of the provincial pension authorities. In every case without exception, the provincial authorities complied with the request that lists of overpayments should be prepared and furnished to us. In the case of two provinces, these lists are not yet complete, but despite that, I think it can be fairly said that all the provinces complied substantially with our request.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Underline the next paragraph.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the whole letter is
worth underlining, because it correctly sets out the situation. It continues:
It was assumed that after supplying the lists complete to December 31,	1951, the provincial
authorities would leave the matter there and await a final decision from Ottawa as to the further action which the federal government itself would decide to take-
And I add, in parentheses, pursuant to its legal obligations under section 95 (3) of the Financial Administration Act.
-or the further action, if any, which the federal government might wish to suggest that the provinces themselves should take.
In the case of the other nine provinces, this is exactly what happened, and the statement which I made in reply to a question recently in the house is literally correct,-namely, that no province with the single exception of Manitoba has been endeavouring to take further action on its own initiative with respect to the recovery of these overpayments since these lists have been furnished to us. The federal government has recognized and accepted this position. It has not objected or written to any of these provinces to insist that they continue to make further efforts to recover these overpayments.
And I add again, by way of parenthesis: For the simple reason that it had no authority to do so. Any policy of seeking overpayments is a matter that is dependent entirely upon the competence and the authority with which the provincial government itself has endowed itself. Then the letter continues:
We have not insisted or pressed the provinces to make further efforts to recover these overpayments because we recognize that with the transfer of these pensioners to the old age security rolls, the provinces are no longer in touch with the individuals concerned and consequently have not the facilities which they formerly possessed for the effective recovery of the amounts which have been overpaid.
But while the federal government accepts this position, it remains true that the Old Age Pensions Act is still in existence,-
Again, by way of parenthesis, I must emphasize that it is still in existence. It is the law of the land; and no minister or any combination of members from this side of the house or from the other side has any power to halt the operation of something that is still the law of the land. Then, to repeat the first part of this paragraph:
But while the federal government accepts this position, it remains true that the Old Age Pensions Act is still in existence, and that the technical legal obligations resting upon the provincial authorities in connection with this legislation remain essentially as they were before the act ceased to be operative. This being the case, you will readily understand, I am sure, why it is not possible for me, as the minister charged with the responsibility for administering the act, to direct an instruction or even a request to any provincial authority asking or authorizing it to disregard what are undoubtedly its legal obligations under the act. As I said in another connection in my

letter of March 4, 1952, to your predecessor Mr. Schultz, "we have not told the provinces that they should or that they should not continue to make recoveries from estates". Likewise, we have not told the provinces that they should or that they should not continue to make further efforts to recover overpayments. All that we can do is to point out the legal position as it now exists and as it will continue to exist until a proclamation is issued by the governor in council setting the date for the repeal of the Old Age Pensions Act in accordance with section 13 (2) of the Old Age Security Act.
Having thus set forth what is undoubtedly the technical legal position, I must say that I do not feel called upon in my capacity as the responsible federal minister to do more than that. It is then for each province to decide on its own initiative what it wishes to do or what it will do in this matter of overpayments. Nine provinces have taken no further steps to recover overpayments due to them since they submitted their lists as requested in the early part of 1952. I have not objected to that course of action in the case of any province.
And I might have added that I would have had no authority to do so.
The province of Manitoba has exercised its undoubted right (since these overpayments are technically and legally debts due to the crown in the right of the province of Manitoba) to make further attempts to recover these overpayments. That again is undoubtedly the right of the province of Manitoba, and I have had no quarrel with that either. All that I have said-and this continues to be my position-is that while such collections are undoubtedly made in conformity with the federal law (i.e. the regulations and the agreement made under the law), these overpayments are legally a matter for the provincial government, since they are without question debts owed to the province and not to the federal government.
With this explanation, I trust it will be possible for the Manitoba authorities to come to a satisfactory decision as to their future policy with respect to the recovery of overpayments.
I should add, in fairness, that when I made the statement in the house that Manitoba was the only province, naturally I acted upon information I was given. I find, however, that my statement was not entirely correct, and that there had been some smaller payments made in at least some provinces. I wrote to Mr. Bell and pointed that out to him, as I now point it out to the house. I think the correspondence gives the details.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I must say something about this because I have had a great deal of correspondence with some of these old age pensioners who have had to return overpayments. The letter read by the minister was too long for me to grasp and perhaps if I had the supper hour in which to digest it I might speak differently about it. If the Manitoba government collected this money, they collected it according to the law that we passed in this parliament. If eight or nine other provinces did not collect it, why should the old age pensioners
Overpayments to Old Age Pensioners in Manitoba be penalized? I do not think it is fair. An article in the Winnipeg Free Press of Thursday, April 16, states that the federal government has declared that it is not in a position to refund this 75 per cent of the overpayment collections. The article went on to say, however, that it was understood it might change its mind on this score.
I hope the government will change its mind and straighten out this matter. It is a disgrace to treat old age pensioners like that, as they find it hard enough to live on the $40 they are getting without having anything taken away from them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know my hon. friend wants to be fair, but he is complaining about a situation in his own province. I am sure in the light of the law as contained in the letter which I have quoted, if the situation is as he indicated he would want to address his remarks to the proper authority. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has done on other occasions what my hon. friend is now doing, that is to completely disregard the law as it is. He is trying to impose upon us an obligation which does not rest upon us. If the hon. member would further peruse the letter which I have just read, perhaps he would think differently.


William Scottie Bryce: It is all right for the minister to talk about a letter, but let us use a little common sense. I do not have any respect for people who would chisel old age pensioners in Manitoba. They have allowed money to be collected from them. If the minister tells me that he is going to give it back to them I will sit down immediately.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think my hon. friend is perhaps one of the most fair-minded members in this house. Would he not agree that the last people in the world who would want to chisel old age pensioners would be not only my hon. friend but every hon. member of this house including the minister who is now speaking? Surely the government that has introduced the most comprehensive old age security legislation in the world cannot be charged with a responsibility which rests upon another authority.


William Scottie Bryce: I am only going to say that if the government do not pass legislation to refund that money to Manitoba, then they are chiselling on both the provincial government and the old age pensioners.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, the minister read us a very lengthy document.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was a pretty good one.

Overpayments to Old Age Pensioners


James Arthur Ross: I imagine it is, as the
minister usually does a fairly thorough job with this sort of thing. But it seems strange to me that one province should have -collected these old age pensions to the extent that it did. After all, I give the Manitoba government credit for being reasonably efficient in the matter of collections, even though I do not agree with all they do. I do not think that they could have misunderstood the situation to the extent that they would be the only provincial government that continued collecting these overpayments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend's words will
go to Manitoba, and for that reason I ask him to allow me to intervene. That is what I said when this question was first posed. But I had a look at it and I saw I was in error and that there were some other provinces who had made some overpayments. Those provinces are sovereign bodies just like this parliament. What my friend should do is to address himself to the proper authority, not to the government which has no control of this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister regards the
provinces as being sovereign in this respect, will he not respect the right of the province of Manitoba to refund this money by giving back to them the 75 per cent which was sent here?


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend is not doing
now what he has done on other occasions, that is to argue on behalf of old age pensioners; he is now arguing for the treasury of the province of Manitoba.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asking you to put
that treasury in a position to refund this money to the old age pensioners to whom it belongs.


Murdo William Martin: What my hon. friend is saying is that the government of the province of Manitoba, having collected certain amounts that had been overpaid to certain pensioners, having done that within their perfect legal right and having now decided that perhaps that course was undesirable, they propose to make a refund. We had nothing to do with that and the hon. member is asking us to reimburse the province of Manitoba for what might be regarded as a mistake or as the result of a reconsidered policy which they pursued. I submit to my hon. friend that the submission he is making is not on behalf of the old pensioners but on behalf of the treasury of the province of Manitoba, and is a wholly defenceless position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the Minister of Trade
and Commerce would say, nuts. fMr. Martin.]


James Arthur Ross: I have taken up this
matter in the past with the minister, and I cannot understand why the provincial government would have to collect it.


Murdo William Martin: Under the British North
America Act the provinces have the right to make laws affecting property and civil rights. If in respect to old age pensions a province decides to impose liens in order to guarantee against fraud, or if it decides to adopt a certain policy of recovery of overpayments under certain conditions, that is a power which it can exercise without any interference whatsoever from the federal government. That is what the province of Manitoba and some other provinces have done. There is no power on earth or under the constitution of this country which would permit us to interfere with that.
If I did interfere, what would happen? I would be told by hon. members that we were establishing a centralized authority, that we were interfering in provincial matters. They would be right in saying so. I say with great respect that this is a matter that comes exclusively within the powers of the provincial government, and that that is the answer to my hon. friend's question.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I had almost finished my remarks on the motion to go into committee of supply. I merely want to suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that I think these people have some claim on the federal authorities with respect to overpayments of old age pensions. The situation has been left in a rather uncertain state right now in the province of Manitoba. It has been stated that the authorities there are going to make these repayments, but it is not at all clear whether or not they are going to undertake to pay the 75 per cent which was turned over to the federal authorities when they collected it.
Having regard to the uncertain position in which this matter was left at the end of 1951 as between the minister and the provincial government of Manitoba, I would think thei e is some obligation on the federal government to reimburse these people. The minister sa; s we are speaking for the provincial treasure, but my concern is that the recipients then -selves be reimbursed. Whether it be through

the provincial department or the federal authorities, they should get the money.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The recipients are getting the money.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
105. Departmental administration, $1,670,515.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-
200. Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
426. Departmental administration, $588,333.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the estimates of this department afford an opportunity of reviewing the trade position of the country. In his speech last Friday evening the Minister of Trade and Commerce reviewed this subject as he sees it and also made some comments on the condition of internal trade in Canada following the lines of the budget speech made by his colleague, the Minister of Finance, some two months ago. It is to be observed that the estimates of the department this year amount to $17,316,971, an increase of approximately $400,000 over those of the previous year.
The approach of the official opposition to this matter is based upon a recognition of the fundamental importance to Canada of her export trade. Indeed, in a very real sense the maintenance of our markets abroad and the maintenance of a high and profitable standard of export trade is of the lifeblood of this country. We have been competing with France for the last several years for third position among the trading nations of the world. On a per capita basis our exports in 1952 amounted to approximately $575. In this respect we can compare the United States, whose per capita exports amounted to $170. On a per capita basis we are practically three and a half times their figure, and we are nearly double the per capita figure of the United Kingdom. Indeed, on a per capita basis we export less only than Hong Kong and New Zealand. Last year a quarter of our gross national production went to the export market.
I mention these facts to emphasize the extent of Canada's dependence upon healthy export markets for the maintenance of a strong Canadian economy. We were happy
Supply-Trade and Commerce indeed to see that the figures reflected that in the year 1952 our exports did expand and Canada's external trade reached the highest figure in her history. But, Mr. Chairman, we must not be led by contemplation of these figures into assuming that all is well with Canada's trading outlook, or that we can afford to sit back and be complacent in the face of certain hard facts. There was not much indication in the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce last Friday evening that some of these facts have received that recognition on the part of the government which I think they should receive. Some of the figures, while they look very good and are indeed a matter of gratification to us all, nevertheless bring little comfort to some sections of the Canadian economy.
The weakness in Canada's trading position at the present time, if one may sum it up in a sentence, lies in the loss of our markets for many of our agricultural products abroad, and principally the loss of the United Kingdom market, the traditional market for many of our agricultural products. Today we are selling no cheese to the United Kingdom for the first time in our history. We are selling hardly any bacon, pork, poultry, eggs, milk, beef, apples, fish and other food products. The loss of these markets has been a very serious challenge to the well-being of the Canadian economy. We are faced with a great surplus of pork in Canada. Figures have been given of 100 million pounds, with 40 million of it in the form of canned pork on hand. This surplus exerts a heavy pressure on our market, on the prices our farmers are receiving for their products.
These are all the direct result of the loss of the United Kingdom market for these important agricultural products. The problem is, how shall these markets be recovered? The Minister of Trade and Commerce in his speech on April 17 did not seem to be unduly concerned. In fact it would be correct to say that he did not display any particular concern over the loss of these markets; for in characteristic fashion, he summed up the situation at page 4063 of Hansard in these words:
The simplest way I can describe the present economic situation in Canada is to say that at no time in the past have Canadians been more prosperous.
Well, Mr. Chairman, let the Minister of Trade and Commerce say that to some of the farmers of this country. The minister undertook to tell the house also that the government has done everything possible to recover our traditional markets, by which I assume

Supply-Trade and Commerce he meant the markets for our agricultural surplus in the United Kingdom. Mr. Chairman, it will take a great deal more than that mere assertion on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to convince the people of this country, and particularly the farmers of this country, that the government has done everything possible to recover our traditional markets. Perhaps, however, we may recognize this change of attitude shown in the minister's statement. He is at least recognizing the fact that the country under this present administration has lost those traditional markets. Hitherto we have been hearing only airy and confident statements from the treasury benches to the effect that things were never so good in the country before. Well, tell that to the farmers who have lost their traditional markets for bacon, pork, poultry, eggs, milk, cheese, fish and other products.
Let us have a look at some of the figures issued by the minister's own department on this subject. I have the dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin for February 10, from which I read:
Accrued net income of farm operators from farm production declined by $255 million in 1952, a drop of 12 per cent from the record level established in 1951. This decline is largely attributable to a severe drop in livestock prices of between 20 and 25 per cent, and a 10 per cent rise in farm operating expenses. The record wheat crop of 688 million bushels was of excellent grade, and initial prices were unchanged; but these factors were not sufficient to offset the developments mentioned above.


Mr. Lesage:: Foot-and-mouth disease.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, foot-and-mouth disease did enter into what happened to the prices for livestock in this country, but that is not the whole story. These markets have been lost, and we are not satisfied that this government has made the resolute efforts required to recover them. The government has shown too characteristic an attitude of sitting back and viewing everything with complacency.
The government are making much of the fact that they were represented at the prime ministers' conference last autumn. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is to be remembered that we waited a good many years for this conference to be called before any steps were taken in that direction, and all the while our markets in the United Kingdom and abroad for our agricultural products were contracting. Yet when we brought the matter up in the house it was turned down every time. On October 21, 1949, as found in Hansard at page 1023, we moved for the calling of a conference of the nations of the commonwealth "for the purpose of working out arrangements to preserve and enlarge those traditional markets on which jobs and 
opportunities for Canadians very largely depend". What was the fate of that proposal put forward in the interests of the Canadian agricultural producers? It was defeated, Mr. Chairman, by the Liberal majority in this house. They voted solidly against it.
Let us come down to 1950, when a similar motion was introduced on behalf of the official opposition in this house. On February 28, 1950, as recorded at page 308 of Hansard, this amendment was moved:
this house is of the opinion that the government should take immediate steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth and the countries of the empire to devise policies to restore our lost markets, and thereby to provide jobs for our Canadian people.
What was the fate of that proposal? The same fate, Mr. Chairman; it was defeated by the Liberal majority in this house, with every Liberal in the house voting against the proposal.
Coming down to 1952, on June 3 of that year the Leader of the Opposition moved this amendment:
this house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of taking steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth to seek means by which there may be convertibility of commonwealth currencies, and to explore all the possibilities for restoring and enlarging those traditional markets upon which our prosperity so largely depends. [DOT]
What was the fate of that motion? The same as that of the others; it was defeated in this house by the Liberal majority, with every Liberal voting against it.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, great virtue is claimed for the fact that the government was represented at the prime ministers' conference in London in December. While we are glad to have seen Canada represented there, we have not forgotten that the effectiveness of such a conference would have been much greater if it had been called long before; and it was not called long before because this government decided against it. The conference of last December was belated. The government went into that conference with a lack of enthusiasm, as reflected in its attitude in the house on the occasions to which I have referred.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on the subject of wheat. It is a matter of very great satisfaction indeed that while our exports to the United Kingdom of other agricultural products were declining, and indeed were being cut off entirely, our exports of wheat to the United Kingdom did increase substantially in 1952. Indeed, our exports of wheat moved up approximately 40 per cent in value, from $441 million in 1951 to $621 million in 1952.


An hon. Member:: Almost 50 per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; an increase of something like 40 per cent. Our flour exports to the United Kingdom rose just slightly. But, Mr. Chairman, lest we sit back on our oars let us remember that even taking account of the increase in 1952 in exports of wheat to the United Kingdom over 1951, nevertheless the total of such exports was not sufficient to make up, as is pointed out in the quotation I read from the dominion bureau of statistics bulletin, for what the farmers in this country have suffered through loss of income from other products.
In this year, 1953, we have more wheat to sell than ever before. Indeed, the big carryover in this country presents a serious problem. The dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin of April 13 puts the problem in this way:
Supplies of wheat remaining on or about March 1 this year in the four major wheat exporting countries-United States, Canada, Argentina, and Australia-for export and carryover at the end of their respective crop years amounted to 1,468,200,000 bushels, some 66 per cent greater than the 885,600,000 available a year ago, according to the March issue of the bureau's wheat review.
Supplies on March 1 this year (in millions of bushels) were as follows, with last year's figures in brackets: United States, 668-2 (411-6); Canada, 533-3 ( 391-2); Argentina, 160-3 (2-1); and Australia, 106-4 (80-7).
So, Mr. Chairman, you can see at a glance that in every one of those four exporting countries the carryover of wheat is substantially greater than a year ago. This bulletin proceeds:
Exports of Canadian wheat as grain in February amounted to 14,000,000 bushels, the lowest monthly total for the current crop year, states the bureau's wheat review. Wheat shipments during February may normally be expected to be lower than those of other winter months, but an additional factor this year was the strike of elevator workers at several of the larger west coast terminals normally handling a substantial share of the export movement. Although this year's February wheat exports were some 4,700,000 bushels lower than in January and 4,600,000 below those of February 1952, they were 3,800,000 greater than in February, 1951.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we are soon to have in this house a debate on the new international wheat agreement, and I do not intend to attempt to anticipate that debate or the course of it. However, before I leave this subject of wheat after commenting on the effect of this big carryover and the problem that it presents for the whole Canadian economy, I must comment that it must be a matter of disappointment to all Canadians that the United Kingdom has not seen fit to subscribe to the wheat agreement.
This agreement is of very great importance to Canada. The assurance of a market for our wheat is of the most vital importance, not
Supply-Trade and Commerce only to the agricultural economy of this country but to the whole national economy. We have only to think of what happened several months ago to recognize the danger that would confront the economy of this country if the United Kingdom should transfer to Russia or other countries, for instance, even a substantial portion of her wheat purchases. We had an example in January last in the scare that was created when a report was issued that Great Britain was turning to Russia for the purchase of 600,000 tons of wheat. The scare which resulted is just an example of the feeling of concern we must have in this country for the whole future of the marketing of our wheat. An agreement without Britain subscribing, when she is the leading wheat importer in the world and particularly for Canada, is after all something like the play without Hamlet.
The United Kingdom market for our wheat is fundamental to our national prosperity. Whatever may be the reasons which have led the United Kingdom government to their decision not to adhere to this agreement, whether it be that the maximum price of $2.05 was 5 cents more than they wished to pay or whether it was some antagonism toward bulk buying, nevertheless it is a matter of very great concern indeed to all Canadians.
I have not time at this stage, Mr. Chairman, to say as much as I wished to say on the subject of raw materials and the extent to which Canada could strengthen her economy by the greater processing of raw materials at home. The economy of this country has been immensely strengthened by the extent to which we are now able to draw upon domestic sources for oil, which used to be a major import from the United States. Notwithstanding discoveries of vast ore bodies in Canada, iron and its products still remain a major factor in the import situation in this country. In 1952 our imports of iron and its products from all countries amounted to $1,407 million, of which we purchased only $122 million from the United Kingdom and $1,231 million from the United States.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word concerning our trading relations with the United States. Geography has dictated that our trading relations with the United States shall always be intimate. Political factors oftentimes have had a contrary influence. In the past three years, 1950, 1951 and 1952, our imports from the United States rose in both amount and percentage. Our exports to the United States in 1952 were approximately the same in value as in 1951, while the percentage they represented of the total of Canadian exports dropped from 59 per cent to 54 per cent, and in the first two months of this year our exports remained stable.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
There is a feature of our trading position with the United States which is not new. In 1950 our import 'balance in trade with the United States, as it is now euphoniously called, was just $80 million; in 1951 it increased to $479 million, and in 1952 to $628 million. This is a continuing problem for the Canadian economy, the extent to which we are confronted with an import balance in our trading relations with the United States. It is quite true that the United States is our best customer, but we are her best customer. The difference in amount, Mr. Chairman, is something that is fundamental in our whole trading position. It is the danger that results from a country placing most of its trading eggs in one basket.
In the case of the United States, in 1952 she took 54 per cent of our exports and supplied us with 74 per cent of our imports. In other words, Mr. Chairman, 64 per cent of this country's trade, export and import, with the world was done with one country, the United States. While our political and economic relationships with the United States may be on the whole very satisfactory, and on the political side are certainly an inspiration to the world, nevertheless there are very great economic dangers in this condition of unbalance between exports and imports. Indeed, the Minister of National Revenue recognized this, for he is reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of September 12, 1952 in these words:
Canada's economic position, at present strong, also has a weakness, Revenue Minister McCann told the National Tax Association at its 45th annual conference in the Royal York Hotel yesterday.
"That weakness is that Canada depends so much upon the United States," said Dr. McCann. "Canadians can never be freed from the fear of a slump in the U.S., for which we would not in any way be responsible and which we could do little to control."
There is a commendable recognition of the problem. It is a continuing problem of serious proportions when we measure the strength of our trading position. Wherever we may expand our exports -to the United States, let us bear in mind that that is no adequate substitute for the loss of markets in the United Kingdom, because of the fact that the purchases made by the United States in such cases are not of the same products as those which Great Britain had been accustomed to make in the past before we lost our traditional markets there.
Now, what of our trading relations with the United States? What is to be said of some of the more pressing problems that confront us there? We are waiting to see, of course, what will be the effective trading policy of the new congress, not just the new administration, but the new congress. We recall that Senator Taft has said, as reported 
in a Reuters dispatch of November 18, that he doubted whether U.S. tariffs could be reduced much further. Again Mr. Taft said that U.S. tariffs had been reduced to their lowest point already, and he added:
I personally doubt if changes in tariffs would result in any substantial increase of imports into the United States.
President Eisenhower has made statements which, on the whole, contribute to a feeling of confidence in this country, but whether or not that policy will be reflected in the United States congress is yet to be proven. There is pressing need, Mr. Chairman, so far as our trading relations with the United States are concerned, for customs simplification. Legislation for that purpose was urged upon congress by President Eisenhower. It is a fact that the authority of collectors of customs in United States ports is very broad. There is so much uncertainty and so many differences in the way these customs regulations are applied that they have created very serious problems for Canadian producers seeking to export to the United States. We would have liked to hear more from the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to efforts on the part of this government to seek the enactment of such a measure on the part of a friendly United States administration.
Then there is that problem, Mr. Chairman, which is of quite serious concern to the Canadian farmers, particularly the Canadian dairy farmers. The deliberate breach of the provisions of GATT by the United States congress in the face of protests on the part of the administration, both in the days of President Truman and since the time of President Eisenhower within quite recent months, has not only had the effect of excluding Canadian dairy products on a large scale, but has given rise to feelings of disquiet and uncertainty as to the whole future of our relations with the United States under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. It has hurt the Canadian dairy producer, and it has challenged the whole principle of these agreements.
I should like to say a word concerning our trading relations with the United Kingdom. I have mentioned already the loss of that traditional market for virtually all of our agricultural products except wheat and flour. Salmon is another product that we used to ship in large quantities to the United Kingdom. Apart from an altogether too small order that was announced recently by the Minister of Fisheries, the market for our salmon in the United Kingdom has been greatly reduced and virtually lost. Again, the United Kingdom used to take great quantities of our timber exports. That market has

been greatly contracted, and the timber producers of this country are suffering accordingly.
It is true that our exports to the United Kingdom in the years 1950, 1951 and 1952 rose in amount though not in percentage, while-and this is regrettable-our imports from the United Kingdom declined in those three years drastically in both amount and percentage of our total. With the financial and trading difficulties which confront the United Kingdom, Mr. Chairman, it is evident that the United Kingdom must have access to more dollars if she is going to be able to increase her purchases from this country. I realize the Canadian government cannot do everything in this respect. To be fair, I would be the first to recognize that fact. But I hope we can make more rapid progress toward the St. Lawrence waterway, because there is an opportunity opening up for Great Britain to increase her sale of heavy equipment with accompanying engineering services in this country.
In his review last Friday night the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not tell us anything about purchases from the United Kingdom on government account. We wish to see the purchases this country is making for national defence used as a means of strengthening our trade with the United Kingdom; for if these purchases that we have to make abroad are routed to the United Kingdom, then the United Kingdom is correspondingly going to have more dollars with which to purchase our agricultural products, and that is highly necessary at the present time.
These facts are recognized in the United Kingdom, because when the overseas trade minister, Mr. Harry Mackeson, left London last September to visit Canada and the United States with a view to increasing the export of United Kingdom products to these dollar countries we read in a Reuters dispatch that he said this:
"But it is mainly in the field of capital equipment, plant and machinery, that we can expect to increase our exports", he said.
That is their exports to Canada and the United States.
Britain is best able to meet competition from other countries in the engineering field, where she can exploit her skill and experience in specialized work such as electrical engineering, machine tools and prefabricated buildings for export, he said.
I hoped that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might hold out some hope to us of enlargement of the token import scheme which has been in effect in the United Kingdom in this post-war period. Forty per cent of the basic period was the maximum permitted in certain imports laid down in that 68108-269
Supply-Trade and Commerce token scheme. In January, 1952, even this percentage suffered a 25 per cent reduction, so that in this scheme only 30 per cent of the United Kingdom imports in the basic pre-war period of 1936 to 1939 is being permitted to enter the United Kingdom.
The minister has said much about our trade with Latin America. It is true that our exports to Latin America in the years 1950, 1951 and 1952 rose in amount and percentage. In the same years our imports showed a slight rise. In 1952 our exports to and imports from Latin America were in almost complete balance. However, our exports to Latin America have fallen off sharply in 1953, partly as a result of reduced shipments of automobiles, and our imports from Latin America in 1953 thus far are also slightly lower. I am not going to say, of course, Mr. Chairman, that that has anything to do with the visit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce this year to Latin America, but it does emphasize that we must make every effort to take advantage of the trading opportunities that lie in the Latin American market.
As to our position with respect to Europe, Mr. Chairman, in these three years, 1950, 1951 and 1952, our exports to Europe showed a substantial and gratifying increase in amount and percentage. But in the first two months of 1953 they dropped by one-third as compared with the first two months of 1952, and that is a very serious decline. We hope that it will be arrested. Our imports from Europe in 1952 declined both in percentage and amount. The increase in strength of the German economy augurs well for this country, if we can continue to find in Germany a market for our wheat.
In his review the minister said very little about trade with countries behind the iron curtain. We are still doing some trade with most of those countries. It was reported last November that the Canadian government was taking steps to restrain dumping in this country on the part of two of the countries behind the iron curtain, Czechoslovakia and Poland, but we have heard very little on that subject since. I hope we may hear what steps the government is taking in dealing with the problem of dumping in the Canadian market by countries behind the iron curtain.
The minister had some words to offer to the house concerning the general agreement on tariffs and trade. We are greatly concerned about the continuance of this agreement on tariffs and trade. Unquestionably, Mr. Chairman, while there are two sides to the ledger with respect to GATT, nevertheless it was an important achievement when, in 1947, 34 countries entered into general
4254	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce agreements on tariffs and trade, and when it was possible to extend these agreements as a result of the subsequent conferences at Torquay and Annecy. The continuance of these agreements is not to be assumed. Therefore, since the trading outlook of this country depends to a very substantial extent on the continuation of these general agreements on tariffs and trade, we hope the government will lose no opportunity to put its whole strength and weight behind efforts which may be made to extend these agreements.
It is a fact, of course, that the future of GATT, particularly in reference to Canada, depends to a considerable degree upon the extent to which the United States will give willing subscription to the extension of these agreements. President Eisenhower himself has declared for their extension; but it remains to be seen what attitude the congress will take, particularly in the light of the action of congress, in breach of GATT, in imposing the ban on imports into that country of dairy products from Canada and other countries that are parties to GATT.
In his review the minister did not have anything to say concerning the problem of the convertibility of currency. This is a problem of very great proportions. I should be the last to underestimate the difficulties involved; but we must do all we can in concerting efforts with the United Kingdom and other countries of the sterling bloc to revive convertibility, at least initially, on some current basis. The problems are very great; but there will not be any lasting solution of our trading problems with them, and there will be a continued loss of markets in the United Kingdom, unless this problem is grappled with and eventually a solution found for it.
Therefore, summing the matter up in conclusion, I should like to say that we in this part of the house do not view Canada's trading outlook with pessimism, far from it. On the other hand we do not view it as something the health of which can be regarded as assured for all time. On the contrary, I think what we need in our approach to this question is a realistic attitude, appreciating the strength of our trading position and also recognizing such weaknesses as have developed in it.
I mention these weaknesses as problems to which we should be alive, and which should attract our best efforts in seeking their solution. I do not purport necessarily to list them all in order of importance, but certainly I would put in first position the restoration of our lost markets, particularly in the United Kingdom, for our agricultural surplus;


Next, the future of our exports of wheat;
Next, the future of GATT, when the present agreements come to an end this year;
Next, the problem of having our trading eggs, to a dangerous degree, in one basket, and thereby emphasizing the desirability of our making a supreme, a herculean effort, to recover those markets in Great Britain and in other countries abroad for our agricultural products;
Next, the problem of doing what we may, and to encourage the United Kingdom and other members of the sterling bloc to do what they can, to restore the convertibility of currency as soon as that may be possible;
Next, the need of a greater degree of balance in our exports and imports in trading with the United States.
Next, there is also the problem which is presented by the re-emergence of Japan as a world trader. Up to this time we have not felt seriously the impact of post-war Japanese competition, but that is a problem we must prepare to meet. Japan is knocking on the door of GATT; and if she is admitted I do urge that something will be required from the Japanese government by way of an undertaking to conform to fair trading practices. Of necessity we must do something like that if Japan is to be admitted to the company of countries which are members of GATT, having regard to the experience we have had with Japanese dumping in pre-war years.
Finally, so far as this Progressive Conservative party is concerned, let me make it abundantly clear that our aim is not to restrict trade but rather to expand it. What I have said has been designed to stress the importance we attach to the maintenance and the expansion of our export trade. We want none of the smugness that has long been evident on the part of this government in the face of the loss of our traditional markets, and particularly the markets for our agricultural surpluses.
This is a matter of leading importance to Canada and, so far as the Progressive Conservative party is concerned, we regard it as something which must be a first national objective.
Trade is a two-way street. We cannot be satisfied simply with the trading position we hold today, strong though it may be in many respects. Our production is growing. It must continue to grow. We cannot take for granted even the continuance of our present markets. We must maintain those markets and must seek to expand them. We must seek further markets abroad. In all cases we must follow active policies. We must look ahead. And any thought that the free world should con-

tinue to be divided even partially into two trading blocs, dollar and sterling, is inconceivable to this country. If it were left that way it would spell very serious difficulty for our Canadian trading outlook.
No; Canadians in the years ahead will need to be efficient producers and efficient salesmen. In the export markets of the world we will have to meet competition that will be very keen. No doubt we will be confronted with challenges to keep down costs. We hope the government will contribute to lessening the costs of production by following a policy of reduced taxation, and that the whole Canadian economy will then be geared to a policy of expanding production and expanding sales abroad.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of debate in which I believe all members of the House of Commons are interested. Whatever may be our differences in approach to the problem of trade and commerce, we are all anxious to see this country prosper, to see our trading relationships bring to this country a high degree of welfare for our Canadian people, and to make our contribution to a better world.
We are a country that is peculiarly vulnerable economically, because of our dependence upon external markets. No one in his senses suggests that Canada can be made selfsufficient. We are not organized in that way. Our whole economy has been geared to supplying our own people with certain of their requirements, and producing vast quantities of certain commodities that by no conceivable stretch of the imagination could be consumed by ourselves. Therefore we must export our surplus in exchange for goods and services our people can use for their own benefit.
Canada is more dependent upon external trade than any other country in the world. For example, on a per capita basis we are the leading world trader. In absolute terms we have become, since the end of world war II, with the exception of one year, the number three trader. That one year was 1951.
This shows our dependency upon world trade, when we realize that, per head of population, we are first; and in absolute terms, with the exception of 1951, third. The United States and the United Kingdom have ranked first and second in absolute terms during these years, and it was in 1951 that France displaced Canada, and moved into the third position. As far as I have been able to see from the complete records for the first quarter of 1952 we have jumped to third position again, and from the present patterns of trade I think it is indicated that we are likely to maintain that place in the near future.
68108-269J
Supply-Trade and Commerce
I believe that is all the more significant because we must realize that if we are to continue to expand as we have during the past few years, when our expansion has been very great indeed, exports must not only be as great as they are today but they must increase in proportion to our total production.
Let us look at the two leading items of export, newsprint and wheat. The foreign market for these particular commodities is very critical and always susceptible to factors beyond our control. For example, newsprint, wood pulp and pulpwood sales are dependent upon a high level of business activity in the United States. Some people may say that perhaps if that high level of activity in that great country were lessened we might be able to conserve our forest resources to a greater extent. I think that is true, especially when I see some of these United States papers, particularly the Sunday editions, and realize the number of Canadian trees that have gone into their production. I realize then how necessary it is for us to have some sort of forest conservation policy.
Nonetheless our economy is largely dependent upon our exports of newsprint and pulpwood to the United States. At the least sign of a recession advertising will drop, and with a drop in advertising the demand for our newsprint and pulpwood will drop because newspapers will be reduced in size to that extent. At the same time the Canadian producers would be forced to reduce their production of these commodities accordingly.
In connection with wheat we all realize in this house, particularly those of us who come from the prairie provinces, that a major factor in the production of wheat is the weather. As the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has said, most of us are greatly disturbed over the recent failure to effect an international wheat agreement. Under such an agreement at least we were assured of a major share of the United Kingdom market. We have not that assurance now. I suppose the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) may say, and quite correctly, that in any event the British will have to buy large quantities of Canadian wheat, but we have not the comfortable assurance today that we had under the international wheat agreement.
I regard with a good deal of misgiving any return to the uncertainties of the open market, especially with the increasing surpluses we have witnessed over the past year or two. Perhaps this should not have been unforeseen. I remember some of the debates that took place in the British house on the British wheat agreement which I think on the whole
4256	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce was of benefit to our western growers. Criticism of that agreement came from the ranks of the supporters of the government now in power in Great Britain. I will not say all of them, but I think many of them rather dislike negotiated agreements of this description and would be quite glad to see the Liverpool exchange opened again and have trading on the pre-war basis.
Last week I noticed in the United States paper a report which is quite serious to those of us who come from western Canada, and should be of serious concern to Canadians generally. The suggestion was made and apparently received sympathetically that an embargo should be placed upon the importation into the United States of coarse grains. In the representations that were made in Washington, Canada was mentioned particularly.
A serious curtailment of our exports to the United States and elsewhere of wheat, wood pulp, newsprint, coarse grains and other products would have a serious effect upon our whole economy. In 1952 wheat and newsprint-I am going to speak in very round numbers-each provided more than 20 per cent of our exports. It was a little more than 20 per cent in one case and a little less in the other, but together the exports of newsprint and wheat made up some 40 per cent of our total exports.
Let us look for a moment at another aspect of our external trade. In 1952 we imported fuel goods, that is coal, petroleum and its products, worth nearly $500 million. Nearly half a billion dollars worth of our imports in 1952 were fuel. Of course we hope that as time passes and new oil and gas fields are found and developed in western Canada we shall become more and more self-supplying in that regard. There is every indication that that will be so.
Then we are forced to import large quantities of rubber and bauxite to supply two of the great essential industries in this country. We have the Polymer plant owned and operated by the government. I once complimented the minister upon the Polymer plant as an example of public enterprise and I remember he said, perhaps with a good deal of pride, that it was not a public enterprise, it was his enterprise. I do not care whose enterprise it is, the Polymer plant has filled an important place in our economy. I hope under public enterprise it will continue to do so. But we still have to import raw rubber.
Of course we have to import bauxite for our huge aluminum industry. Our dependence upon imports becomes clear when it is noted that last year we brought in $1-25
[Mr. Coldwell.l

billion worth of capital goods which were required for our further expansion. These were made up of farm and non-farm machinery, automobile parts, rolling mill products, engines and boilers, aircraft parts, electrical apparatus and so on.
When we discuss these trade problems, our huge imports, our necessity for export markets and the necessity to balance our trade as far as we are able to do so, we also have to bear in mind that in spite of our huge production we have a relatively small population. The maintenance and raising of our standard of living, in view of our very limited population and domestic consumption, must be related to the sale of much of our production in external markets. When we export we do so primarily to import something that we can use or that will be beneficial to the people in this country, whether it be capital goods, consumable supplies or services that our people can use.
It is quite clear that our own consumers are not sufficient in number to purchase a large proportion of our domestic production. There is a limit to the amount of wheat that an individual can consume or the amount of newsprint or other products such as salmon, fish or bacon and pork. So we must continue to view with a great deal of interest our export markets. I think that is illustrated by the disposition of our two major products, newsprint and wheat. We are already among the leading consumers of both newsprint and wheat, but we must still largely depend upon foreign markets for the consumption of most of what we produce in both of these commodities.
If we are to do this properly we must consider the financial position of Canada in relation to the rest of the world. Of course this relationship obviously must have an immense bearing on our trade, for in absolute terms-absolute terms, let us not forget-we are still a debtor nation, although our position greatly improved in that respect as the result of world war II. But in so far as most countries are concerned we are a creditor nation. Indeed, it is only toward the United States that we remain a debtor nation, and this of course is of great importance when trade with Europe and particularly our trade with the United Kingdom are under discussion. It means that there is a complete reversal from the old days in our financial relationships with the United Kingdom.
In the old days the United Kingdom was a creditor to us but now she is a debtor. This means that not merely does she need to export goods to us-I shall put it this way, although it is not quite accurate-equivalent in value to her imports from us, but she

must export goods considerably in excess of her imports if she is to retire her debts, invest in Canadian industries-and I think most Canadians welcome such investments- and at the same time achieve something of a balance of payments with us. That of course is involved in what my hon. friend called convertibility just now. After all, convertibility is not entirely a question of financial arrangement. It is really a question of trade, the exchange of goods, the flowing of goods in various directions and so on, so that as goods move currencies appear and you have a reasonable relationship between those currencies which enables you to bring about a system of convertibility.
Old-time multilateral trade seems to be gone, and at least for the present it does seem to be far beyond our reach. More and more, whether we like it or whether we do not like it, trade becomes a question of exchange, and already in many instances and between some countries it has become in effect a matter of barter. That is an attractive trade arrangement in some respects so far as Great Britain is concerned, because of the shortage of certain currencies, in making trade agreements with the Soviet union and other iron curtain countries. That is not a financial arrangement but a matter of the exchange of goods under what amounts in many respects to some system of barter.
I spoke of imports, but let us look at the trade picture more closely as it affects our external relationships. Go back a few years. At least 15 per cent of our imports in each of the years between 1920 and 1929 came from the United Kingdom, with a peak of 18-4 per cent attained in 1924 and a low of 15 per cent in 1929. From 1930 right through 1938 our minimum imports from the United Kingdom were 16 per cent in 1931 with a peak of 24-4 per cent in 1933. In other words, as the depression became worse we seemed to have a higher percentage of imports from the United Kingdom. -
But since the end of world war II in 1945 our peak in imports from the United Kingdom only reached 12-7 per cent in 1950, while our imports reached a low of 7-4 per cent in 1947. In 1952 our imports were slightly higher at 8-9 per cent, but one might almost say no higher. That is the picture as far as the United Kingdom is concerned. I agree with the hon. member for Eglinton that we have to think of trade with the United Kingdom because so far as our trading relations are concerned, I think we are more secure with that country than we are with the United States.
I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday about the refusal of the United States to consider a low tender for
Supply-Trade and Commerce ships from a Canadian company in exactly the same way that the United States refused to consider a tender from the English Electric Company for hydroelectric goods which was very greatly below the lowest American tender. The minister said what is perfectly true, and I have no quarrel with it, at page 4141 of Hansard:
-but whether the government of the United Kingdom is justified in protesting as to how the United States buys its electrical equipment X cannot say.
He said it was the privilege of the United States to decide what they would do in that respect, but it illustrates the point I want to make. It shows how uncertain our trading relations with the United States are. It is not a question of tariff policy. It is an embargo against tenders from the United Kingdom and an embargo against tenders from Canada. If the United States is going to continue that kind of policy, what use is GATT to>
us? What use to us is any other trading arrangement? I think many of us in the house are pretty disturbed at the manner in which the United States has failed to live up to the understandings and the agreements to which we committed ourselves at Geneva in 1947 and which we have fulfilled. I think that is tragic because the American people are such generous-hearted, fine people, so friendly and all the rest of it to ourselves and to the rest of the world. Yet as a nation and as a government they are unreliable and often shortsighted. It is dangerous for us to place all our eggs in the United States basket. That, I think, is the lesson we have yet to learn.
Let us look at the picture as to imports from the United States in the same period. It shows exactly the opposite trend. From 1920 through 1929 the lowest record of imports was 64-9 per cent in 1924 and the highest was 68-9 per cent in 1920, closely followed by 68-8 per cent in 1929. I am taking these figures from the official records of the department. From 1930 through 1938 the low was 54-2 per cent in 1933 and the high was 64-8 per cent in 1930. Since the end of world war II the low was 67-1 per cent in 1950 and the high was reached last year with 73-9 per cent.
You will notice the reverse trend during the depression. The percentage of British imports went up and the percentage of United States imports went down. Imports from the United Kingdom during the past seven years have been at a level of 6 to 7 per cent lower than they were during the 1920's, and imports from the United States have been at a level of 3 to 5 per cent higher for the comparative periods. I think the outstanding feature of
4258	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce these figures is the concentration of our trade with one country, and that one country the United States.
This is particularly significant when we consider the fact that we are a debtor nation toward the United States and a creditor nation toward the United Kingdom. If the roles were reversed the concentration of our trade would reflect a very much happier picture as far as our Canadian economy and the future of this country are concerned. As it is we are exceedingly susceptible to any economic changes that take place in the United States. If a major depression did take place in the United States-and I hope it will not come there-our economy which is so highly dependent on our trade with that country would undergo serious and-yes, I would go so far as to say-disastrous dislocation.
So I can say to the minister that I think every effort should be made by this country to find other export markets, and I welcomed the fact that the minister took a trip to South America. I hope he and others will take trips to other parts of the world in an endeavour to diversify our markets as quickly as possible even though, may I add, that should result in what seem to be some short-term losses and indeed some short-term trading disadvantages. Of course, since the acceptability of a policy of this description to private manufacturers and traders is unlikely, even though it is in their long-term interests, I think the onus is on the government to adopt some appropriate course of action, and I am going to say something about that.
Such a policy should take into account both imports and exports. In the short-term view the latter appear to be less important. We are exporting more and more goods, and we are obtaining better prices for them. The increase is due to the fact that there is such a demand for raw materials with which we can supply the world, particularly in view of the general re-armament that is going on all over the world. However, it is not merely a matter of disposing of our products today but rather, as far as possible, of ensuring that we shall still be selling them tomorrow and the day after. This can be assured, and I hope the minister agrees, only by developing new markets overseas.
Important as is diversification of our export markets, more pressing is the diversification of our import markets. For example, while 70 per cent of our total exports in 1952 went to the United States and the United Kingdom, an even greater percentage-73-9 per cent of our imports-came from one of those two


countries. I mean 73-9 per cent of our total imports, $2,977,000,000 out of a total of $4,030,500,000, came from one of the two, from the United States. To my mind it is already obvious that such a situation is undesirable from considerations which I have already mentioned and perhaps from other points of view which could be given by other hon. members of the house.
I shall state some of the reasons why I think it is undesirable. First of all it leaves Canadian prices too much the prey of external forces over which we have no control. Second, it leaves us with a deficit in our balance of payments with the one country to which we are habitually in debt. For example, in the years 1949, 1950 and 1951 respectively we paid to the United States $205 million, $260 million and $321 million in interest or dividends. Rather than continue a policy which adds to this interest deficit with the United States we should, if possible, be compensating by exporting to the United States more goods than we import. That would be the ideal position.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask how my hon. friend accounts for the strength of the Canadian dollar?


Major James William Coldwell: How do I account for the strength of the Canadian dollar? I think the answer, although I am not a financial expert, is that the strength of the Canadian dollar is due to a very large extent to the demand for Canadian dollars for investment in our resources and industry, as well, of course, as the purchase of raw materials for defence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The balance of investments is against us.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, you asked me what I thought and I am giving what I think is the reason. If I am wrong I hope the minister will explain to the house why the Canadian dollar has been so strong over the past number of months. Well, if multilateral trade were operating effectively and the United States discontinued its policy of resisting imports, there would be an alternative means of balancing our payments through the free flow of United States dollars into other countries with which we have an excess of exports from Canada.
That is the old-fashioned way of settling balances of trade between nations. That has been for a number of years-and it will be for some time to come, if it ever returns again-far from the case. It is therefore necessary that we adopt the most effective methods to rectify all this. They in turn will help to alleviate the third undesirable feature, that of the present concentration

of our exports. The solution, I think, is to shift as many of our purchases as possible from the United States to other markets, particularly to the United Kingdom, to western Europe or indeed to other parts of the sterling area and, again, to South America. If we can direct our trade in those directions there will be a long-term gain and something of long-term insurance.
As a means of solving some of these problems I am going to summarize what I have said and perhaps expand on one or two points on which I have not already expanded. I think sterling might be accepted in part payment for Canadian produce sold to sterling area countries. You may say to me: what are we going to do with that sterling we accumulate as credits overseas? Well, sterling could be used to buy sterling area goods, or it could be used in sterling areas that are undeveloped and which we sometimes call underprivileged or backward countries. It could form part of our contribution to the Colombo plan and although I know that satisfactory arrangements might not be possible, but if it were possible I would like to see us use some of it for the technical aid projects of the United Nations. I want to say something about those technical aid projects and Canada's part in them when we return to the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.
Then we might have a much higher proportion of governmental orders for supplies placed in the sterling areas. I was looking over some of the orders that have been placed for equipment and supplies in the United Kingdom and the sterling area, and I was astounded at the relatively small amounts of supplies that are bought in the sterling area by Canada for our various projects and our various departments.
Of course we have tariffs and dumping duties on imports from Britain which we put into effect last year. We raised the tariff on textiles under the Geneva agreements in 1948, and certain dumping duties were applied against Britain on goods sold for less than their home market price. Those duties applied to automobiles and some other supplies sold in this country. I think the tariffs against countries with which we want to trade should be lowered to make it easier for those countries to earn Canadian dollars with which to buy Canadian products. That, of course, is of particular interest to those of us who are from the prairie provinces, where we have been so dependent up to the present time on the export of commodities which we produce there in large volume.
Supply-Trade and Commerce
Then we should try to make long-term commodity agreements for specific imports and exports. It may be difficult to do that. As I said earlier, I think the present government in Great Britain does not like the idea of specific agreements of this nature. But there are other countries which might be inclined to enter into such agreements. In the position in which we find ourselves, perhaps we could make credit arrangements which would facilitate the conclusion of such agreements.
There is a matter which I have not discussed but which is very closely connected with the world wheat agreement; that is that Canada should give, and has not given, full support to the establishment of a world food pool very much along the lines suggested at the United Nations by Lord Boyd Orr. It was proposed to the FAO as well by the international federation of agriculture several years ago. While the idea was not immediately acceptable to the government, in view of our long-term interests I think Canada should give all the support possible to that proposal when it is made again before the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations.
Then I think there are certain emergency measures that might be adopted. An offer might be made to the British government for postponement for three years-I have made this suggestion several times before-of the interest on the annual payment to be made on the British loan, providing the extra dollar exchange thus made available is used for purchases of certain Canadian products. We might specify apples, salmon, cheese, fish and certain agricultural products. Then, when payments were resumed, the United Kingdom would be allowed to repay the loans, if she wished, in commodities from her own sterling area, commodities of her own choice provided of course that we can use them. Canada can use most of the goods that she could supply to us.
In conclusion, I want to say that what I have said, Mr. Chairman, is the result of some study and some thought. All that I have said may not be entirely in line with the thinking of the government. Indeed, it may be subject to some correction by the minister when he speaks. But I can assure him that we are interested in this very vital project of expanding our trade as we expand the development of our resources, and maintaining our great agricultural and other industries in this country. With the possibility of international tension easing-let us hope it is a real easing of that tension and let us hope, too, that there will be a diminution of demands for raw materials than can be used
4260	HOUSE OF
Supply-Trade and Commerce for warlike purposes and an increasing demand for materials that can be used in raising the standards of living and the food of that half of the human race which goes to bed hungry every night-it becomes imperative that we should make an annual review of Canada's position as a world trader.
As I have already said, we are third in absolute terms, and first in per capita trade. It is a remarkable achievement for a young country such as this. No government can take credit for it. It has been done because ours is a land which has vast resources, a land peopled by men and women who have done their level best to produce from those resources. I think we can say that it is to the credit of Canadians generally, rather than to the credit of any particular group of Canadians or any particular government in power now or in past days, that we have achieved this remarkable place in the world of commerce. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we shall continue not only to maintain it but as the days go by to improve our position and make a further contribution to the health and welfare of mankind.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, it has been a real pleasure to listen to the two hon. members who thus far have spoken. I may say that it was a real pleasure also to listen to the minister the other night. In the subject of trade, as all hon. members recognize, we are discussing a matter which could easily mean success or disaster to our nation. Perhaps too few people in the country actually comprehend how serious some of the moves we may make in respect of trade can be for all time.
In saying what I shall say here tonight, I have the deepest sympathy for the minister because I realize that he is handling a very difficult task. I believe he is making a good job of it. I realize also that he is not entirely a free agent in drafting policies or in putting them into operation, but is more or less the victim of the will, shall I say, of people who do not understand the problem nearly as well as the minister does.
Now, that being said, I shall go on with what I feel it would be fitting for me to say tonight. With respect to the hon. member for Eglinton, I should say that one of his difficulties was that he said what pretty nearly everyone wishes-yes, of course we want that, but nobody knows how to get it. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did condescend to begin to tell us something about how it might be done. If in the course of my remarks I give more attention to how it ought to be done, I trust I will not be misunderstood. After all the incessant talk in this house about things that ought to be done, which everyone 14 years
[Mr. Coldwell.l

of age and up knows ought to be done, so often no one has said a word about how to do it. That is about one of the most contemptible things of which you could conceive in a country of this kind and in a house of this kind.
There ought to be some sort of penalty imposed on the members of the house who get up and clamour for something to be done, but never give any idea as to how to do it. They rail about something that is not being done, without giving any idea as to how it could be done. We would shorten the length of these sessions by two-thirds if there were some penalty imposed by the whole house or individual members upon those who would put on such a performance. I grow weary of hearing people cry out for things that everybody knows ought to be done, but who never give an idea how to do them.
I thought it would be quite proper to read a little statement which I believe comes from the Ottawa Journal concerning the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is rather well put, and no one will mind if I put it on the record. It reads as follows:
Mr. C. D. Howe, Minister of Trade and Commerce, spoke to the national foreign trade convention in New York this week, had this to say about the forthcoming commonwealth conference:
"What Canada wants to see emerge from these commonwealth talks is not a sterling area plan, but something very much bigger, in which North America and the free world generally can play a full part to the advantage of all concerned. This kind of an approach, we firmly believe, has the best chance of success. And that is what I hope will emerge."
I think everybody says "amen". The article goes on:
What is this "something" that is "very much bigger", and just how, specifically, is it to be gained? Mr. Howe doesn't offer a clue. Doesn't as much as hint what Canada will propose.
Strange, too, that Mr. Howe himself is not going to the commonwealth conference, but passing it up for a trade mission to South America early in the new year.
That is no reflection on the minister; that is just the beginning of a discussion of his troubles.
There is another quotation which it might be well to have on the record and to keep in mind in our discussion of our very difficult trade situation. This quotation is called "Foreign aid given by U.S.A.," and reads as follows:
From June 30, 1945, to June 30, 1952 the United States extended grants or credits to a total of $38 billion in foreign aid. That was 11-3 per cent of the $308 billion federal revenue in the seven years and 10-6 per cent of the national expenditures- $329 billion-in that period.
Close to a third of the total aid extended was in the form of loans of which $3 billion has been repaid, making the net amount up to June 30 of this year of $35 billion. Congress has authorized foreign aid in the current fiscal year ending next June 30 totalling $5,800 million, which would raise

the grand total to $40,800 million. Western Europe got the lion's share of the net aid, $25,795 million in grants and credits. Great Britain got a net total of $6,363 million. France was second, Germany third, Japan fourth, Italy fifth.
About $1,091 million went, in the early post-war period, to Russia and other countries no longer friendly. That was 3-1 per cent of the total net foreign aid.
That quotation also was taken from the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget, October 31, 1952. I should like to ask all hon. members to ponder this simple question with me for a few minutes: How long do you think the United States can stand that sort of thing? How long do you think it ought to stand it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend will not mind my saying that over the same period Canada gave more aid to the world on a population or national income basis than the United States. We are still standing it.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, I am not so sure that we are "still standing it". I must say that the pressure which is on the ordinary Canadian today as a result of standing that is simply unbearable. Anyone who does not believe that should just get down among the ordinary people and see what a time they are having paying their rent, buying their coal and paying their taxes. I will tell you, if you get down and find out, get the facts, you will not feel that we can afford to stand that very much longer. As an example, stop to think of the almost unbearable pressure that is placed on a young couple when they have a third child, or a second child; what the cost is to have that child delivered to them, what the cost is to raise it in any sort of way, as a result of the taxation which we are placing on everybody in order to stand this thing. And when you reflect on the effect that is going to have on the population of this nation in the course of 25 or 30 years in terms of Canadians who will grow up to carry the responsibilities which must be borne 25 years from now; when you reflect along those lines, you are not so positively sure that we are "standing it" in a way that we can permanently sustain.
All honour to Canada that we are doing it, but I say to the minister it is just high time the pressure began to be relieved. There must be a way of relieving that pressure. I have said this time and time again, and I will say it to the minister once more in all seriousness: You must not keep the idea that the only place you can get money is in the people's pockets. You must not do it. The United States must not do it. If you do you will wreck the world as surely as we are sitting here tonight. It is no longer a laughing matter, a sneering matter or a matter to 68108-270
Supply-Trade and Commerce be treated lightly; it is a matter that must be met and dealt with positively.
I give these facts merely to show how much is being done, and yet what is being done is not nearly enough. Everybody recognizes that. I have another important quotation that I should like to give just to show the difficulties the minister faces. This one again is from the Alberta wheat pool budget of April 3, 1953 this time, and reads as follows:
About 24 per cent of the Canadian population is dependent for a livelihood to a great degree on exports of Canadian products. This country is more dependent upon the continuation of a large export trade to maintain the standard of living here than are any other peoples in the world.
The above statement was made by G. S. Duncan, chairman of the board of directors of the Massey-Harris Company, in an address to the annual meeting of the Ontario hog producers' association. Mr. Duncan said that his company does 75 per cent of its business with foreign countries. He said 54 per cent of Canadian exports go to the United States and that there is a danger of relying too much on one customer.
It is enough worry to the minister to try to find a market for our wheat, oats, barley, hogs, cheese, and other primary products, but when he also has to go out and try to find markets for our manufactured products, well he is facing a task which is impossible under prevailing circumstances. I believe everybody realizes this.
Having said this much, I wish to tell the minister that I want a great deal more information than he has given in his speech. As a member of the house I think I am entitled to it. I am not able to find any document up to the present time in which I can obtain the information I want. I am going to quote some passages from the minister's speech and ask him some questions concerning these which I would like him to answer, before we finish discussing his department. He must know where to get these answers. At page 4065 of Hansard of April 17, in the second column, he used these words:
This strength has been created in large part by sound policies, and it has buoyed us up during a period when many other countries have suffered setbacks.
I want to know in some detail what these "sound policies" are. You know the statement sounds very beautiful on the radio and looks good in the press. So many statements are so beautiful on the surface that they convey much which the people cannot quite comprehend. We all want to know the details. Then I quote another passage on the same page:
During these years the government has done everything possible to encourage and assist the recovery of our exports to those countries overseas which are our traditional customers.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
I would like to know what the "everything possible" is. Everything possible is a very large order. I want to know whether the minister and the government offered to take British pounds in return for Canadian goods that they want to sell to Britain. That was a suggestion of the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar. That suggestion is thoroughly feasible. It has been offered several times by the hon. member for Acadia and various others. Never a word has been said by the government in answer to that, as far as I know; yet it is a thing which is obviously feasible.
I wonder whether the minister would tell us if he has done that; whether he has offered that. I should like to ask him whether or not Canada has yet offered to Great Britain a proposition similar to the one she gave to Great Britain in world war I. Great Britain wanted $50 million worth of wheat. Canada created the money, bought the wheat from Canadians and gave the wheat to Britain on such terms that Britain could repay in any kind of goods that Canada could receive as soon as Britain could repay. Britain had repaid the debt by 1927.
I have suggested such a proposition several times on the floor of the house. Not one person on the government benches has spent a moment trying to show that that proposal is not completely feasible, because they cannot show it. Why do they not use that device? Have they offered to do that for Great Britain? If they have not done that, they have not done everything possible; and to make that statement is simply to deceive men. And there are many other things that could be done, some things that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar mentioned. The minister will have to take a little time to answer all this. He realizes, I think, that members of the House of Commons are ^entitled to a detailed explanation of that statement; and the people are also entitled to it.
Now I should like to read another passage from his speech where, at page 4066, he said:
Canada participated fully in the recent commonwealth economic conference, as hon. members are aware.
I think that is a good place to stop. The minister says that Canada "participated fully". What is the minister talking about when he refers to full participation? What is his meaning? We would like to have that explained. Up to the present time the members of the cabinet have been as silent concerning the matter as mice. What went on at that economic conference? We do not know what Canadians proposed; we do not know what they rejected. We do not know
{Mr. Blackmore.l

what Great Britain proposed. We do not know a thing about this matter, which is so vital in our lives at the present time. I say that every hon. member in this House of Commons and every person in the country is entitled to be told in full the answers I have asked for.
If for example Great Britain asked us to use the imperial preference and we refused to do it, everybody in Canada has a right to know that we refused and why we refused. And if the reason we refused was that there was pressure put upon us by the United States, then everybody has a right to know that, 100 per cent. We should know how that pressure was proposed to be put on, and why.
All this information is necessary in order that we may begin to have wisdom concerning our status in international trade today, and concerning the well-being of the British commonwealth, in whose welfare this nation is so intimately bound up-not with the wellbeing of the United States. We have evidence to show that the United States is pretty hard-boiled, to use a common expression, in her business arrangements. She is not one bit concerned about our well-being. She is concerned about herself, and that is enough. If the United States takes care of herself, she is doing all the worrying she can afford to do. Let us look around and find someone with whom we can work.
Now, I want to know all about this commonwealth economic conference. Why has there been all the secrecy about it? We find secrecy everywhere. That does not sound very good; it does not look good.
I should like to read again from the minister's speech:
We may be greatly encouraged also by the increasing amount of international agreement about what needs to be done to solve the trade and financial problems of the sterling area and western Europe.
Well, what is this thing that "needs to be done?" Who are the nations that are in agreement? To what exent are they in agreement? How do we know they are in agreement? Has their agreement been expressed? If so, how and when? Until the minister gives' detailed information setting forth the answers to those questions he is just deceiving us, leaving us in the dark; and maybe he is deceiving himself, too.
I should like to know what he believes should "be done" to solve the difficult financial problem, the problem of the sterling area and western Europe. I want to know why he thinks that "what" is a solution, and I should like to have evidence to prove that it will be a solution. I think it would do the minister's department a lot of

good if they were to do a bit of hard thinking along that line. I shall be listening; I will not take everything lying down, either. We have to have something that will help us toward the solution of these problems. And now we come to this passage:
Many of the countries concerned are showing signs of moving in the right direction.
What is "the right direction?" Who knows it is the right direction? How does he know? Where did he find out? Where is his proof? Does the fact that half a dozen graduates of the London school of economics in the minister's department think it is the "right direction", make it so? He has half a dozen pretty noisy boys in his department, who think they know all about how to run the world. But they do not know very much yet; they only think they know. I have been in touch with several of them. Of course he has some men in his department who do know, but their voices cannot be heard because of the babble of loud noise from those youngsters who got all their knowledge at the London school of economics, the very last place they ought to go to get the truth. So we .want these facts.
Now on the same page the minister said:
Nevertheless, in 1952 the value, quantity and proportion of our exports to British countries did increase and for the first time their value amounted to over $1 billion.
What I want to know is this. What kind of exports did they accept in large amounts? Were they exports which are the result of our war condition, or exports which are to be permanent? If they are not permanent, then obviously the very minute things begin to clear up in Korea those markets will disappear like mist on a July morning. So if we are not going to be relying upon quicksand as the basis for the house we are going to build, we must be given many of the details.
Another passage at page 4066 is in these words:
I am glad to see that the United Kingdom have been able to increase their sales to us of many types of machinery and that their sales to the United States are increasing. It has been said before, but it bears repeating, that there is a large and continuing market in this country for many goods which the United Kingdom can supply in greater quantities.
I should like to have details about that. I cannot be convinced by this smooth statement. I cannot understand, for example, if it is really true that the British are increasing their sales to us, why it is that we find conditions such as those disclosed in the 68108-2704
Supply-Trade and Commerce February 1953 issue of the Economic Record from Great Britain. It says in respect of sugar:
Sugar is still rationed to 10 ounces each week for each ration book. It is estimated that to deration sugar an additional half million tons a year would be required which can only be obtained from the dollar area at a cost of about $40 million a year.
Why are they not able to get all the sugar they need over there, when we are literally swamped by Cuban sugar here?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They have derationed sugar now.


John Horne Blackmore: I am speaking about February of 1953. I am wondering now whether the derationing is on a basis that can persist, or whether they have established conditions under which they can continue to deration. Then in connection with cheese it says:
The weekly ration is now II ounces, with a special allowance of 12 ounces for agricultural and certain other workers in places where there are no catering facilities. The abnormally low level of the ration is due to Britain's inability to spend dollars on cheese from Canada and the United States.
And so on and so on. We go through a list which would make a person feel unhappy for a week. And now Great Britain is "increasing her sales" to us. That needs to be explained in much detail, much more than the minister has given thus far. I read this on page 4066:
Germany has increased its Canadian purchases substantially so that it is now the second largest European market for our products.
I want to know what Germany has paid us for what she has bought from us. What have we taken from Germany that we could not take from Britain? Can we continue to take these things from Germany without interfering with the welfare of any of our own industries? These are things that we all want to know. I quote again from page 4066:
From the Canadian point of view the increasing importance of the Japanese market has become more and more apparent in each recent year.
What are we prepared to accept from Japan that will enable us to sell to Japan? Everyone realizes that it will be a fine thing to trade with a nation of 83 million people, or thereabouts, if we can take the things that they have to send us. We are sure they can take our products, but what goods are they able to send us that Britain or some other nation of the commonwealth is unable to send? Before that statement can be worth very much to me I have to have that question answered. Here is another passage from page 4066:
At every appropriate opportunity the government has made clear to the government of the United

Supply-Trade and Commerce States that basic principles are being infringed by the imposition of import controls upon dairy products in the United States.
I would like to know what "basic principles" are being infringed by the United States when she takes measures to shut out dairy products from Canada. I would like to know what moral responsibility the United States has to Canada that she must allow Canadian dairy products to come in to destroy her dairy producers. I should like the minister to explain that in great detail when he comes to speak. We do not want generalities; we want details, as the minister would want them. The minister is one of the greatest engineers in Canada. He would not accept a blueprint that was blurred or vague in its details. He would want every detail quite clear so he could be sure it would work out in a certain way. The minister is giving us a blueprint for a trading establishment which we want to erect for the welfare of our children and our children's children. We want the details of that blueprint, not just a general statement.
Before leaving this matter may I ask this. Has not the United States merely invoked article XIX in the famous GATT which was designed to enable a nation to protect any of its industries against outside goods? The minister must have read something different from what is contained in the agreement. I think I could get a copy without much difficulty and show that it was definitely declared that any nation had the right to protect any of its industries which were in danger of being destroyed from outside. If there is no such provision, then I suggest that when GATT comes up again we put that provision in and be sure that it stays there. Without that the agreement is not much good. If the United States agreed to GATT, she did it in a moment of absentmindedness and is now finding out that it will not work. She is taking realistic measures to protect her own producers.
This is the system which she used to build herself from a group of straggling colonies into the mightest nation on the face of the earth in an amazingly short time. Are we to be told that those principles which she used to build herself to greatness are no longer sound and that she should now begin to go backwards and undo the things she has done so painfully through the generations, and if she does not do it she is "infringing principles?" All these matters need considerable elaboration. Another passage from page 4067 reads:
Canada and the United States have helped themselves and the world as a whole through the

negotiation of extensive trade agreements, before the war in 1935 and 1938, and since the war under GATT at Geneva in 1947 and at Torquay in 1951. The unprecedented flow of trade between Canada and the United States today is conducted in accordance with the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
That is getting near the climax. I tell you that we need a lot of explaining there. Just how has Canada helped herself through GATT? Let us have the details, even if it does take a book or another white paper. We do not want just a general statement, let us have it proved that Canada has "helped herself" through GATT. At whose expense has Canada helped herself? That is also an important matter. Has it been at the expense of Britain or some other member of the commonwealth? Just how has the United States helped herself through GATT, and at whose expense? Let us have the details.
Does the minister know who originated the idea that led to the instrument called GATT? I wonder if the minister has gone back into history to find out who it was that started this thing called GATT. That is a very important thing to know. If you could find out just who it was in the United States administration that proposed GATT or the thing that grew into GATT, and find out what connection he has, it might make a lot of difference in our thinking in respect to GATT.
Does the minister know what were the immediate objectives of the first movers in this connection? For example, was it the destruction of imperial preferences and the pound sterling? What were the ultimate objectives? For example, were they to give the United States markets? Was it considered that the rest of us did not amount to anything so long as the United States got markets? I wonder if that is true. Can the minister prove that it is not true, with documents that can stand up against criticism?
I suggest that the minister will have some help from these graduates of the London school of economics, but he should be sure to give us both sides. I have not very much faith in the London school of economics.


Mr. Poulioi:: The hon. gentleman is in good form.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall go into supply and consider the estimates of trade and commerce, citizenship and immigration, the prime minister's office, and health and welfare.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 23, 1953