1953-02-17

[Stage Direction]
MR. MaCDOUGALL


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that I am not dead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fleming:: Prove it.


John Lorne MacDougall: Confusion has arisen
because of the fact that a man with the same name, but certainly not the same initials as mine, a very good friend of mine and a fine citizen, died a few days ago. I should like to use the words which Mark Twain used to the Associated Press of the United States in the correction of the report of his death. He stated, "The report of my death is greatly exaggerated."



DAIRY PRODUCTS


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: On Friday, February 13, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) inquired about the nature of representations made by Canada concerning United States import restrictions on dairy products. As indicated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on February 11, the Canadian government has now made official representations to the United States government on three occasions. The United States government replied to the first of these representations that it was seeking the repeal of the legislation.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What date was that?


Mr. Sf. Laurent:: That was the first one indicated in the appendix to Hansard. These restrictions were discussed also during the 1951 and 1952 sessions of the contracting parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade. In order to give a detailed explanation of the nature of the Canadian representation, I should like to make the following statement:
The United States import restrictions on dairy products were originally instituted on 68108-1271
August 9, 1951, in accordance with an amendment of July 31, 1951, to the Defence Production Act. This amendment, which was written into section 104 of the act, required the imposition of controls over fats and oils, butter, cheese and other dairy products, if the importation would:
(1)	Impair or reduce domestic production;
(2)	Interfere with orderly domestic storing or marketing;
(3)	Result in any unnecessary burden or expenditure under any government price support program.
The Canadian government had followed with deep concern the discussions in the United States congress when this amendment to the Defence Production Act was introduced. These discussions indicated that there was a substantial volume of opinion which was opposed to this amendment and which was aware that its adoption and application would be contrary to United States international obligations. When the amendment was passed, the Canadian government deemed it appropriate to protest officially against this legislation. Accordingly a note was presented to the state department by the Canadian embassy in Washington on August 27, 1951-that is the date the hon. member was inquiring about- which pointed out that these restrictions were contrary to the obligations of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
Efforts were made by the United States administration, and by various individual members of the United States congress, to obtain repeal of these restrictions. The president asked congress on August 23, 1951, for prompt repeal of the restrictions. On September 22, 1951, the United States state department replied to our note drawing attention to efforts then being made by the president to obtain repeal of the restrictions and stating that it understood the concern of the Canadian government.
These restrictions were discussed at the September-October 1951 meeting of the contracting parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
A resolution adopted on October 26, 1951, which was supported by the Canadian delegation, found the restrictions to be an infringement of the agreement. The resolution took note of the United States government's intention to seek remedial legislation.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Subsequently on January 17, 1952, a second note to the United States state department drew the attention of the United States government to the proceedings at the session of the contracting parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade and urged the United States government to remove the restrictions without further delay. At that same time there was a bill before the United States senate for repeal of the restrictions. However, this bill failed to pass.
When the United States Defence Production Act was amended in June, 1952, modifications were made to section 104 which permitted some degree of liberalization. The Secretary of Agriculture was authorized to set quotas by types and varieties and to permit additional imports of each type and variety up to 15 per cent of the import limitation. Under authority of this legislation the import controls have been relaxed from time to time.
The contracting parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade again considered these restrictions at their session in September-October, 1952. A resolution was adopted, which was supported by the Canadian delegation, and which noted that the United States had not repealed these restrictions and indicated that the contracting parties should be free, if they deemed it appropriate, to take retaliatory action after prior consultation with other contracting parties.
On December 30, 1952, the United States government, acting under the mandatory provisions of section 104 of the United States Defence Production Act, imposed import quotas on dried whole milk, dried buttermilk, and dried cream. The Canadian government again examined the situation arising from this legislation and took the occasion to present a third note drawing attention to the general effects of these measures on the broad commercial policy interests of both governments and urging the removal of the restrictions as soon as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Prime
Minister for his statement and I should like to ask one question arising out of it. Is there any prospect of these unfairnesses against Canadian dairy products being removed or at least relaxed by the United States government?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the administration realize that the restrictions are contrary to international obligations undertaken by their country and, I understand, they are still making efforts to get congress to repeal what

congress passed. As to what the action of congress will be, I am not in a position to predict.



THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE NETHERLANDS AND BELGIUM  EXPRESSIONS OF SYMPATHY   REPLIES

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house, that in accordance with the provisions of the unanimous resolution of Monday, February 2, 1953, I conveyed to Her Majesty the Queen, to Her Majesty the Queen of The Netherlands and to His Majesty the King of Belgium the deep sympathy of the Commons of Canada for the people of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands and Belgium who have been so sorely stricken by the appalling disaster which has befallen them; and that in reply to my messages I have now received several communications which will be printed in today's Votes and Proceedings.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I think there are many more who receive Hansard than there are who see Votes and Proceedings. If such were the feeling of the house, I think perhaps these replies might be printed as an appendix to Hansard as well as in Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of replies, see appendix, page 2047.)



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Marguerite Irene Bastien Tasehereau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of William Gordon Quinn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Joseph Brennan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Henry Colling-wood.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	117,	for	the	relief	of	Douglas
Malcolm Stephen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Mary Lane Taylor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	119,	for	the	relief	of	Stanley
Gordon Fowler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Ethel Florence Flack Towne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Mary Katherine Randell Clarke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Ralph Wellington Goodyear.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	123,	for	the	relief	of	Donalda
Gagnon Fontaine.-Mr. Winkler.
1S99

Bill No. 124, for the relief of Marie Sylvaine Alain Dahlstrom.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Ruth Schwartz Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Annie Mislo-vitch Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Minnie Miki Simon Werkzeig, otherwise known as Minnie Miki Simon Werk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Antonio Proietti.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Ida Hier Blant.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Hilda Irene Roddis Galbraith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Ivy Helen Jean Morton Starke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Barney Flegal. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Marie Renee Emond Walker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Edwin George Chafe.,-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Phyllis Violet Perlson Wright.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Margaret Eadie Kerr Britton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of George Robert Stirling Henry.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Thelma Webb Crothers.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Pauline Liliane Baron Brumby.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Madeleine Blain Cousineau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Angelina Maria Di Battista Gill.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Charles Snoade Hilder.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: I
should like to address a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. Does he care to make a statement with regard to the strike of the grain handlers in the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster? This work stoppage has wide ramifications.


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for giving notice of this question which has to do with the dispute and strike affecting local 333, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft
Inquiries of the Ministry Drink and Distillery Workers of America, and various Vancouver grain elevator companies.
The following is a brief review of events leading up to the present situation involving the previously mentioned parties.
The collective agreement between the parties was entered into on May 30, 1952, effective December 1, 1951, until November 30, 1952; and thereafter to remain in effect unless written notice is given by either party to the other at least thirty days prior to November 30, 1952, that revision of the agreement is desired.
Such notice was given on October 28, 1952, by the union to (1) Searle Co. Ltd.; (2) Pacific Elevators Ltd.; (3) United Grain Growers Ltd.; (4) Kerr Gifford and Co. Inc.; and (5) Alberta Wheat Pool, all of Vancouver, B.C.
The main proposals included:	(1) the
eight-hour five-day week, starting midnight Sunday and ending midnight Friday; (2) a 10 cent premium for employees working on the third or midnight shift; (3) three extra statutory holidays; (4) three weeks' vacation after 10 years' service; (5) that the new agreement contain a list of job classifications; (6) 12 cents per hour increase in present rates; and (7) dust money of 10 cents per hour.
Representatives of both parties held meetings in November, 1952, but could come to no agreement. On November 17, 1952, the situation was discussed by Mr. Edward Sims, Canadian director of the union and Mr. R. H. Tupper, Q.C., representing the companies, with our senior conciliation officer at Vancouver, Mr. George Currie. Both parties expressed the opinion that further negotiations either with or without the assistance of the conciliation officer would be useless and stated the parties desired the establishment of a board of conciliation.
On November 21, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) received a joint request for the establishment of a board of conciliation and investigation to deal with the dispute, and on November 22 a board was established. The companies nominated Mr. Thomas E. H. Ellis, and Mr. James Bury was nominated by the union. In the absence of a joint recommendation by these nominees of the parties the minister on December 18 appointed Dr. Joseph A. Crumb, professor of economics and political science, University of British Columbia, to be the third member and chairman of the board.
On January 23, the minister received the report of the board making the following recommendations:	One, the work day and
2000	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the work week; that the employers undertake to minimize Saturday and Sunday work but that they should not be committed to a standard Monday through Friday schedule for a work week. Two, premium for night shift; for the third shift the majority report recommended a differential of 10 cents per hour. The company nominee felt that existing arrangements were satisfactory. Three, statutory holidays; the majority report recommended that the number of holidays be fixed at eight. The company nominee recommended that the number be left at six. Four, vacations; that this request be set aside. Five, job classifications; the majority report recommended that this request be met but with the proviso that the union respects management's right to establish job classifications and to set rates applicable thereto. The company nominee disagreed. Six, wage rates; the majority report recommended that the present hourly rate of $1.50 should continue during the next contract year. The union nominee recommended that the 12-cent-per-hour increase be granted. Seven, dust premium; the majority report recommended a 10-cent-per-hour premium rate. The company nominee recommended that the existing uniform rate be maintained.
On January 29 the minister was informed that the recommendations of the board were not acceptable to the companies. On February 5, he was informed that the union accepted the majority recommendations signed by Dr. Crumb and Mr. Bury and the minority recommendation respecting wages signed by Mr. Bury.
On February 10, the Department of Labour was informed by the union that unless settlement was reached the employees would strike on February 16. Our information is that work stopped yesterday morning and operations are at a standstill. The total number of men involved is approximately 250. Both parties are aware, through an informal meeting with our conciliation officer on February 6, 1953, that mediation services of the department are available to them, but no request has been made by either party for further mediation. The department is constantly in touch with the situation and hon. members may be assured that everything possible will be done to bring about an early settlement of the strike.



STRIKE OF GRAIN HANDLERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. H. Larson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the [Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle) .1

Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of a report in the Ottawa Journal of February 16 that Canada is losing millions of bushels of wheat sales owing to the grain handlers' strike on the west coast, does the government contemplate taking any immediate action to get this grain moving?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I hardly think it can be said that the government is losing millions of bushels of sales. The capacity of the west coast has been practically all sold, or could have been all sold. We have outlets at North Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert on the west coast still in operation, and at Saint John and Halifax on the east coast. It is very unfortunate indeed that this year, when a record has already been made for movement through the west coast, this strike should tie up the movement of grain. It will mean demurrage for the boats; but as far as the Department of Trade and Commerce are concerned we are quite satisfied to leave the settlement of the strike in the hands of the Department of Labour.



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with a matter of interest to the western farmer, namely, the international wheat agreement conference in Washington. Will he say what the present position is, and also tell the house what instructions the representatives of 'Canada have as to the minimum and maximum prices that they expect under the agreement now being negotiated?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can only repeat what I said on an earlier occasion, that the meetings are in camera and are proceeding. As far as I know progress is reasonably satisfactory and discussions are taking the course that one would expect from meetings of this kind. A good deal of harmony is being displayed between the contracting parties.
As far as the instructions from Canada are concerned, the Canadian government representatives are in Washington with advisers from prairie wheat organizations. The instructions are to negotiate the best deal that seems possible and to report the results back for the consideration of the government. I am sure that our representatives will do that.


John George Diefenbaker: Very uncertain.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the minister know whether the subject of anti-semitic practices in countries under Soviet influence or control will be brought up at the resumed session of the general assembly of the United Nations? If so, would he care to comment on what position the Canadian delegation will take with respect to these practices?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that subject
does not now appear on the agenda of the United Nations general assembly. I understand that certain delegations are giving some consideration to asking that it be put on, but no proposal has yet been made. However, without putting it on the agenda the subject could be discussed, under one or two of the other items that will come before the general assembly at its resumed session.
As far as the Canadian position is concerned, I think I had better wait until we see in what form the subject does appear on the agenda, but our general attitude was, I think, clearly indicated the other day in answer to a question from the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll).



SOUTH KOREA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: May I ask
the Minister of National Defence a question arising out of a statement he made last night? What assistance is Canada giving in the reconstruction of South Korea and the rehabilitation of its people?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: That is really a question for the
Secretary of State for External Affairs. What I said last night, as I recall it, was that we had given assistance and it was provided for in the estimates of last year.



FERRY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I am sorry I did
Inquiries of the Ministry not give him very much notice. If he is not able to answer fully, perhaps he will take it as a notice and answer tomorrow. Has any consideration been given to the alteration of plans of the vessel presently being constructed for service with the Canadian National Railways on the route between North Sydney and Port aux Basques? My reason for asking the question is that I understand the premier of Newfoundland recently stated that the steamer is only half the size required, and he wanted one twice as big or two of that size.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Some time ago at my request a meeting was arranged between the premier of Newfoundland, a delegation from that province, officers of the Canadian National Railways and the Department of Transport in Montreal to deal with representations which the delegation from Newfoundland wanted to make to the Canadian National Railways. These representations are too numerous to mention here, but I do know that the meeting was a satisfactory one. I do know that it was possible to make some of the changes that were asked for, at least in so far as refrigerator cars were concerned; but I am also of the view, if my memory serves me right, that no alterations to the new ferry were decided upon in so far as the railway officials were concerned, because they were of the view that the ferry was designed to meet the requirements of the traffic as it existed. It is true that the delegation represented strongly in favour of additional facilities to handle increased traffic by the ferry, but the view of the C.N.R. officials and our own then was that that situation could be reviewed from time to time.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture consequent upon the answer he gave to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) yesterday in regard to the lifting of the United States embargo. The minister said, as reported at page 1961 of Hansard:
Our understanding still is that it is the intention of the United States government to admit livestock on the 1st of March.
Can the minister tell us what that understanding is based on? Has the Canadian government had any undertaking, promise or
2002	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry anything else of that nature from the United States government that the embargo will be lifted on the 1st of March?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Our understanding is based on the announcement which was made some time ago from Washington to the effect that the embargo will in all probability be lifted on the 1st of March. The only condition which was indicated at the time which might interfere with that would be another outbreak of the disease. There has not been any outbreak of the disease, so we presume that it is their intention to open the market March 1st. We have discussions with them from day to day. We have had talks with them today, which do not lead us to any other conclusion. So I think it should be assumed by anyone at present that there is no likelihood that that will not be carried out.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the minister tell us whether the Canadian government has asked for any definite assurance on this matter from the United States government?


Mr. Bryce:: I should like to follow that
up. The farmers throughout the country are anxious to know if the embargo is going to be taken off or if it is not going to be taken off. I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) owes that to the farmers of Canada, and he should tell them whether or not this embargo is going to come off.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture would answer that question. I asked him whether any definite assurance has been asked for.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would like to say that if all the persons who seem to have opinions very much similar to those of the two hon. members who have just spoken now would not express any doubts about it at all, there would be no one in Canada who would have any doubts about it. Announcements have been made as definitely as they can be made, and they were not made by this government-they were made by the government of the United States. We are not in the position to make announcements for them. They have made the announcements, and I take it for granted that they will act upon them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the minister
has not yet answered my question.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has given an
answer. It may not be an answer satis-


factory to the hon. member. However, I cannot even require a minister to answer a question. In this instance he hag answered the question in the way he thinks it should be answered, and the house must accept his answer.


An hon. Member:: Write a letter.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question
of privilege. Hansard of yesterday records at page 1951 three questions standing in my name on yesterday's order paper referring to a speech made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) at Nelson, British Columbia, on January 15, 1953.
These questions are answered in the name of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), not in the name of the Minister of Fisheries. My question of privilege relates to the answer given to the second question, which was as follows:
If so, did the Minister of Fisheries indicate at that time that an announcement respecting national health insurance would be made at this session of parliament, as reported in the said newspaper?
The answer given by the Secretary of State was No. My question of privilege is that that answer conflicts with the report in the Nelson Daily News, which said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot allow that as a question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of privilege:
there is one statement in the press and an opposite statement by the Secretary of State. Can I not find out what the Minister of Fisheries has to say?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a
question of privilege. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, he may ask it. But certainly he cannot rise on a question of privilege and ask it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he is correctly reported in the three paragraphs which refer to the section of his remarks which dealt with health insurance, as it is reported in the Nelson Daily News-a very fine newspaper- of January 17, 1953.


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: I am accurately reported in the answer given by the Secretary of State in the reply quoted yesterday.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That items Nos. 85 to 104 inclusive of the mam estimates 1953-54, be withdrawn from the committee oi supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I was attempting to deal with points that had been raised in the course of this debate which has now extended over some days. Last night I indicated that, though we had listened to many very interesting speeches, so far as the official opposition was concerned the proposals they had made on external affairs were characterized particularly by their vagueness.
When the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) was speaking last night he was asked what his own views were on these matters, and his reply-as it is reported at page 1988 of Hansard-which I suppose might serve as a guidepost for the views of members of the official opposition on foreign affairs, was
as follows:
I have just said that I believe Canada, in concert with other nations of the commonwealth and, in so far as it is possible, with the United States of America, should adopt a foreign policy which would carry not the hot war but the cold war to the communists, and keep them guessing for a change.
That might be considered rather vague as a direction in foreign policy. But there was not very much vagueness about the satisfaction of the official opposition over what was termed by more than one of their members the new policy of the United States in Asia. According to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), that new United States policy was to seize the initiative and, to quote his words, "to call the tune".
The same idea was referred to by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), when he talked about the stiffening of United States policy. And the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) used this expression, "a firm and positive policy", which, he thought, would bring peace. Firmness is of course a desirable attribute of policy. But I know hon. members will agree that firmness should not be confused with rashness, and it should not I suggest go beyond our strength. There is a good deal to be said, in the conduct of
External Affairs
international affairs, for using the velvet glove over the iron hand; but there is very little to be said in diplomacy for putting the iron glove over the velvet hand. The hon. member for Peel, when discussing this matter, gave an example of what he considered to be wise firmness in the conduct of foreign affairs. His example, and it was repeated by other speakers, was the Berlin airlift. But I would remind the house that the firmness displayed in the Berlin airlift was a firmness based upon realism, and applied very cautiously.
At the time of the blockade of Berlin there were many advocates of a firmer policy than that of the airlift, which took some time to be put into effect; that kind of firmer policy would have tried to defeat the blockade at once by running trucks across the border and by running trains into Berlin.
The kind of firmness which is based upon caution, and a clear assessment of our strength, is to be desired.


Mr. Graydon:: That would be more than firmness, would it not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The other kind of firmness is probably to be deplored. It is clear from the discussion we have had on foreign policy that members of the official opposition and of the Social Credit group welcome this new policy of firmness, while the members of the C.C.F. group leave no doubt as to where they stand. They view it with suspicion and in some of its manifestations they reject it.
So far as the attitude of the government is concerned, I think our views have been pretty clearly and carefully expressed and possibly can be best understood if I explain the attitude which we take toward some of the particular manifestations of the policy. It is easy to talk in generalities, especially when you are in the opposition; it is not so easy to talk in particularities, especially when you are in the government.
Let us take a few of these concrete matters on which we may have to express our views in the future. I took a few last night, but I shall add one or two this afternoon.
We have felt and we still feel, for instance, that Korea is a matter for the United Nations and that any action in which we participate in Korea or in connection with matters arising out of Korea would have to be as a result of a United Nations decision and not a national decision by any one participant in that action.
Similarly, I think we have made it quite clear that we would be opposed to- any decision or to any action which might extend the war in Korea unless there were pretty

External Affairs
convincing evidence that that action would also end the war. The extension of the war, to which I have just referred, seems on the other hand to have almost been welcomed by some of the speakers who contributed to this debate, and I am thinking particularly of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson).


Mr. Low:: May I just correct the minister on that. I did not at any stage suggest an extension of the war. What I did suggest, and I think the minister will recognize it, was that a definite policy be adopted as quickly as possible by the United Nations for terminating the war.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not want to misquote
or misrepresent what the hon. member said, but I base my observation on words which I took from Hansard. The hon. member is reported on page 1883 of Hansard of February 12 as having said:
It was my view then-
He indicated that it was still his view.
-that the military effort of the United Nations should not be limited to the country in which the aggression takes place.
He then went on to explain what he meant by that. It was on that statement that I based my observation.


Solon Earl Low: Will the minister yield to a question?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Solon Earl Low: Wait just a second and I will
explain to some of you fellows.


An hon. Member:: You talk too much.


Solon Earl Low: The minister is ready to answer my question. He can take care of himself; he does not need you fellows. I should like to ask him this:	Is it necessarily advocating
an extension of the war to suggest that when an aggressor has been named by the United Nations every effort should be made to disarm the aggressor so that he cannot hit you any further?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That may be my hon.
friend's interpretation of what he said, and of course I accept his interpretation. But my own interpretation, which I think would be the same as that of many people who read that sentence and the remarks following, was that he meant it might be necessary to extend the war beyond Korea into China- and indeed he went further than China- in order to win it. I would suggest to the hon. member that he have another good look. at his speech.


Solon Earl Low: I ask the minister if he can
take anything more from what I said than

that the only suggestion I made in connection with China was that the United Nations would certainly be justified in blockading the coast of China in order to keep war materials from going in which they would then throw back at our boys.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have read from the hon.
gentleman's speech. If I had the time I would be glad to read the subsequent paragraphs. We must agree to differ on the interpretation of what he said.
Then there is another very practical question, whether a stronger military offensive should be taken within the present strategy in Korea. The government's attitude toward that is that any such military action, even within the present strategy, should certainly be closely related to the political and military results which might follow from that action. I apologize to the hon. gentleman for referring to his speech once again, but I think I am quoting him accurately-in referring to the military situation some time ago, he said that in 1951-I believe he was referring to September-we had the communists on the ropes but the Far Eastern command refused to allow a knockout.


Solon Earl Low: I was quoting General Van Fleet who said that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Just to keep the record straight on this, because these are very important matters and what we say in respect of them will go far beyond these four walls, may I say that at that time the Far Eastern command was the Far Eastern command of the United States under generals who were senior to General Van Fleet. The Far Eastern command in turn got its directions from the unified command, which was the chiefs of staff in Washington. So any military action which was taken at that time or not taken at that time was in accordance with the orders of the supreme military direction of that operation, which was in Washington and under General Bradley.
Lest there be any misunderstanding of the influence of civilian authority at that time, either national or international, it should also be made quite clear-because there has certainly been some misunderstanding lately on this matter-that when the decision was taken in 1951 to initiate armistice negotiations with the communists those negotiations were not meant to interfere with and did not necessarily interfere with the military operations which continued.
The hon. gentleman made special mention of General MacArthur's inability to bomb the Manchurian bases and asserted that that prohibition came from United Nations officials. I would be most interested indeed if he could

supply any evidence which would support the inportant allegation that United Nations officials would not allow General MacArthur to bomb Manchurian bases at any time since the Korean aggression commenced.
There is another practical question arising out of these Far Eastern discussions, on which government policy has already been indicated but which I shall repeat clearly this afternoon. I refer to the question of the blockade which has been very much in people's minds at the present time. Our attitude is that whether a blockade should or should not be imposed against the aggressor is a matter for United Nations decision. It is of course to be distinguished from action taken to prevent strategic materials going to the aggressor because action of that kind has been taken already on the part of the United Nations.
I would think myself that the only excuse for extending our action and imposing a naval blockade on the coast of China would be that it would be effective in ending the war. There is certainly a strong division of opinion on that subject, especially when it is realized that at least 75 per cent-various figures have been given'-of the supplies going to communist China to enable them to participate in this Korean aggression go by land rather than by sea. There would be dangers in the imposition of such a blockade; and before any action is taken they should be weighed very carefully against the effect of that blockade on the ending of the war. I can say that, so far as we are concerned, we would think in default of evidence to the contrary that the dangers and the difficulties would neutralize the beneficial effect which might result from such a blockade.
Then there is another question-and I mention this too to meet the criticism that I have been talking mincingly and in generalities. I am dealing with concrete matters which are not dealt with by some of the members across the aisle.


Mr. Fulton:: Because we have not
responsibility.
%


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is the question of
whether it would be wise to bomb Chinese communist territory incidentally to the Korean operation. Our policy is that that would be unwise unless such bombing were forced on the United Nations by all-out war from China itself.
I would point out to hon. members that we have not yet in Korea-and I mean by "we" the United Nations-been exposed to that kind of all-out war. Therefore we should be pretty careful, and it is generally agreed by military authorities that we should G8108-128i
External Affairs
be careful, in considering whether we should bomb Chinese territory.
There is another question which was dealt with by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) in his interesting contribution to the house, as to whether or not it would be wise or unwise to take any action which would assist the forces of Chiang Kai-shek to secure a foothold on the mainland. There again, the policy of this government is to be very careful before we intervene to assist the nationalist government on Formosa in returning to China; because from past evidence we believe that-and again I have made some study of this matter as have other hon. members-the government which is now on Formosa did not reach Formosa because of a lack of support from outside or because it was betrayed, but that it reached Formosa because it was driven out of China.
We would probably not be very wise, from the point of view of defeating aggression in Korea, and possibly from other points of view as well if we identified our cause as members of the United Nations with the restoration of the nationalist government on Formosa to the mainland.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I mention these matters because they are problems which we may have to face. I do not, in mentioning them, suggest that we have any reason to assume that the decision which was taken in Washington a short time ago regarding Formosa means that any of these things is likely to be put forward by the United States or any other government. I do not think that these problems necessarily follow on the decision taken on Formosa. I am satisfied that that is not likely to be the case. I indicated last evening that I have had some assurance recently that these consequences of the Formosa decision are not likely to follow, and I hope that they will not.
Now, there is just one other statement from the official opposition with which I should like to deal for a short time because it was a very important one, which I am sure will cause a great deal of comment. That statement was contained in the speech the other evening by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson). He was certainly forthright enough in stating his own view. He attacked what has been called the "policy of containment", although I must confess that the word "containment" and the policy that it represents have been very often misunderstood. He attacked that policy very strongly and preferred what I think might fairly be described-although he did not use the words in this way-as "a dynamic liberation policy".

External Affairs
In his statement-and I do not want to do him any injustice-which appears on page 1900 of Hansard, he supported and advocated unlimited war. He said, and I quote from Hansard:
To pretend that we can prepare for and fight a limited war against a major power is nonsense.
He said, in another part of his speech:
It is only in men's minds that we think in terms of a limited war. This is now being changed in the United States.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the hon. member, that that is bad history; and that some of the most successful national wars in history have been successful because they have been limited, and some of the greatest catastrophes and failures in history have happened because leaders of nations who have led those nations into war did not recognize any limit to their objectives in war. If you want an example in terms of one country to explain what I mean, I would have you contrast Bismarck's policy of limited war with Hitler's policy of unlimited war. So, I am not at all prepared to believe that in Korea at this time we have to indulge in unlimited war, irrespective of where that may take us.
The hon. gentleman said it would also be desirable for us to lead from strength, and that there was no such thing as a safe war. He said that one of the things about the Formosa decision which gave him satisfaction was that it represented a step in the right direction. He went even farther than that and on page 1901 of Hansard he suggested that one of the things we might do now would be to destroy the Hong Kong-Shanghai railway. He advocated the imposition of a naval blockade-and he is not alone in that-and he advocated a positive policy of liberation of people behind the iron curtain. There has been a great deal of discussion about that lately, and he went on at page 1902 of Hansard to say that a policy of isolated war would not do that. He followed up that remark by saying:
Are we going to encourage an attack there on the flank?
In answering his own question he said:
Of course we are.
And then:
Why, then, should we not encourage an attack on the other flank in China?
That certainly, Mr. Speaker, is dynamic enough and I would like to say at once that no one on this side of the house could support that kind of dynamic, unlimited aggressive policy under the present circumstances. It will be very interesting for the

governments of Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia to read that a member of our parliament has advocated that kind of action on our part.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot wind up this debate without saying a few words about the Pacific security pact.


Mr. Adamson:: Before the minister goes on, I would like to reply to him. I have never advocated military attacks. What I advocated is the same kind of action as the communists are taking now. I may say that my view is that we are not dealing with tulips; we are fighting communism. In destroying poison ivy it is better to wear boots than ballet shoes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think, in view of what the hon. member has said, I should just quote from Hansard so that there will be no misunderstanding. If I have misrepresented the meaning of his words I shall be glad to withdraw the interpretation that I gave them, but I will just read what he said. This appears at page 1902 of Hansard:
A policy of restricted action, of containment, of an Isolated war is something that does not bring them encouragement.
He refers there to the people behind the iron curtain who are looking for liberation. That-
-policy . . . does not bring them encouragement.
He is talking about an isolated war.
They want to be free; they want to get out from under the yoke of communism. Just as we are fighting communism, so they want to fight communism.
In the next paragraph he discussed the recent political developments in the Balkans which have led to the association of Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia. He went on to say:
I am sure that the impact of this anti-cominform pact on countries like Bulgaria, Albania and even Roumania is certainly very considerable. Now, are we going to encourage that? Are we going to encourage an attack there on the flank? Of course we are. Why, then, should we not encourage an attack on the other flank in China? There are many ways of beating the communists, and we have to use all of them.
Those were his words, and the house will of course be able to draw its own conclusions from them.
I should like now to make a few comments about a Pacific security pact. In discussing this matter the hon. member for Peel said that I had erected four or five roadblocks in the hope that they would be impassable. Well, he did not try very hard to pass them himself, although he did make an effort to skirt around the end. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) accused me of laughing off the idea of a Pacific security

pact. 1 should like to point out for his benefit that I do not recall at any time in this house ever laughing at the idea of a Pacific security pact. It is nothing to laugh at. I do not think any member on this side has laughed at it. It is a very serious question. The fact that we have had nearly
20,000	Canadian soldiers cross the Pacific in the last two and a half years to fight for security means that it is no laughing matter. I hope the hon. member will exonerate me from that charge which he levelled the other night that I had laughed off the idea.
If I may say it with respect, the hon. member, in his comments on this matter, did not deal with the objections which I raised at this time to a Pacific security pact. He produced one argument, and I think one argument only, in favour of a pact. The argument that he advanced, and it is a good argument, was that a pact was necessary at least for the purpose of consultation. The hon. member for Peel also pointed out the value of a Pacific pact at this time for consultation. But I would suggest to him, and to hon. members, that a security pact, to be a security pact, must mean much more than mere consultation. We have lots of consultations now in Washington and in other places about the Pacific. A security pact, if it is to be effective, goes beyond consultation. If consultation under present circumstances would be its great value, and if a Pacific security pact for consultation only would have saved us from some of the alleged embarrassment of the last few weeks in connection with the Formosa decision, why was it that those members of the Pacific region who belong to that kind of pact now, the Anzus pact, did not, by that fact, get any advantage in consultation over the rest of us who do not belong to that group? So far as consultation is concerned, we heard about this decision as soon as they did.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra suggested that we are lapsing back into a policy of a new kind of isolationism, I think he called it-it may have been some other hon. member who used that expression. I believe I am correct in saying that he said we refused consultation because of the fear of commitments.


Mr. Green:: May I correct the minister?
I was referring to the stand taken by the late Mr. King in the late thirties with regard to the commonwealth of nations, when he said that we could be informed but not consulted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is quite right. Here
is what the hon. gentleman said, as recorded
External Affairs
at page 1885 of Hansard for February 12, 1953:
That reminds me of the policy of this government before the war under the leadership of the late Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, when he declared that in so far as the United Kingdom and the other nations of the commonwealth were concerned they could inform Canada of policies but they could not consult us because if Canada were consulted then she might be under some obligation.
Then he went on to say:
We are now having this same problem in reverse. I hope the Canadian government would prefer to be consulted by the United States rather than just informed, as was the case last week.
This action has all the earmarks of Canada being dragged along by the United States, and that situation is not good enough. It does not exist in the North Atlantic area because there we find consultation between members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization . . .
Well, to remove any fears that might exist in the hon. member's mind, I can assure him that we do not reject consultations because of any fear of commitments which may result from the consultations. Indeed, there are lots of consultations going on now, and in practically all of them Canada is participating.


Howard Charles Green: There was not any about Formosa.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He himself mentioned in the course of his speech consultations in regard to the military arrangement for southeast Asia; I think he was quoting from a press dispatch. He asked if Canada was prepared to join the organization referred to in that dispatch. On that subject I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that no such arrangements have been agreed upon. Military talks are going on in regard to an exchange of intelligence and co-operation on military matters in the southeast Asian area. We are informed about those talks, and as they have not been completed as yet they are highly confidential and I cannot say anything more about them at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Is Canada taking part in them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have attended some of the meetings, and some we have not. We have been informed about the meetings we have not attended.
There are one or two other matters with which I suppose I should deal before I sit down. Many members emphasized, and I referred to this last night, that in any dealings with the United States we should speak up. The hon. member for Peace River mentioned that, as did the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). In reply I can say only that we have spoken up. We do speak up when the circumstances seem to require it, and we will in the future. But I hope that we will

External Affairs
show a sense of responsibility in doing so, and that we will relate our talk, when we have to talk, to our commitments and that we will relate our commitments to our resources. I should like to ask if any of the hon. members opposite would add to those commitments at this time and under the present circumstances?
One result of the new situation which seems to be in the process of being created is that the psychological side of the cold war will assume a greater importance than it has in the past, both in Europe and in Asia. From what we have been learning, it seems fairly clear that it is being stepped up. If it is meant to hearten free men now in slavery and to strengthen their determination to regain their freedom, that is something that we must all support. The essence of that program is contained in the word "liberation".
But I would suggest also, Mr. Speaker, that there is danger to the people behind the iron curtain who are longing to be free, in the misinterpretation and indeed the mishandling of this kind of psychological warfare embodied in the word "liberation". "Liberation" means more than that to those listening to clandestine broadcasts; it means troops marching in to liberate them. We would not be very responsible if, in our psychological warfare, now an important part of the cold war, we gave the impression at this time that troops are likely to be taking that kind of action overnight to liberate them. The trouble about psychological warfare, especially psychological warfare in a coalition of democracies, is that unless we are very careful we will confuse our friends as much as we confuse our foes. Harold Nicolson, who knows a great deal about the conduct of international affairs and the principles which should guide them, said not long ago that we should stop worrying so much about what is in the minds of our foes and make sure that we know what is in our own minds; then we might be more successful. That may be true but it is also helpful to know what is in the mind of the other man. A United States commentator on the air the other night, in talking about psychological warfare, said something that I thought was interesting when he stated: "If we do not know what we have in our own mind, it is reasonable to assume that the enemy can't know and so this might be just as good psychological warfare as if we planned it that way".


John George Diefenbaker: Who said that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was said by a United States columnist by the name of Lowell Mellett.

There is one final subject, namely, assistance to underdeveloped areas, which was dealt with by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and also by the hon. member for Assiniboia. In the few minutes I have left I cannot do justice to this exceedingly important subject. The hon. member for Melfort has, I think, presented an assortment or-and I hope he will not be offended if I call it this-a selection of statistics designed to show that Canada was not doing its part in providing non-military financial aid and technical assistance to other countries. I do not propose to follow him through his numerous calculations but I cannot agree with the conclusions that he drew from them.
For instance, I am surprised that he made such a hard and fast distinction between grants in aid and loans. His attempt to hold to this distinction led him to state that between April, 1947, and March, 1952, the United States spent over a billion dollars on offshore purchases from Canada whereas- and I quote from him-"we contributed not one cent to direct European aid". The fact is, of course, that during this very same period drawings on post-war loans by the United Kingdom and others were considerably in excess of $800 million, even after allowing for certain repayments. The use of these loans during that time represented a heavy demand on our economy. Unlike the United States, we did not have during those years a large balance of payments surplus; in fact we had a substantial deficit with the United States.
Despite that fact and despite the developing needs of our own economy, our contributions to other countries have, I think, compared favourably with those of the United States; and I do not think we need to blush in making the comparisons. As the hon. member himself observed, we provided over $2,414 million worth of assistance between the end of the war and the end of the last fiscal year, when the United States was providing something over $35 billion. Even if the element of military aid in both these figures were to be removed, it would be apparent that we had done more than one-fifteenth as much as the United States. That is a basis of comparison which I think is more than fair in terms of national income. The scale of financial aid that Canada has provided since the war, combined with relatively liberal import policies, seem to me to represent substantial contributions to the economic health and stability of the whole of the free world.
I think it is also important that we should carefully examine priorities between various competing claims. The first priority is, of

course, to provide for our own defence security and the second is the development of our national resources. The countries which we are attempting to assist, and rightly so-the underdeveloped countries-themselves accept that priority. In some of those countries where the standard of living is so low and where the need for assistance is so great, they use up to fifty per cent and sixty per cent of their budget on their own military defence. They accept that priority in spite of their circumstances. I therefore doubt whether we are open to criticism if we have to give our own military defence first priority.
I think it should be remembered also that, with due regard to the importance we attach to economic assistance and technical aid, if war should come the only kind of technical assistance which would be required would be machinery for removing the rubble and the ruin. Yet as the hon. member for Melfort and others have quite rightly emphasized, we must do our part in promoting the welfare of underdeveloped countries. That is why we should continue-and I mentioned this point some days ago-to recognize the Colombo plan and similar activities as being of primary importance in our international economic policy.
This afternoon the question arose as to what we had done for Korean relief. I have not the figures before me but I know that there was a period-and it was not many months ago-when the contribution of Canada to Korean relief was greater than that from any other country, including the United States, and that that United Nations agency at one stage of its existence not so long back depended almost entirely on Canadian funds to keep going. Since that time the United States have made larger contributions than we have; but we have played an active part in that particular field of relief, and I hope we shall continue to do so.


Mr. Wright:: Is there anything for it in the estimates this year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The matter is under consideration as to what contribution we should make this year.
In the course of this discussion which I am now closing we have had disagreements, but more in method than in principle, more in means than in ends. The points that unite us on foreign affairs are far more important than are the comparatively few that divide us. I think we are all agreed on our goals, namely, peace and security with freedom. I think we are all agreed that the threat to us is a global one and that we cannot have any security in the Atlantic without thinking
External Affairs
also about security in the Pacific. We are becoming more and more aware of that fact.


Howard Charles Green: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra the other day said that in the North Atlantic council we have been talking about Pacific security. I think that is a healthy development. I think we are also all agreed that the tension remains great and that to meet that situation the maximum amount of unity in the free world is essential.
I think we are also agreed that communist strategy remains constant though communist tactics may shift, and that we should not shift ourselves as their tactics shift but should rather keep our eye on their strategy.
Then finally I think we are all agreed that the policy of building up our strength to be used unprovocatively is working in western Europe, as the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale) pointed out last evening; that if there is any easing of the tension there it is because of that fact. We would be well advised to extend to other areas the methods and the principles which we are beginning to find successful in relieving tension in Europe.
In Korea and the Far East, as in other areas where the infection of communist aggression is most virulent, the course we must follow must be dictated by our own strategy and by our own interests, not by the tactics of the aggressor. I think we are all convinced that the fight against the communist infection and its spread cannot be won overnight or be cured by any kind of miracle drug. It can and, I believe, will be won by pursuing a steady and determined policy based on patience, resolution and strength.


Solon Earl Low: I was wondering whether the minister would permit me one question in connection with the Korean situation. Does the United Nations still adhere to the determined policy, as laid down in a resolution of 1950, to unify Korea? If so, have they a policy or plan by which they think that that can be done?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The military objective in Korea as established by the United Nations' resolution is to defeat aggression and only that. The political objectives that have been included in the United Nations' resolutions provide for the freedom and unity of all Korea on a democratic basis. It is of course, I think, the desire of all members of the United Nations that once aggression has been defeated and peace has been restored we should do our best to realize that objective as well.

Committee on Atomic Energy


Mr. Noseworlhy:: May I direct a question to the minister? In view of the intense propaganda that communist front organizations are carrying on in favour of a cease-fire in Korea, would the minister care to deal with it at a little greater length than he did in his speech?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be very glad to do so if the house will give me a minute or two, because this is an important subject. It is the core of the communist propaganda at the present moment, and it may be making more headway than it should. The demand now being made-and we shall hear about it at the United Nations general assembly, I am quite sure-is that we should have a cease-fire at once, and that these other subjects, prisoners of war and all the rest of it, should be left for further negotiation by a United Nations committee.
The best answer to that propaganda is that, if the communist states had accepted that resolution accepted by 54 other states last autumn at the United Nations general assembly, we would have had our cease-fire by now within the ambit of an armistice which would have dealt with prisoners of war. Those prisoners of war would have been exchanged by now, and the political conference which we have been talking about might have begun by now. This new propaganda is an effort on the part of the communists to make people forget that they refused to accept a cease-fire last autumn.
What they suggest now is that we accept a cease-fire at once, with other questions remaining to be determined by a commission of eleven members, of which four would be communist states, North Korea, communist China, Czechoslovakia and the U.S.S.R., and that that commission, which would settle these other questions, should proceed by a two-thirds majority which would give the four communists a veto over any action, or indeed over any decision.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That a special committee be appointed to examine into the operations of the government in the field of atomic energy; that the said committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee; and to report from time to time; that the said


committee consist of Messrs. Bourget, Brooks, Cold-well, Gibson, Green, Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth), Low, McCusker, Mcllraith, Murphy, Murray (Oxford), Pinard, Stuart (Charlotte), Winkler.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution I do so because I believe that it is the desire of the house generally to examine the government's program in the field of atomic energy. The government shares the view that has been expressed by several hon. members that it is desirable to review this program after a period of three years.
Some three years ago a committee was appointed and did make a comprehensive review of the program and reported to the house on its findings. I think it can be said without fear of contradiction that the report of the committee approved the operation as of that day, and I sincerely hope that another comprehensive review of the program will permit a similar report to be made to the house later in this session.
The program is still dominated by military requirements. Three years ago the committee was formed just after the first atomic explosion had occurred in Russia. Since then two other atomic explosions have occurred in Russia. The United Kingdom has exploded an atomic bomb in Australia. The United States have exploded several bombs in the Pacific, all indicating that the military field is very active indeed. As a matter of fact, it is common knowledge that the United States is spending enormous sums of money, running into billions of dollars, to expand the military program in atomic energy at this time. Therefore our own work in atomic energy is still strictly confined within the rules of secrecy.
We in Canada are not engaged in military development, but the work that we are doing at Chalk River is of importance to military developments, and for that reason, and for other reasons, cannot be made a subject of common knowledge. I am sure that the committee will appreciate that fact and will be governed accordingly.
Much has happened at Chalk River in the intervening three years. When the committee last visited the property the small pile, which was completed in 1945, and was known as the Zeep pile, was in operation, and a new pile of larger capacity was also in operation. The second pile has been doing very excellent work. Its operation has been subject to interruptions from time to time. I think the operation has been interrupted eight times by minor explosions, and today the pile is not in operation. At its inception it was estimated that the life of the pile would be four to five years. The pile has been in operation

for five and a half years, and when the last explosion occurred it was decided that it would be worth while to decontaminate the calandria-the calandria is the interior of the pile-to withdraw the calandria for examination and build and instal a new calandria which would in effect give us a brand new pile for pile No. 2. That would cause interruption of its use for some months, but everyone interested in atomic energy believes that it is well worth while. For the first time we would be able to determine the life of a pile more accurately. We have also determined the operating steps that will prolong the life of the pile. Had we known a few months ago what we know today, the last explosion would not have occurred, and probably other explosions would not have occurred. Therefore we feel that rather than a calamity, the last explosion was perhaps fortunate in that we are able to rebuild the pile and to determine the effects on the pile of the operation of the past five and a half years.
Hon. members also know, as a result of the report of the earlier committee, that a third pile is now under construction. That work is on schedule. The pile will come into production sometime in 1954, as was planned. We believe that it will be the most efficient pile that has ever been built and will incorporate all the information that has been gained at Chalk River as well as information that has been gained elsewhere. The last should be the best, and I have little doubt that the new pile at Chalk River will be the best that has been built up to that time.
In the field of raw materials there has been a good deal of progress. Canada's sole source of supply, when the committee met last year, was the Eldorado mine at Great Bear lake. Since then mining development has been opened up in the Beaverlodge area of Saskatchewan, and an immense amount of work has been done in that area. A mill is under construction, and it is anticipated that mines in this area will be in production by May of this year. The deposit is very much larger than the Great Bear lake deposit, but of a somewhat lower grade. We are certain however that it will make a very valuable contribution to the supply of raw material for atomic energy.
A further development has been the installation of equipment to recover uranium from the gold tailings in South Africa; another development has been the discovery of deposits of uranium ore in Australia. The other sources of supply are producing at about the rate they were when the committee last met.
Committee on Atomic Energy
In the field of isotopes Canada has made a very valuable contribution in many directions. Perhaps the most spectacular isotope application has been the cobalt bomb; at least that has been the most spectacular application. Six of the cobalt bombs are in operation today in Canada and in the United States, and two more will be in operation within a month or two. The demand for the bombs is greater than Canada can supply in any reasonable time. The Canadian pile happens to be the only one that can turn out cobalt 60 within a reasonably short time. We can do it at Chalk River very much quicker than any other pile. The use of isotopes is expanding rapidly in many fields, and their sale has become an important business. The Chalk River organization is on the point of erecting a special building in Ottawa to manufacture isotopes into various commercial applications.
The government has felt that the work of atomic energy should be concentrated under a management independent of the national research council. When the committee last visited Chalk River the property was being managed by the national research council; today it is being managed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a crown company formed some months ago. I think this was a constructive step.
The next problem facing those interested in atomic energy is the application of that energy to the production of power. Much progress has been made to that end; but much more needs to be done before we have an efficient application of this kind. In the United States it is common knowledge that an atomic-driven submarine is being developed. We also know that other applications of atomic energy for power are under construction.
Here in Canada we believe that the time has come to undertake the development of atomic power in this country, and discussions are going on as to ways and means of bringing about that development. We feel that the production of power is the concern of those who distribute power, organizations like the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, or the major privately-owned power companies.
It is hoped that arrangements can be worked out so that the knowledge of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited can be made available to these organizations, and that the organizations themselves can undertake the development work. I am sure the committee will be interested in examining that phase of the subject, and I know the government will

Committee on Atomic Energy be interested in obtaining the views of the committee as to whether that is a sound approach to a very important problem.
We do know that atomic power can be generated at a cost which at present is not as low as hydroelectric power, but which is very interesting, indeed, as applied to remote areas where hydro power is not available. It is my own belief, and that of others who are associated with the problem, that the development of atomic power will lead to lower costs, and a very interesting opportunity to enlarge our national resources in the field of power.
I do not know that I need say more at this time. I might add that all the resources of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and other crown organizations, will be at the disposal of the committee; and I predict that the members of that committee will have a most interesting experience in following its work.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is one debate in which we can all very well agree on the wisdom of the proposal under discussion. The official opposition heartily support the minister's motion to set up this special committee to examine into the operations of the government in the field of atomic energy, and we are grateful to the minister for the information he has given the house today.
As he knows, when the atomic energy control board was first set up in 1946, we took the stand that there should be some committee of the house, or a joint committee of the House and Senate, whose duty would be to keep in touch with the activities of the atomic energy control board. The government did not see fit to accept that suggestion; it was not until the fall session in 1949 that a committee of any sort was set up in the house. As the minister has indicated, there was then appointed a select committee to examine the activities of the atomic energy control board. The motion was worded somewhat differently from the one now before us, but I would imagine that the scope of the present motion will be about the same as that passed in the fall of 1949.
We had advocated that there should be a committee,- partly because of the situation in the United States. I admit at the outset that their legislative process is quite different from ours. But in that country the United States atomic energy commission has, and has had from the start, three Watchdog committees. One is known as the general advisory committee, another as the military liaison committee, and the third as the joint committee on atomic energy, this last named

being a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The general advisory committee is appointed by the president and consists of nine members, all of whom are outstanding men either in the scientific or in the business world. Their duty is to advise the commission on scientific and technical matters relating to materials, production, research and development. I presume in Canada we can get somewhat the same advice from the advisory body connected -with the national research council which consists of leading scientific men from different parts of Canada.
The military liaison committee in the United States has the duty of advising and consulting with the atomic energy commission on all atomic energy matters which it deems to relate to military applications, including the development, manufacture, use and storage of bombs, the allocation of fissionable material for military research, and the control of information relating to the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons. The first concern there has been the development of the atomic bomb and I suppose there has been far more need for a military liaison committee than would be the case in Canada.
However, there seems to be more reason why Canada should attempt to follow the United States provision for a committee of elected representatives. The purpose of that joint committee, which as I have said is composed of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, there being nine from each body, is to make continuing studies of the activities of the atomic energy commission and of problems relating to the development, use and control of atomic energy. That is set out in the twelfth semiannual report of the United States atomic energy commission, at page 53. The report goes on to say:
The committee is kept fully and currently informed with respect to the commission's activities. Legislation relating primarily to the commission or to atomic energy matters are referred to the committee.
They are supposed to be acting for congress. It is put very well in one of the reports of the United States atomic energy commission in this way:
The atomic energy act provides for very close relationship between the joint committee-
That is the joint committee of congress.
-and the atomic energy commission. This close relationship recognizes the somewhat unusual nature of the atomic energy program and appears to afford a continuing and thorough-going opportunity for the congress, through the joint committee, to keep informed of and to bring its ideas to bear upon the atomic energy commission program.

The minister has said that in Canada we have followed the practice of appointing a committee to review the program of our atomic energy control board, apparently once every three years. Of course there is a vast difference between an arrangement of that kind and a plan such as the United States is following. I hope that the government will give some further thought to this question because it does seem vital that the House of Commons, and for that matter the Senate, of Canada should be tied in more closely with atomic energy developments in this country.
I put that forward as a suggestion to the minister for consideration as to what the course should be in the future.
I had the privilege of serving on the committee which was set up in 1949. I notice that the same members are to be appointed this year with the exception that the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Murray) replaces the Hon. Louis Breithaupt, who is now the lieutenant-governor of Ontario. I have never served on a committee where the work was more interesting or where there was more co-operation, and I give some credit for that to the chairman, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). We had worth-while sessions and I am sure that all hon. members who are going back on the new committee are delighted that they are to have that opportunity.
I must say also that I was much impressed by the spirit of the young Canadians who are carrying on this atomic energy work for Canada. I have never encountered such high morale or esprit de corps as we found at Chalk River and Deep River except in the Canadian corps during the late years of the first war. As a matter of fact, the attitude of the young men at Chalk River reminded me very much of the attitude of the young Canadians in those war years.
Those young men and women are doing a grand job for Canada. I am sure that many of them could be earning larger salaries in the United States or other countries, but as one of them expressed it to me, "Oh, this is so exciting I would not leave for anything." I presume the spirit is much the same at the present time. We were also greatly impressed with the attitude of the universities of Canada. They have taken a major share in the development of this atomic energy program and deserve great credit from the Canadian people.
As the minister has said, in 1949 the main interest was the development of atomic energy for defence purposes. At that time its use for civilian purposes was considered to be remote, in fact so remote that, as I remember, the committee did not spend much time in
Committee on Atomic Energy considering that side of the problem. However, it now turns out that atomic energy will be available for power purposes much sooner than had been anticipated. I notice in the report of our own atomic energy control board for the fiscal year 1951-52 there is reference to that fact at page 8 in the following words:
The increasing industrial aspects of this project arising out of the construction of the new reactor and the growing view that large-scale industrial application of atomic energy was closer at hand than had been expected, however, have made it desirable that this project be operated by a separate organization without other responsibilities.
The report then went on to tell of the setting up of a new crown company known as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It, by the way, is under the presidency of Dr. C. J. Mackenzie, who was formerly president of the national research council and who certainly deserves a great deal of the credit for the success which Canada has achieved.
I notice, in checking the reports from the United States, that they are now working on a second submarine, and that also they are working on, I think it is called, a "prototype power reactor" for aircraft. I have here the thirteenth semi-annual report of the United States atomic energy commission which was issued just a few days ago. It says:
A contract was entered into for developing a reactor to supply power for a large naval vessel such as an aircraft carrier.
Also:
Work began on a testing facility for prototype nuclear power plants for aircraft.
A press dispatch dated January 29 of this year from New York reads as follows:
Atomic energy to run industrial power plants and light homes is possible within two years-one authority predicts today-if congress and the defence department would permit it.
A big utility company goes him one better and says it may be ready within one year to build an atomic power plant and feed its juice into existing electric lines in the Detroit area.
Dispatches of about the same time indicate that in the United Kingdom they are also preparing to build or are actually building an atomic power plant to produce power for use in industry.
So, I think, our main interest is now in the potentialities of atomic energy in the civilian field, and primarily as a source of power. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that brings parliament even more directly into the picture. As a parliament we are really very deeply and directly involved in this development. I might give some reasons for that submission.

Committee on Atomic Energy
In the first place, in Canada the state or the government has assumed all the responsibility for purchasing the raw material, uranium. For a time the government had all the responsibility also for discovering uranium; but now, I believe, private industry is encouraged to do the mining but the government, through the Eldorado Refining company, purchases all of the uranium. Also, the state is entirely responsible for the manufacture of any products of this uranium and for the distribution of those products. Some day, and I take it from what the minister has said today that the day has just about arrived in Canada, a decision will have to be made as to the extent to which private industry will participate. I doubt very much whether the government can go on indefinitely assuming the whole and complete responsibility.
I notice that the Americans are having the same problem. They moved, some months ago, to further the participation of industry in the atomic energy program. For example, I find in the twelfth semi-annual report of the atomic energy commission, at page 2:
The progress of power reactor development and of studies by industrial teams on possible combinations of plutonium and power production, along with the mounting impact of atomic energy progress upon the industrial community of the nation, led to the establishment of an office of industrial development . . . This office . . . maintains a positive, continous link-up between American industry, large and small, and the atomic energy program for purposes of the widest possible participation of industry in the program, and the widest possible service of the atomic energy program to industry.
This twelfth report also indicates that for the first time industry was being permitted to build one of the reactors. All the rest were built by the commission; apparently permission had been given for one privately owned reactor.
Then in the thirteenth report, the latest report, we find that they really have come up against the problem of what part industry is to play, and on page 3 we find this:
Highly important for the long pull in the nuclear power field, industrial firms and leaders have evinced a solid and a growing interest in power reactor development. This interest was indicated in part by the increasing number of suggestions that the atomic energy act be revised to encourage further industrial activity. These suggestions raise policy issues as atomic energy development enters its second decade.
It is hard for us to realize that it is now over ten, years since atomic energy work first began.
The considerations involved are neither few nor simple. Pages could be filled with the main questions of policy and the smaller questions of detail which follow in their train.

On page 23 we find a further reference to the same problem as follows:
The anticipated large-scale participation by industry raises unique policy and contractual problems on such matters as ownership of plants, licensing and use of fissionable materials, secrecy, patent rights, public safety, and liability in case of disaster. Such broad questions require that decisions be reached in collaboration with other government agencies.
Now, Canada will be faced with those same problems and the responsibility, in the long run, will have to rest on the Canadian parliament.
Then another reason why I say we are directly involved is the cost. The country has to finance this program and, as I read the estimates for the coming fiscal year, there will be nearly $20 million required for the atomic energy control board. The minister can correct me if I am wrong in that, but I think the figure is approximately correct.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it is too high, but I suppose that is one matter the committee can look into.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the figures are found on page 45 of the estimates, under "National research council and atomic energy control board", and they add up this way: Administration expenses of the atomic energy control board, grants for research, current operation and maintenance of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, construction or acquisition of buildings-a total of $12,466,888. Then there is an item on page 75 to provide for advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and so on, $7,111,980, and also $300,000 to provide working capital for the new crown company. The figures taken together total between $19 and $20 million, and for the fiscal year which is expiring on March 31 the figure is about $17-5 million. In any event, a lot of money is involved and it is the responsibility of parliament to pass those votes and, of course, to see that the money is properly expended.
There is a third reason why parliament is directly involved in this program, and that is the tremendously widespread effect that atomic energy is bound to have on our national economy. Parliament must obtain the knowledge necessary to shape wise policies on this question. This cannot be achieved if none of the members of the house know what is being done. We cannot have wise policies adopted here if members of the house do not have information as to what is taking place. For all these reasons, I repeat that parliament is directly involved. I believe that the committee can be a great help, perhaps not only to those who are taking part in the program but also to other members of parliament.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that atomic energy forms one part, and a very important part, of the fascinating picture of the future Canada which is unfolding before our eyes. We are in the front rank in this new development. I believe our production of uranium is the second largest in the world Perhaps I am wrong in that. I believe that Belgium-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is third at present, but I think it will be second when the Beaver-lodge comes into operation.


Howard Charles Green: It was second at one time, apparently. Is United States second now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: And Canada is third.


Mr. Brooks:: Do we know how much is being developed in Russia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: In addition, we have been connected with this development from the start. The United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have been partners from the beginning in working out the whole atomic energy program. We stand, therefore, in a very favourable position. If we take our position with regard to atomic power, water power, coal, oil and natural gas, I believe that together they make it possible for us to develop Canada into one of the leading nations of the world.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we of the C.C.F. welcome wholeheartedly this motion to establish once again the special committee on atomic energy. When we are dealing with this subject we realize it is a most fascinating field, indeed one that excites the imagination. I think perhaps many of us believe that the day will come when the realities that arise from atomic energy will be even greater than our imaginations might portray.
We are particularly glad to know the extent to which our activities in the field of atomic energy relate to finding ways and means of using its power in peacetime pursuits and in the field of medicine. I suppose the world as a whole will not soon forget that the first inkling we had that atomic energy was with us was in its use for destructive purposes at the end of world war II. We still think of it in terms of the extent to which it might bring wholesale destruction. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there have been other discoveries and other inventions across the years, which men of those days thought would bring the end of the world. Instead, those discoveries and those inventions have led to a higher standard of living and greater pro-
Committee on Atomic Energy ductivity for the good of mankind. I am one of those who believe that if we can keep our heads in respect of international affairs, along the lines suggested in another speech earlier today, we might live to see the day when we can forget the extreme dangers involved in atomic energy and enjoy the untold benefits which it holds for mankind.
I am sure that all of us, as Canadians, are particularly proud of the part Canada has played in the development of atomic energy. We hope that very real progress can be made in the next few years, particularly in relation to power for peacetime industry and in relation to the use of this marvellous discovery to aid the health of mankind.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I find myself in sympathy with a good deal of what he said. There is, of course, one point where we part a bit, and that is when it comes to the question of the relationship between public authority and private enterprise so far as atomic energy is concerned. There are those who will see plausibility in the case he was making, but it does seem to me that atomic energy is so important to the people as a whole that a policy of public control is extremely important. In that connection, we support the position that has been taken by the government thus far. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that further discussion might be had in the committee as to the relationship between parliament and the executive in connection with this matter, but I do urge that public control of the development of atomic energy be maintained.
There are other thoughts, Mr. Speaker, that one might develop at this time, but I think it is perhaps unnecessary to do so. I may take this opportunity, particularly because my leader happens to be out of the house having had to go and record a broadcast, to say that we are very pleased that he is not only able to be back with us in the house but that he can take his place again on this special committee on atomic energy. He found it of great interest when he was a member four years ago, and I am sure he was able to make a contribution to the discussions of that committee which will be repeated on this occasion.
Having said that, and since my leader is not here to check me for saying what I am now going to say on behalf of those in this group, I want to say that we were most grateful to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for the kind words of welcome he extended to our leader when he was able to return to the house yesterday.
2016	HOUSE OF
Committee on Atomic Energy
With those few comments, I am happy to indicate our wholehearted support of this motion for the establishment of this committee.


Solon Earl Low: I feel it would be unnecessary for me to launch into a long speech this afternoon in connection with the motion that has been moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). But I think it is wise for me to indicate, on behalf of my colleagues, that we are happy that he has brought forward this resolution and is preparing to set up the committee on atomic energy again this year. I also express to the minister my appreciation for the way in which, in 1949, he facilitated all the arrangements, as far as it was humanly possible to do so, so that we should have the fullest investigation into atomic energy development at that time.
I was a member of the committee in 1949 and I greatly enjoyed my work. In fact, I do not know when I have served on a committee that intrigued me quite so much as did this one. I think I can subscribe fully to what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver -Quadra (Mr. Green) when he stated that the committee was unified. They went at their work with zest and energy; and I believe we came out of it with a fund of information, at least on our own level, that we could appreciate. As far as we could understand the whole project, I think we came out perfectly satisfied that the government's policy was good, that it was sound and that they were making the right kind of progress.
In the course of our investigation we learned that the major use being made of the plutonium or the fissionable materials that were being manufactured was for defence purposes in case we ever had to use them. Nevertheless, we felt that the project at Chalk River was most important and necessary. I hope nobody will do as the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) did last night; that is, hook on to what I have just now said and claim that because we support the government in its effort to supply a certain amount of fissionable material for atomic bombs, we therefore stand for war. That kind of thing is foolish; it is childish. We stand for the best possible use of what we have at hand to meet situations that now confront us as well as situations that may develop in the years ahead.
I detest the idea and the thought of having to use atomic energy for destructive purposes. When I say that, I think I am expressing the feeling of every member of that committee. I do not believe there was a person on it at any time who felt that it was a good thing


for us to be spending our energy and our materials in the development of a substance that could blow into smithereens thousands of people and millions of dollars worth of property. But we must be realistic. As long as we are living in a world that is divided, as is the world today, into two hostile camps, I think it is essential in the interests of humanity that we keep ourselves prepared. I also think that what Canada has been doing in the development of atomic energy may have contributed in no small way to the maintenance of peace up to this time. The very fact that we are in a position to defend ourselves in the free world has, I think, been a source of strength that has prevented aggression.
But what I am most anxious about now is how we shall be able to develop atomic energy for use in peacetime. I welcomed the statement the minister made this afternoon. I think he used some such words as these: The time has now come for the development of power using atomic energy. I think that is an exceedingly encouraging statement. When we were studying atomic energy at Chalk River and in the committee in 1949 I believe we were given the impression that perhaps the development of atomic energy for peacetime purposes, or at least its application for the development of power, might be quite a number of years ahead. I believe one of the things we were told at that time was that the high temperatures required to develop power in sufficient quantity to make it economical and worth while would require a type of material, for containing the little pile itself, that could withstand these terrific temperatures, and that nothing had yet been developed that could do so. I believe we were told at that time that in the field of ceramics certain highly interesting work had been going on and that in that field they might find the answer to the great need for a material that could withstand these terrifically high temperatures.
Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to learning what progress has been made in that direction since 1949. I am also anxious to see every possible development in the field of atomic energy so that outlying places- those remote areas that need power-will be able to have it without having to pay the terrific costs now involved in carrying it overland for the great distances that it has to be carried. It looks to me as though the development of atomic energy for that purpose is feasible, and opens up great possibilities for the building of fairly large centres in the remoter areas of our country. It will be

Committee on Atomic Energy intensely interesting to see just what has what this country has achieved in the way been achieved in the three years since we last of leadership in the world in this particular studied this matter.	form of energy.
Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I have been interested in following the developments in the field of medicine, particularly with regard to isotopes and cobalt bombs. From what the minister said this afternoon I understand that six of those bombs have now been made available to various universities and medical centres, and that perhaps two more are in process of manufacture. I hope I am right when I say I believe one of those is earmarked for the university in Edmonton, or else they already have one; at least we have been looking for one for some time. Our cancer clinics and research and development bodies in that area have certainly shown the need for a cobalt bomb.
The development of isotopes or the use of activated materials has been of tremendous importance not only in the field of medicine but also in industry. I have been keenly interested in noting how they have been applied to industry for the perfection of the different materials that we have been making here. We in Canada stand in a preferred position in the world by virtue of the fact that we have gone so far in the development of atomic energy.
That fact is a testimony to the foresight of those men of vision who undertook the project in. the first place. I believe that to Dr. Mackenzie we owe something of a debt not only of gratitude but of recognition for the great work he has done. Mr. Speaker, without multiplying words at all, let me say that in 1949, when we visited the plant at Chalk River, we were shown every courtesy. Dr. Mackenzie and his splendid group of young scientists gave us every opportunity to see and to learn. They made available every possible facility and, as I said, were extremely courteous in every way. We appreciated that, and I am looking forward to feeling that same exhilaration that I felt in 1949. May I say too that the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), also contributed greatly to the success of the committee's sittings in 1949. I heartily support the resolution this afternoon.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: should like to say a few words on the motion to set up this atomic energy committee. I think it is a step in the right direction. It will give hon. members some insight into our atomic energy commitments, and just
I should like to compliment the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on the position that Canada finds herself in with regard to atomic energy. It is a tribute to his foresight that we are one of the world leaders so far as atomic energy is concerned, and we have attained that position at a very moderate investment as compared with other countries that have invested in atomic energy. Foresight was required to put us in this position. Foresight and the Minister of Trade and Commerce are pretty well synonymous so far as the people of this country are concerned. Most people do not realize just what we owe to that foresight, not only as regards atomic energy but in other matters in which he has led the way in so far as Canada is concerned. Certainly we in the riding of Meadow Lake are indebted to that foresight.
In 1946 a major uranium strike was made when they found the St. Louis fault at Beaverlodge lake. Under the Minister of Trade and Commerce we were not very long in going in there and developing it on a national basis. It was the first actual development of any kind that occurred in that part of Saskatchewan. Since then it has attracted some private companies that have also gone in and done some development work. Previous to that it was a straight prospecting business.
The development of uranium is a very costly affair. But as a national asset we will realize a great deal from the money we have expended in this area. By the time they have their new concentrator running, possibly at the end of May of this year, the Eldorado Mining and Refining company will have spent approximately $17 million in development work at Beaverlodge. During that time they have proved a body of ore 1,000 feet in depth at half a dozen levels. At the various levels where they have projected into the rock face for over some 360 feet they have shown that there is a vein of pitchblende assaying somewhere between $50 and $450 a ton, from 3 feet wide to 16 feet wide, so that an ore body of some considerable magnitude has already been proved.
That is just in one shaft. It is proposed to take out 500 tons a day as soon as the concentrator is ready for operation, and to later increase that to 2,000 tons a day out of the one shaft. In other words it is proposed to run during the first year at about 25 per cent of capacity in that shaft. Altogether there are four of these shafts that the Eldorado company has sunk, and I
2018	HOUSE OF
Committee on Atomic Energy understand that one of them is even more promising than the one that I have just been discussing.
If you take the minimum value of the ore that has been taken out, which assays $50 a ton, you will And that we will get back more than $9 million at 25 per cent capacity of the first shaft in the first twelve months of operation, so you can see that at the very minimum we will be only two years in getting our money back if we maintain only a 25 per cent production in the first shaft. When all four shafts are at their maximum production it is only a proposition of arithmetic, knowing the ore that has been proven there, to show that this will be a national asset of the magnitude of some $250 million a year as soon as it is brought into full production.
That entails only the government mine. It has been instrumental in bringing in private mines around its outer perimeter. We have such firms as Nesbitt-La Bine who are also spending considerable money in development work. They have a shaft some 350 feet in depth, and are developing levels. When I was talking to some of their experts they told me that they were assured of a very high grade ore which is running at $58 a ton minimum.
The impact of atomic energy is possibly not realized by many people, but it will have a great bearing on our future way of life. As the steam engine changed society, and the advent of the combustion engine also had a very great impact on our way of life, so atomic energy will have an even greater impact as time goes on.
When the atom is discussed as a weapon most people stand somewhat in awe of it. What they think of is the atom bomb wiping out whole cities. Many people do not realize that it has been a great deterrent as far as the expansion of communism is concerned. In effect we have been basking under the umbrella of atomic energy in this country and in all the free world for the last four or five years. I do not think we would be in the peaceful situation in which we now find ourselves if we had not had atomic energy as a weapon. Therefore it is one of the major elements in our society.
Uranium, the component of atomic energy, is the basic material out of which atomic energy is composed. It is the major metal, shall I say, in the world today. Hon. members might be interested in Uranium City. It is something that you see in the press from day to day. When you hear that name you immediately conjure up a fair-sized city. Three


years ago it did not exist except on a planning board. It is provincial land in Saskatchewan on the shore of Martin lake, which is about three or four miles from the Eldorado mines, and was laid out by the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will consider private and public bills.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935 (payment for farm storage).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased again to move second reading of a bill to amend the wheat board act in order that farm storage shall be paid to producers. Before entering upon a discussion of the bill, as this is the first opportunity I have had I should like to welcome the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) back to Canada. I hope his trip met with every success and that it will result in expanding trade for Canada in the future.
This is a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Members of this group believe in the wheat board system of marketing grain. We believe the principle of having the wheat board handle all grains is sound, and we would like to see the act amended so that it might be broadened to cover the marketing of all grains, and not be confined as it now is to wheat, oats and barley.
Recently in this session I have not directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in regard to the international wheat agreement discussions. But may I express the hope that the negotiations will be successful in providing a new international agreement, with such increases in prices as have been sought by the farmers of western Canada. Certainly I for one would be greatly disappointed if the conference failed and if, as wheat producers, we had to face the future without an adequate international wheat agreement, because I think such an agreement would provide a greater degree of security for farmers in the production of their grain.
If this bill were adopted by parliament it would leave it to the wheat board to decide during what length of time farm storage would be paid, but it would make it mandatory that in each pool period such farm storage should be paid.
For the benefit of hon. members who do not come from the three prairie provinces

perhaps I should explain that this bill does not ask for any further expenditure from the federal treasury, but merely asks for a somewhat different distribution of the moneys the wheat board receives from the marketing of grain. I might add that it would not be a substantial redistribution, but one that would, I believe, contain some distinct advantages for prairie producers.
During the last two or three years we have seen the carryover of grain steadily increasing. Recently we had a bumper crop; and because of that crop, following as it did two previous large crops, we have now on hand in Canada a large quantity of grain. In order to deal fairly with that situation I feel two things are needed, one of which is farm storage as suggested by this bill and the other an advance payment on farm-stored grain. I believe if those two measures were adopted it would greatly increase the security of the farmer in the production of grain.
At an earlier point in the session I tried to obtain legislation which would make provision for an advance payment to farmers on farm-stored grain. I can think of no better security for such advance payments than grain in sound storage on Canadian farms. While a number of farmers can go to the banks to obtain loans, the smaller farmers, who very often have a substantial debt, find it difficult to obtain the necessary advances from the banks.
This bill is confined to only one aspect of the matter, and that is the payment of a storage rate for grain stored on the farms. However, along with that I would like to see legislation, which has been of value elsewhere, for an advance payment in respect of that grain so stored. I might point out that in the United States their commodity credit corporation has for many years made provision for loans for farm-stored grain, and I believe such loans have been to the advantage of the farmers in that country. It has not been difficult from the standpoint of administration, and has worked well. I have seen no suggestion in the United States that its legislation should be withdrawn. I would like to see similar legislation in Canada adapted to our particular circumstances. Such legislation would make provision whereby farmers could obtain advances on farm-stored grain.
If this bill were to pass, the wheat board would find its administration quite simple. Similar farm storage payments were made in the early years of the war. These payments were effected through a small increase in the initial payments, based upon the then storage rates. If such a bill were now
Canadian Wheat Board Act accepted the wheat board would periodically increase the initial price to the extent of a quarter, a half or one cent per bushel, depending upon the period between increases in the price of wheat.
The mechanics of the legislation therefore would be simple. The wheat board would find no difficulty in matters of administration, and it would not be costly. There are some hundreds of grades of wheat, and for each grade there is a different price. The wheat board, upon being asked to adjust those various prices by an amount equal to the farm storage rate, would add little or no additional administrative costs.
I believe such a storage payment is desirable because it would enable farmers who, through no fault of their own, must keep grain on their farms, to obtain some compensation for the added expense involved. Even in a given community, with a given quota, some farmers find it more difficult than others to market their grain at an early date. The farmer with modern equipment, operating even a large farm, can harvest his crop in a relatively short time and can usually haul out his quota immediately. The smaller farmer, however, cannot do this. He may have to wait on a custom combine and he may not have adequate facilities for hauling his own grain.
Therefore in a given community one farmer has not the same opportunity to dispose of his grain as have others.
Then of course there is inequality as between various marketing points. One reason there is inequality is the fact that country elevator storage space is not and cannot be evenly distributed. Even if it were evenly distributed on the basis of any given formula, the fact that in some areas there are large crops while there are smaller crops in other areas would mean that relative to the crop that was produced the elevator storage space at some points would be inadequate.
One of the main causes of inequality is the fact that the quotas established from time to time, with the exception of the initial quotas, vary from one elevator marketing point to another. When I spoke a year ago on this subject I was able to point out what I considered were grave inequalities anu bring them to the attention of the minister. I remember pointing out at one time that at a neighbouring marketing point the quota was 8 bushels per acre but very few farmers had delivered grain. Finally the farmers awoke one morning to find that the quota had been increased from 8 to 12 bushels per acre. Even though the vast majority of them had delivered only a small part of the original 8-bushel quota, that is what happened.
2020	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I am happy to say that the wheat board has improved this year on its system of quotas. There is not the same variation or disparity in the quotas as between one area and another which prevailed last year. I believe that one of the main reasons the quotas have been more equitable is the fact that the quota was not taken off this fall for a period of three weeks, as it was the year before, thus enabling certain farmers to market a large part of their crop while other farmers who had been unable to thresh at that time were unable to haul an equivalent amount of grain until months later.
I want to pay this tribute to the wheat board. In my opinion their quota system has been improved substantially over the previous year. I am sure the wheat board cannot establish the quotas it would like to establish because that depends so greatly upon the box car situation. If box cars were distributed evenly to all marketing points, then the wheat board could increase the quota at an even rate all across the three prairie provinces.
A year ago last fall I found that the box car shortage was very critical at many marketing points. There were complaints from farmers at many points that they had had few box cars, in some instances over a period of months. The same situation was brought to my attention this fall, but I must say that it concerned a relatively smaller number of points. I believe that the box car distribution this past fall was improved over the distribution of a year ago.
I might mention one example. I went into the marketing point of Drinkwater during the Christmas recess, and the elevator agents there told me that most farmers, but not all, had the week or two before marketed their 8-bushel quota, but that before all farmers had had an opportunity to market that quota, the 8-bushel quota had been raised to 12 bushels without any request by the elevator agents. I took that up with the transport controller, Mr. R. Milner, and I must say that he took very quick action, because in a short time substantial numbers of box cars were spotted at that marketing point and the farmers were thus enabled to market an increased quantity of grain. I imagine that in the main it helped those farmers who had not at that time marketed their full 8-bushel quota. So I say that there has been an improvement in the general quota distribution.
If the quota were established at the same figure and kept at an even figure throughout the prairie provinces during all the crop year there would be no purpose in my presenting this bill. The fact is that even though the


initial quota is established at a given figure, the increase that takes place in the quota is not even,. Because that increase is not made in an even manner, you have discrimination between farmers hauling to one point and those who haul to another. Some farmers must wait months in order to have their first quota increased, while others have a 15-bushel quota established at an early date. I feel that those farmers at a point where the quota is kept low have legitimate reason to ask the wheat board to pay farm storage. There is no reason why farmers should not be given more equitable treatment than has been given even during the present year by the established wheat board quotas.
Another matter that might be mentioned in connection with equality is the marketing of barley. I cannot speak as to the situation across all western Canada, but I do know what it was at my own marketing point. The initial quota for wheat was 5 bushels per acre, and the initial quota for barley was 4 bushels per acre. For a long time the elevator companies at that marketing point bought no barley. They told me they were under wheat board orders to fill all box cars being spotted with milling grades of wheat. Therefore the farmer who had grown a substantial acreage of barley was unable to haul any barley for a long time. As a matter of fact it is only in recent weeks that farmers have been able to haul barley to the elevators in any substantial quantities.
Even though wheat quotas had been kept absolutely the same throughout the three prairie provinces, if the barley quota were too low then those men who concentrate on the production of barley would be in a position of inequality as compared to the producer of wheat. That is another reason why the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) should consider allowing this bill to pass so that farm storage payments shall be made.
Before leaving this particular aspect may I say there is another reason why I feel farm storage payments would be of advantage. As hon. members from western Canada know, the marketing situation at the present time has in it very little of the basic elements of the free enterprise system which so many members in this house support. It has not in it the basic element of competition because in most instances the farmer is not free to haul his grain to the elevator of his own choice; he is forced through economic circumstances to haul grain to the elevator which has space available. So you find that farmers who would like to haul only to the line company elevator, shall we say, feel that they must of necessity haul part of their crop

Canadian Wheat Board Act
to the pool elevator system when, there is room in the local pool elevator. A very large number of farmers in the past, when there was space in all elevators, were pool men 100 per cent but during the past few years they have distributed their grain amongst the various elevator companies operating at that point on the basis of the storage that was available, and because they required to sell their grain.
If we paid farm storage that would not remedy that situation, but I do believe that it would be of some help to farmers who prefer one type of elevator system more than the other. It would be some compensation and some inducement for them to store their grain and finally haul it out to the elevator of their choice. Certainly we have not the basic elements of the free enterprise system in so far as the farmer selling his grain is concerned. He just goes down, talks to the elevator man and says: "Have you got room for a load of grain?" The first one who says yes usually gets the load of grain within an hour or two. I feel that, in order to better enable farmers to haul their grain to the elevator of their own choice, a farm storage payment should be provided.
We already have, of course, payment of storage now; but that payment is made by the wheat board to the elevator companies, and there is no complaint about that. It is a legitimate charge on the cost of handling grain and the elevator companies are paid what seems to me a reasonable storage rate. Even with an increase in the country elevator storage facilities, as there has been over the last few years, nevertheless for a given period of time most farmers must store on their own farms almost all their grain. So a farmer has to provide his own storage, and then the elevator companies provide storage at the elevator marketing point. In any year, except perhaps when there is a bumper crop, the farmers will have sufficient storage on their own farms to store their own grain, and the elevator companies have a certain amount of storage at the elevator marketing points. So farmers are forced now to provide their own storage facilities and the wheat board of course pays them no storage.
The elevator companies are in a preferred position in that respect. They are paid by the Canadian wheat board a storage rate for all grain they have on hand. I see by the Canadian wheat board report for the crop year ending July 31,	1952, that the carrying
charges on wheat stored in country elevators amounted to some $15,300,000. So storage is being paid now by the wheat board, and the
purpose of this bill is to extend that payment of storage so that farmers may be placed in the same category.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), speaking in this debate last year, at page 1711 of Hansard had this to say:
A point has been made of the fact that the farmer pays storage to the elevators. He pays only that storage which is incidental to getting his wheat, oats or barley to market in the shortest possible time. The grain is not purposely held in the country elevators.
I think the farmer today is paying something more than for sufficient storage at country elevator points to get the grain into box cars and moved to the lakehead as quickly as possible.
I cannot remember a time at our local marketing point, that is in the last two or three years, when the elevators did not have substantial quantities of grain on hand and when there was not grain available for loading into box cars. I notice that from 1949 to 1952 there has been a substantial increase in the licensed storage capacity of country elevators. In 1949 the storage capacity of country elevators was 262| million bushels. That has been increased until in 1952 there was storage for approximately 305 million bushels. There has been in that three-year period an increase in the country elevator storage capacity of 42 i million bushels. Of course farmers are paying the storage on the grain that is stored in that additional storage space; and if that additional 42| million bushels of storage space were filled with grain it would cost the prairie producers $425,000 a month.
My point is that if the 262J million bushels of space available in 1949 was sufficient storage space at country elevator points for farmers to market their grain and allow the grain to be moved to the lakehead at a rapid rate, then this increase of 42J million bushels of storage space is merely gravy for the elevator companies and is not necessary, and is adding very little in the way of improving the farmers' marketing facilities.
I believe the western producers would overwhelmingly support this legislation. I have gone over the records of the three prairie farm unions and last year I placed certain resolutions on Hansard. I see I have not time enough to do so this year; but the Alberta farmers' union, the Saskatchewan farmers' union and the Manitoba farmers' union in convention, by way of resolutions and in presentations to the Canadian wheat board and other departments of the federal government, have advocated payment of farm storage. I must admit that in the correspondence I have had with the farmers' own

Canadian Wheat Board Act elevator companies I have found their position in regard to this legislation was, I believe, fairly described last year when I said that they were more or less neutral. I took it from their correspondence that they were not advocating this legislation, but they were also not opposing it.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce in discussing this question last year seemed to have two main points in opposing it. For example, he said at page 1709 of Hansard that it would constitute an impediment in the marketing of grain:
I am sure the hou. member will agree with me that no impediment should be put in the way of getting saleable wheat delivered to the wheat board and delivered by the board to ocean ships as rapidly as the market will absorb it.
He said on the next page:
Surely no inducement should be held out to any producer which would induce him to avoid delivering his grain when that grain is needed by the wheat board.
And on the next page:
I think that the first test that I would apply is this. Is it a good thing for all the farmers of western Canada that certain people should hold back their grain when it is possible to deliver it to the elevators? I say that farm storage does not produce a beneficial result.
Well, I do not think the passage of this bill would induce farmers to hold back their grain to the point where the wheat board would be short of grain and could not get grain to the lakehead. As I said earlier I think our experience in the last three years has been that on almost every occasion when elevators are full of grain, the thing that has held up the delivery of grain has not been the lack of grain but lack of box cars and transportation facilities. I suggest, therefore, that the passage of this legislation would not be an inducement that would result in a large number of farmers keeping vast quantities of grain on the farm, to the point where the board would not have grain available to meet its commitments.
I will admit that there are some farmers who, perhaps, would be encouraged-the minister said some farmers with large farms -to hold their grain. What is the percentage of large farms in western Canada? You might define a large operator as a farmer with more than five quarter-sections of land. From the census I find that in Saskatchewan, out of 112,000 farmers there are less than 8 per cent in that category. According to the income tax statistics in 1950, less than 10 per cent of the farmers in Saskatchewan paid income tax. They pay income tax when they earn more than $2,000, if married and without dependents. The income tax department is very efficient out there and

collects income tax when it is owing. Only 10 per cent of the farmers earned sufficient net income in 1950 to be taxable. I suggest that unless a farmer were in that 10 per cent group, he certainly would not be inclined to hold large quantities of grain on his farm. Unless he is earning more than $2,000 a year, the chances are that he has a lot of obligations to meet and would require to market his grain as rapidly as possible.
The provisions of this bill would permit the wheat board to end the payment of farm storage whenever it saw fit. I would be very much in favour of the wheat board saying, for instance in a year like this, when the total quantity of grain the wheat board could receive is 18 bushels per seeded acre, let us say, that once farmers in western Canada have had the opportunity of marketing 18 bushels per acre, then at that time the payment of farm storage should be discontinued. Until such a point has been reached I feel that, on the basis of equality, farm storage payments should be made.
In dealing with this matter last year the minister made the point that there was already equity in the quota system. He said that if there were real inequity, perhaps legislation like this might be adopted. He said this, as recorded at page 1711 of Hansard for April 29, 1952:
As to equal opportunity to market grain, I say that opportunity is protected by the quota system. The quota system applies equally everywhere.
Even though the situation has improved this year, the quota system certainly does not apply equitably everywhere. For instance, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on November 24, the minister had this to say as recorded at page 17 of Hansard:
The Canadian wheat board started out the crop year with a delivery quota for new crop wheat of 5 bushels per acre, and announced that this quota would be increased as circumstances permitted. Today there are only 264 delivery points still on the 5 bushel quota; 913 points are on an 8 bushel quota; 377 on a 10 bushel quota; 178 on a 12 bushel quota; and 349 on a 15 bushel quota.
So there is inequality demonstrated there While 349 delivery points are on a 15 bushel quota, 264 delivery points are on a 5 bushel quota.
A little later on in his statement the minister said:
After December 1, however, the board and the railways will be able to concentrate on the points which have the lowest delivery quotas and a policy of "equalization" will be followed.
That is a good objective. If the minister would agree with the principle of this bill, then I would say we would be achieving

Canadian Wheat Board Act
equality in an economic sense, and that could also be brought about if the quotas were the same at all marketing points at all times.
In reply to a question of mine on January 30, the parliamentary assistant to the minister gave us some additional information as to the quotas prevailing at that time. He said that the delivery quotas in the province of Manitoba have been at 15 bushels per seeded acre for all grains since December 9, 1952. As of January 30, the delivery quotas for all grains at all stations in Alberta were raised to 15 bushels per seeded acre. Thus Manitoba had an over-all quota of 15 bushels on December 9, but Alberta producers had to wait until January 30 in order to get equality under the quota system. As of that particular date, January 30, Saskatchewan still had some 929 elevator points out of a total of 1,109 below the 15-bushel quota. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is desirable in order to provide a greater measure of equality as amongst producers in regard to the marketing of their grain.
If the wheat board found it possible to keep the same quotas prevailing at all prairie points at all times, then I would say such legislation as this would be unnecessary. But as long as certain areas must wait for months after other areas have had their quotas increased, then I feel that on the basis of equality such legislation should be passed.
I am not at all afraid, particularly under a condition of large surpluses of grain such as we have now on our farms in the west, that the payment of the regular storage rate would result in vast quantities of grain being kept on the farms to the point that the wheat board would be short of grain to fulfil its commitments. I just do not think that would be so. I believe the payment of farm storage would make little difference in the quantity of grain that was made available to the wheat board at any time. If the wheat board in the early part of the crop year must get grain from the short-haul areas, then the wheat board should make provision for those farmers who must wait weeks or months in order to have the same opportunity. Some compensation, in the form of storage payments, should be paid in order that in the final analysis all producers of grain in Canada may be placed on a more equitable basis.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: First of all,
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I will sum up our stand in a few words. We believe that in the past the wheat board has done a good job. We believe in the continuation of the wheat board as the sole marketing
agency. We do not want to do anything that will increase the administrative costs of the wheat board, unless it can be shown that the benefits accruing to the farmer will be commensurate with the increase in cost.
On the face of it, this proposition sounds very good. The proposition, as many farmers see it, is that instead of paying storage only to the elevators we shall be paying storage to the farmers as well, and that there will not be any additional charges against the price of the wheat provided that the amount paid to the elevators is reduced by the amount that is paid to the farmers. Unfortunately it will not work out that way. The reason is that in the past it has always been the custom for many farmers to hold their wheat. They have not received storage payments for holding it. If this bill becomes effective, therefore, in the future those farmers will receive storage payments and that will reduce the price of the wheat to the rest of the farmers who are not getting storage payments.
The reason farmers have made it a practice in the past to hold wheat is, I think, obvious. In the days before the wheat board the farmers used to hold their wheat in order to try to get a better price. It was not necessarily the larger farmer who adopted that practice. I would say it was the farmer who was stronger financially and in a position to hold it for that reason. He was not necessarily a large farmer, but one with good land. Large farmers are not always the best off financially, although from the point of view of economics one might think they should be. However, that is not always the case.
Today there is no benefit to a farmer in holding wheat so far as the price is concerned, because he gets the price paid by the wheat board; that is, he gets the average price for the year. On the other hand there is a benefit in holding wheat in so far as the grade is concerned. In the some forty years that I have been farming, it has always been my experience that if you hold your wheat until spring you will get a better grade. The reason is obvious. It is that, as a rule, there is less competition in the spring than there is in the fall; that is, there are fewer farmers selling wheat in the spring than there are in the fall. The elevators are more anxious to get wheat; therefore they will give a better grade and often less dockage. I have found that by holding wheat I could generally gain a grade.
Then again there is, of course, the question of income tax. It has become quite an established practice in recent years for farmers to try to carry over as much wheat

Canadian Wheat Board Act as possible from one year to another in order to get the proceeds in the next year's income tax period, in the hope no doubt that the income tax would be reduced.


An hon. Member:: But they get fooled.


Victor Quelch: Unfortunately I think they have been fooled about that on many occasions. But they have always been very hopeful. Farmers are always optimistic. They hope that by diverting most of the delivery of wheat into another year, they will have a lower income tax to pay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All eyes are on Thursday night.


Victor Quelch: I do not think anybody would challenge the statement that it has been the practice of many farmers to hold their wheat; and they have done it without receiving any storage. The small farmer or the weaker farmer-instead of using the words "the small farmer" let me say "the weaker farmer financially"-cannot afford to hold his wheat. He must sell it just as fast as he can in order to meet his expenses. Therefore all storage payments would come out of the price of wheat. The small farmer would get less for his wheat whilst the large farmer or the strong farmer financially who holds his wheat and gets storage would get more. Personally I am not prepared to support a measure which appears to benefit the financially strong farmer at the expense of the weaker farmer.
Then again, you are bound to increase the administrative costs of the wheat board. In so far as the weaker farmer is concerned, he will get a lower price for his wheat. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) pointed out that farm organizations have supported the idea of farm storage. May I say that unfortunately there are many times when farm organizations have been under a delusion and have supported a thing which was not really beneficial to them. It is extremely interesting to note the attitude of the chairman of the wheat board on this question. He addressed the farmers' union of Alberta convention at Edmonton in December and this is what he had to say with regard to the proposal to pay farm storage, as reported in the Western Producer of December 18, 1952:
Payment of farm storage of grain is "in many ways a snare and a delusion," George Mclvor, Winnipeg, chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board told the delegates. In reply to a question, Mr. Mclvor made it clear that he was not in a position to speak concerning the federal government's attitude toward farm storage payments. But in his opinion western farmers should "take a good long look" before pressing such payments. Farm storage payment sounded all right,
[Mr. Quelch.1
but it had to be paid by the farmers themselves and came out of the farmers' sales price, said Mr. Mclvor.
"It's not pie-in-the-sky and farmers who hold wheat anyway for a variety of reasons will get the storage payments as well as the farmer who has to store grain because it cannot be accepted at the elevator."
Personally I think that was good advice on the part of the chairman of the wheat board. I think the reason farmers bought the idea of farm storage is that they think they are going to get back that amount in addition to their present price, and they appear to think that the government is going to pay the storage. They do not realize that the storage will come out of the price of the wheat, and that therefore they are not going to get any more. The only farmers who will get more are, as I say, the farmers who are financially able to hold their wheat. They will be able to get that storage at the expense of the weaker farmer. The weaker farmer will get less.
I would not call this a socialistic proposal by any means. I am rather surprised that the C.C.F. would be supporting a measure of this kind, because it certainly does not help the weaker farmer.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are talking for the
elevator companies.


Victor Quelch: No. It will not help the
elevator companies either way. Therefore, as the proposal will have the effect of increasing the administrative costs of the board-which come out of the price of the farmers' wheat- without giving any material benefits to the farmers who are most in need of them, we are not able to support the bill.
On the other hand, if the bill was for the purpose of providing approved farm storage against which loans could be made, we would certainly give it further consideration and support it. But that is a much different thing from this bill. This bill merely provides for payment of farm storage which, as I say, has to come out of the price of the wheat. If on the other hand you had a system of approved farm storage so that loans could be made against that wheat, the smaller farmer would be in a position to hold his wheat and get the benefit of the storage.
In the past we have advocated approved farm storage. I think it is a good idea. It is an accomplished fact in the United States, where provision is made for loans which can be made against the wheat held on the farm. I have here "Overseas Report on Agricultural Developments" issued by the economics division, marketing service, United

States department of agriculture, under date of February, 1953. I find that it states as follows:
Wheat which has been inspected and held in sealed storage on a producer's farm is eligible for a loan at the full support price level for the particular quality of the wheat and the particular location of the farm.
Therefore when people say that it would be extemely difficult to provide for a system of approved farm storage, the answer of course is that already in the United States that very thing is being done, and I do not think there is any reason why it could not be done in this country. But that is an entirely different proposal from the one that is before us at the present time. For the reasons I have given we are not prepared to support the measure.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words in support of this Bill No. 5. I am not able to follow all the arguments advanced by my good friend the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). As I see this bill, it is simply carrying the proposal for pooling somewhat further. As was stated by the proposer of the bill, it will not cost the taxpayer any money.


An hon. Member:: But it will cost the wheat growers money.


James Arthur Ross: You might well carry the same line of argument that my hon. friend has just advanced into the matter of the international wheat agreement and point out how much that deal has cost the wheat producers of this country. It is just as logical an argument.
As to the international wheat agreement, I am one of those who have not asked any questions of the minister or of his parliamentary assistant with regard to the negotiations now being carried on in Washington. But I should also like to say that if the agreement is carried through-and I hope it will be-I trust that the prices there provided will be in keeping with those asked for by the organized farmers of the prairies.
As I understand it, when the international wheat agreement was brought into being the initial requirements of each importing country were based on their consumers' requirements. In a report by Reuters from Washington I notice that it has been brought out that those importing countries have been reselling this wheat which they purchased at the international price of grain. I think that action is not in keeping with the original plan of the international wheat agreement. I hope that practice will be rectified, and that if there is
Canadian Wheat Board Act a new agreement there will be a proviso to the effect that that sort of thing is not permitted.
1 say that because, according to the Canadian wheat board report for the 1951-52 crop year, there is on the average a difference of 48 and a fraction cents a bushel between wheat sold throughout that year under the international wheat agreement, and class II wheat. The average price, according to that wheat board report, month by month, for that year was $1.82 under the international wheat agreement as compared with $2.30 and a fraction under class II wheat. Therefore by that agreement, which is a co-operative agreement, or so we are told, to supply the needs of the people of the world, the wheat producer was taking a direct loss of over 48 cents a bushel.


Mr. Ward:: What has that to do with farm storage?


James Arthur Ross: I am making a comparison. I am pointing out that farm storage is a co-operative pooling effort and not costing the public anything. It is a matter of one neighbour paying the other fellow's farm storage when he cannot deliver his grain at all. You people who are so keen about this pooling business should be humane enough in your hearts to carry it that much further, because I think my hon. friend will realize that the technique of harvesting on the prairies and the delivery of grain to elevators have changed greatly over the past two years owing to the advent of the self-propelled combines and the rapid delivery of grain by truck in the fall. Therefore the rolling stock of the railways and the elevator systems are not able to take care of this grain which is so rapidly harvested in good weather. In 1952 we harvested by far the greatest crop in the history of this country, and the maximum quota anywhere in the prairie provinces was still 15 bushels to the acre. That has created a real hardship for many of the smaller producers in the country who took off their crop.
In many instances the business people of these communities, who service the communities, are carrying the grain of the farmers. As has been pointed out, our neighbours to the south have had a loan policy for their wheat. They lend 90 per cent of the parity value of grain during harvest, and they are allowed storage on top of that for the next year. If they want to take that as a settlement, O.K. If they want to sell the grain and take the increase, which in the past few years the United States government has been paying, it amounts to a great deal over the international wheat agreement.

Canadian Wheat Board Act Thus their farmers are very much better off on that basis. I am one of those people who would like to see assistance such as that worked out in this country.
Our present storage problem has worked against the efficient grain producers in this country as well. I know several communities where we will say the average wheat grades 3 and 4 northern. One farmer may have an excellent quality of wheat that grades say 2, and because of lack of storage space, if he wishes to deliver the grain and has a quota available, he must take grade 3 or 4 for that wheat despite the fact that it is grade 2 and that is a very great hardship at this time.
Many farmers have not proper storage. I think this bill should be passed in order to assist those people to provide the necessary storage in this country. We just have an hour on private bills at this time of the session, and there are still a great many more things I should like to say on the bill, but I do not want to be accused of talking the matter out. But I want to say that I am in favour of this measure in this very difficult situation that is now prevailing in the prairie provinces.


Frederick Hugo Larson: This
matter of farm storage has a great deal of interest for me. I am not going to say that I complain very much about the idea of paying farm storage. I feel that I would be the recipient of something which as a recipient I feel would not come amiss at all. However, there are a good many difficulties involved in the payment of farm storage. I notice that part of the section reads as follows:
-for such period of storage as the board in its sole discretion shall fix for the purposes of such storage payment.
Well, in a year such as this, when there is a large amount of wheat, it would appear to me they would have to pay the storage for the entire year. You could not break it up into sections and pay storage part of the time and no storage for the rest of the time.
I should like to say that to a large extent I agree with what the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) had to say regarding grain in position. In a year such as this we have a great deal of wheat on hand. There is a lot of grain in position. But in a year when there is not nearly as much wheat around in storage as there is this year we might run into a situation where we would not have enough grain in position, and we would lose some markets as the result.


To get grain into position it is necessary to get it to the lakehead or seaboard. If farmers wanting to take advantage of farm storage held their grain, there would have to be a requisition system set up. It appears to me it would be a very difficult matter to discriminate between one farmer and another by demanding one farmer's grain and allowing the other to store his grain and benefit from the farm storage.
There is one other point that I should like to discuss for a minute, namely the small farmer who has to sell his grain in the fall to pay his bills. He has to sell his grain even though he would like to hold it. I am speaking of the years in which there is not as much grain on hand as there is now. On the other hand you have the large farmer who sells a certain amount of grain in the fall, and for considerations, possibly taxes, and so on he desires to hold his grain. He is going to be allowed to hold as much grain as he wishes, and the poor farmer who has to sell his grain to pay his bills is going to have to help pay the storage to the big farmer.
This matter is much more serious in a low crop area such as the southern part of Saskatchewan than in a higher yield area such as you find farther north. The farmer in the normally low yield area is going to find himself continually paying farm storage to the man in the higher yield area who has more grain. This is about the first time I have ever seen a measure introduced where they make the poor farmer help to pay something to the rich farmer.
I see it is six o'clock; therefore I should like to adjourn the debate.
On motion of Mr. Larson the debate was adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: At
eight o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. ATOMIC ENERGY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe:
That a special committee be appointed to examine into the operations of the government in the field of atomic energy; that the said committee be empowered to sit during the sittings of the house and to print such papers and evidence from day to

day as may be ordered by the committee; and to report from time to time; that the said committee consist of Messrs. Bourget, Brooks, Coldwell, Gibson, Green, Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth), Low, McCusker, McIIraith, Murphy, Murray (Oxford), Pinard, Stuart (Charlotte), Winkler.
John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Speaker, when the debate on this motion was interrupted at five o'clock to discuss private and public bills I was making reference to Uranium City, and had said that until recently it was a town only on paper, having been surveyed three years ago by the lands department of the provincial government. The purpose was to provide a residential area for the mines at Beaverlodge lake some four miles east.
There has been some little difficulty in establishing the town. The uranium companies in the area and the provincial government have not been able to see eye to eye as to who should pay all the costs. The provincial government has made the proposal that the uranium companies should put in the power and water systems, as well as sewage disposal works, and that the lots should then be leased. Apparently they did not believe in selling them. This has somewhat retarded the development of the town.
Some of the heads of the uranium companies to whom I talked last year were apparently under the misapprehension that I was a provincial representative, and proceeded to take me to task for this policy. One of them said he had been in the mining business all his life, that he had been in practically every province of Canada, and that Saskatchewan was the only place in which he had met a policy of this kind that would have the effect of retarding the program.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is that not the policy of the dominion government in the national parks?


John Hornby Harrison: That might be, but this gentleman took exception to it. It is the same policy that has been followed by the provincial governments in connection with veterans. They are asked to go on the land, and to have it assessed at a value to be determined ten years later. In this instance the period of time was three years, with the result that many of those people who wished to establish businesses in Uranium City were confronted with a situation whereby, if in that time they wished to purchase the property, they might have to pay for their own improvements. However, these questions will no doubt be ironed out in the course of time. In spite of this, the town is going ahead and long-term leases are being taken out. Hotels and banks are coming in.
All this is beside the point; the main fact is that had it not been for the far-sightedness of the Minister of Trade and Commerce
Committee on Atomic Energy (Mr. Howe) I do not believe we would have had any production of uranium in Saskatchewan for some time to come. We are now just on the doorstep, and it will not be long before we are in full operation. Certainly that part of the country knows that it owes a great deal to the minister.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member who has just taken his seat upon being so fortunate as to represent a constituency in which uranium has been discovered. The fact that it has been discovered at Beaverlodge in the constituency of Meadow Lake means a great deal to the economy of that section of Saskatchewan, just as Eldorado means so much to the economy of the northern part of this country.
I am pleased indeed that the minister has seen fit to reappoint the committee on atomic energy this year. He says it is to review the government's program. I had the honour and privilege of serving on the previous committee, and I must say that I enjoyed our meetings very much, an enjoyment which I believe was shared by the other members of the committee. Not only were our deliberations informative; they were also instructive.
It was a good committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. McIIraith), and I know the members of the committee gained a good deal of information. I do not feel the members themselves contributed anything from a scientific standpoint; indeed, they were not expected to. We got a smattering of what was going on. It was amusing to note that we were warned by different scientists when we attended lectures and visited Chalk River that we were not to divulge any of the secrets of atomic energy. I am sure the learned doctors must have had their tongues in their cheeks when they told us that, because I am sure no one learned enough to disclose anything of a scientific nature. But we did learn something of the objectives and possibilities of atomic energy. We learned what was being done and what it was proposed to do.
Another great benefit from the setting up of that committee was that its members spoke at clubs and other gatherings throughout the country. The information which we gave out was widely disseminated. From my own experience I know the interest that was taken by people all over the country.
Speaking this afternoon the minister said that the program was dominated by the military requirements. He also emphasized the fact that Canada had not done anything as far as producing an atomic bomb was concerned, but we all know that we produced in Canada the plutonium which was used
2028

Committee on Atomic Energy in the United States in the production of the atomic bomb. Isotopes are a by-product in the development of plutonium about which we hear a great deal.
In thinking of atomic energy people think of it mainly in terms of war. We all know its terrible possibilities in that regard, and those possibilities for destruction are increasing every year. One of the sad features is that to date no effective defence against the atomic bomb has been discovered. It is doubtful if any effective defence can be developed. When other instruments of war have been invented there has always been something else developed to counteract them, but that is not the case with the atomic bomb.
In the United States they speak about the decentralization of population as a means of defence; but they estimated the cost of decentralizing the population of some of the large cities and breaking them down into cities of around 50,000 to 100,000, and the total was around $300 billion, so it was considered to be entirely out of the question.
However, there is another phase of decentralization which it occurs to me might be undertaken, and which I believe is being undertaken in some countries, particularly Sweden. I refer to the decentralization of industry. We never know what may happen should war break out, and it would be a good idea in this country if some of the industry now centralized in our larger cities was decentralized.
Another means of defence considered in the United States was the evacuation of cities in the event of war. That is a civil defence matter and one to which we in Canada should give great attention. Until we knew Russia had the bomb herself we felt more or less safe. Now that there is no doubt that Russia has the bomb it places her on the same footing as ourselves. When it was felt that Russia did not have the bomb the defence of western Europe was not considered to be too difficult, but now we are faced with the necessity of having large forces to combat the great Russian forces.
The great advantage which all of us see in the development of atomic energy is in its contribution to peace. I was looking over the reports of the national research council on atomic energy projects and the industrial use of isotopes, and I was amazed at the use that is being made of these isotopes in agriculture, medicine, industry and in many other ways. I shall not quote the uses referred to in this book, but I am sure anyone reading it will be surprised at the uses that have been developed.
I should like to quote what Mr. Vishinsky said at Lake Success as far back as November,


1949.	I intend to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor; and while it intimated that Mr. Vishinsky was doing a lot of boasting, it quoted his words for what they were worth as follows:
Right now we are utilizing atomic energy for our economic needs in our own economic interests. We are razing mountains; we are irrigating deserts; we are cutting through the jungle and the tundra; we are spreading life, happiness, prosperity, and welfare in places where the human footstep has not been seen for a thousand years.
The editorial goes on to say that that statement was a great exaggeration, but while agreeing that it might be for propaganda purposes, it continues:
Granted that it has a propagandistic purpose, there is merit in his emphasis on the possible peaceful engineering and industrial uses of atomic power opposed to preoccupation with the atomic bomb.
That indicates what can be done in the future with this great source of energy. It is quite amazing to realize, as we were told at our lectures, that the fissioning of uranium yields only one one-thousandth of the energy available. Only that very small portion of the energy in the uranium is being used at the present time. They went on to tell us that if only 11 per cent efficiency was obtained in connection with the conversion of power through the fissioning of uranium, one hundred tons of uranium metal would supply the power requirements of the United States for one year. A householder could replace ten tons of coal with one one-fortieth of a pound of uranium metal. An automobile owner whose car used 15 miles per gallon of gasoline could run it for over four million miles on one pound of uranium. This gives us some idea of the tremendous possibilities in the development of this source of energy.
The minister told us this afternoon that it was not possible to control this energy in such a way as to displace water and coal in the production of power, but I have no doubt the time will come when that can be done.
It is not my intention to speak any further on this subject, but I do want to congratulate the minister upon having set up this committee again. I believe it will prove to be a valuable asset and I am sure that valuable information will be obtained,


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say one brief word. This committee should be set up as soon as possible and get to work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: At the lakehead we will soon know some of the benefits of the work of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) along this line, when we shall have a cobalt

bomb. It is an outstanding benefit to Canada and a splendid tribute to the minister and the scientific experts who support him.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only reasonable that a fairly detailed debate should take place on a question so important as that of setting up a committee to investigate the operations of the government in the field of atomic energy.
Atomic energy, after all, and man's discovery of how to control it, is probably the greatest advancement mankind has made since discovering how to control fire. It is a most revolutionary development, much greater than any isolated discovery of any kind. It has come about as the result of a long period of scientific research by the best brains of very many countries of the world. We talk about atomic energy in our everyday conversation and, in many cases, probably without realizing exactly what we are talking about. If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, in order to bring to our attention the present situation, I think it might be worth while to review very briefly the history of the scientific study of atomic energy and the history of the atom.
Originally, in a superficial way, man supposed that matter was a continuous thing, but as long ago as 400 B.C. Greek philosophers began to realize that the characteristics of matter could not be explained by assuming that it was a continuous thing, and an atomic theory of a primitive sort came into being. This came about as a result of very obvious observations. The early Greeks, especially a philosopher called Democritus, observed different things. He noted that when salt was put in water the salt disappeared and diffused in the water; and more strangely still, he noticed that if a bit of dye was put in water the colour diffused throughout the whole liquid. The only way that sort of thing could be explained was that the liquid and all other matter was made up not of a continuous thing but of various very small particles-and the particles of one matter dispersed among the spaces or atoms of the other one.
Later on in the Middle Ages men noticed other phenomena that lent strength to the atomic theory. One was that men noticed that when two liquids were mixed together- an equal measure of one liquid and an equal measure of another liquid-the resultant volume was not necessarily twice as great. They noticed that if a measure of water was mixed with a measure of alcohol the resulting measure was less than the two measures. That was a fairly astute observation for those
68108-129i
Committee on Atomic Energy medieval people to make when you consider the shortage of cocktail lounges in those days.
Anyway, as science progressed it became evident that all material could be broken down into certain elementary substances, and the theory of elements came into being. As far back as 1780 a French chemist named Lavoisier was able to identify 50 elements^ It was thought that those elements were the* elemental matter from which all things were composed, and that theory existed for a very-great length of time.
The modern atomic theory, as we know it, came into being when John Dalton, the English chemist, propounded it about 1808. Then more elements were discovered, and they were studied in great detail. Their atomic weights were arrived at and, as a result of further study, the great Russian chemist Mendeleyev arranged elements according to their atomic weights and their characteristics, this arrangement becoming known as the atomic table, which made it possible for scientists to forecast the nature of elements which were not yet discovered and to advance the science of chemistry in many, many ways.
Following the discovery of this theory of Mendeleyev there was a great deal of very marvellous and fascinating research into the structure of the atom which took place for a great number of years, up until about the turn of the present century. This study, for this period of the nineteenth century, was conducted mostly from a chemical point of view, from a chemist's point of view, and man's knowledge of the atom and the composition of all material things was greatly advanced. In that period the theory that all matter was composed of atoms which could not be divided further was accepted. As a matter of fact the word "atom" is taken from the Greek and means something that is indivisible.
About the turn of the present century physical scientists began to make new and marvellous discoveries. Some of the most remarkable of them were made by Lord Rutherford at McGill university in Montreal. Then there was also the discovery of radioactive elements by the French chemist Becquerel, followed by the discovery of radium by the Curies. Then too from a different approach entirely, about the same time there were other remarkable advances in the field of philosophical mathematics by such men as Max Planck and Albert Einstein. Max Planck in 1905 or 1906 enunciated the quantum theory which produced a challenge for the mathematician Einstein, who tried to
2030	HOUSE OF
Committee on Atomic Energy work out a system which would explain the known facts which had come to light up to that time with regard to the structure of matter. As a result of this pure science wonderful advances were made, and I think it illustrates to us that what is the pure science today is an applied science tomorrow; and what seems to be a very impractical searching for useless knowledge one day will be found very useful and applicable to our everyday life within a very few years.
As a result of Einstein's theory of relativity certain advances were made in the study of the atom. I am not pretending that I understand the theory of relativity. Even if I did, there would not be too many people within the sound of my voice who would understand what I was talking about. There are advanced scientists in the world, however, to whom this theory makes sense. There are scientists who can talk about time as the fourth dimension and who can talk about energy and matter as the same thing; they can talk about space being curved and that sort of business, and it makes sense to them. The ordinary layman getting into that field of science quickly gets beyond his depth. The fact that he does is very neatly expressed in a little limerick that someone has written with regard to relativity. It reads as follows:
There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was greater than light
She left home one day
In a relative way
And returned the previous night.
It is very difficult for the ordinary man to understand what this is all about. Nevertheless, this pure science does result in practical benefits after a period of time.
As a result of Einstein's work in the field of mathematics, certain things became evident. One was that it was a certainty that matter and energy were two forms of the same thing. When we talk about the production of atomic energy, the unique thing about atomic energy is that it is produced from matter itself. It is a process of transforming matter into energy. Einstein even worked out a formula. He predicted the amount of energy that could be produced by the destruction of a given amount of matter. As a result of his calculations, he forecast the terrific amount of energy that could be produced from the atomic bomb.
At the time that he propounded his theories he was laughed at by the ordinary man in the street who said, "Well, how is this going to affect me?" He little realized that within his lifetime atomic bombs would be relatively common things and would have been the means of ending the last great wai and probably the means of preventing, up until this date at least, a third world war.


The scorn with which Einstein's theory of relativity was treated at one time is also illustrated by a little limerick about this great scientist and two other people, the authoress Gertrude Stein and the sculptor Epstein. The little limerick runs as follows: There's a marvellous family called Stein There's Ep, and there's Gert and there's Ein Gert's writings are bunk Ep's sculpture is junk And nobody understands Ein.
Although nobody understood him in those days, his scientific work made possible the present developments in the field of atomic energy. As I said before, he was even able to predict the amount of energy that could be produced in the destruction of a given amount of matter. Einstein showed that the translating constant for converting mass measured in grams into energy measured in ergs is equal to the square of the velocity of light measured in centimeters per second. This standard equation made the present advances in atomic science possible. The velocity of light is 30 billion centimeters per second, so the result is that a very great amount of energy is produced from a very small amount of matter.
Einstein took this figure of 30 billion centimeters per second, the speed of light, as a constant to arrive at the result. I suppose if he had wanted to he could have taken twice the national debt and he would have arrived at the same figure. In any event, Einstein calculated that one gram of matter is the equivalent of 200,000 kilowatt hours of energy. This is enough energy to run
200,000	one hundred watt bulbs for 10 hours. One gram of matter is the amount you could hold on the tip of your finger.
Many people seem to have the opinion that atomic energy was some sudden discovery that was made during the last war by United States scientists. As a matter of fact our present knowledge of atomic energy is something that has been built up over the years. The term "atomic energy", has been used since about 1906. Contributions to the total pool of knowledge of the atom have been made by scientists of almost every nationality. It is folly for us, therefore, to think that the western world has a secret which we can preserve. It is not the case, Mr. Speaker. During the war we were a little more advanced than the other nations so far as atomic research was concerned. Most of the things concerning atomic research are common knowledge to all the scientists of the world, and have been for many many years. It is only reasonable, therefore, to conclude that any nation that worked at it could produce an atomic bomb, and could produce atomic energy for other purposes within a period of a very few years.

In that connection I should like to quote briefly from a book entitled "Explaining the Atom" by Selig Hecht, who is a United States professor. On page 190, he says:
Can another country make an atomic bomb? Of course it can. If we can think of several ways of doing each step from uranium fission to atomic bomb, so can another group of scientists. In fact, the British were ahead of us in 1941, and they may possibly have given us a good run if Britain were not so near Germany that its plants and cities were steadily bombed and blasted. We were far away from the scene of the war and the British sent their best people to work with us. So did the Canadians. Even Niels Bohr from Denmark came here to help. Moreover, we had on our side some of the best brains in the refugees from Germany, Austria, Hungary and Italy.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the state of affairs, and it should be realized. There is no such thing as the atomic secret that can be kept for any length of time, because any secret we have is only a secret that would be arrived at independently by scientists in other parts of the world in a very short time.
So far as the first development of the atomic bomb is concerned, there is a very enlightening quotation from a lecture by Sir John Cockcroft, who is a British scientist. In this connection, he said:
In April 1940 a memorandum was sent to S r Henry Tizard, then scientific adviser to the air ministry, by Professor Peierls and Dr. Frisch who were working in Birmingham university. Thev pointed out that under suitable circumstances a chain reaction in uranium might be explosive and that the effect might be equivalent to a very large quantity of ordinary explosive.
You can see from this that the idea of the atomic bomb was conceived in England. Then he goes on to say:
A similar conclusion was reached by Professor James Chadwick, and Professor Geoffrey Taylor worked out in some detail the disastrous effects such an explosive might produce. On receiving these reports the Ministry of Aircraft Production appointed a subcommittee of the committee for the scientific survey of air warfare under the chairmanship of Professor George Thomson, and I remember meeting first with four other members in April, 1940, a French officer who came to warn us that the Germans were working on this problem and were trying to obtain from Norway the world's largest stock of heavy water to investigate the pos~ibilities of the chain reaction in uranium and heavy water.
This news brought a realization of the disasters which might befall us if the Germans were to produce an atomic bomb. We appreciated the great dangers from radioactivity which might be produced in such a bomb, and took some first steps in preparing instruments for civil defence work.
We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that this was in 1940, in the United Kingdom.
There has been a great deal of discussion as to whether scientists should have undertaken the work on the development of the atomic bomb. Looking back to the dark months of 1940 when this work was started, I do not think we had any doubts on the matter. The Germans had over-run Holland, Belgium, France, Denmark and Norway, and freedom was fast disappearing from the world. Armed first
Committee on Atomic Energy with the atom bomb, Hitler could have conquered the world. We had serious doubts as to whether the project would succeed, but no doubts about the need to go on with the work.
After the fall of France in June, 1940, the university physicists were reinforced by Dr. Halban and Dr. Kowarski, who were sent to us by Professor Joliot, bringing with them the 180 litres of heavy water which the French had succeeded in bearing away from Norway before the invasion.
There you have an exceedingly interesting reference to the type of development that went on in England at that time. Then owing to the vulnerable position of the United Kingdom it was decided to transfer atomic research to the North American continent; and we are all familiar with the story from there on.
We have been concerned chiefly with atomic energy as a military weapon up to the present time, and from that point of view it is still an extremely important thing. After all, it is a fact that our only potential enemies, the Russians, have the atomic bomb and they probably have other atomic weapons. The destruction which they can bring about is terrible to contemplate. If an atomic bomb explodes half a mile above a city, the people walking on the sidewalk evaporate into thin air owing to the extreme heat produced, just the same as little droplets of fat dropped on a red hot stove will evaporate. All buildings within nine miles of the point of detonation of a modern hydrogen bomb are destroyed. A whole city can be wiped out in the twinkling of an eye.
There are many other examples that could be given of the destructive powers of this weapon. When we think of these things we must realize the terrible responsibility that is ours in the field of civil defence and in planning our economy so that our population is not gathered in a few large cities like Montreal and Toronto in such a way that a large percentage of our people and an even larger percentage of our productive capacity could be wiped out by less than a dozen atomic bombs.
Apart from the explosive atomic bomb, other types of weapons can be used, such as radioactive dust which might be dropped over our city and which would have a slow but extremely decisive effect on the health of the inhabitants. The detrimental effect of radioactivity on living organism is a most subtle sort of thing. It is something that in many cases is not recognized for a long period of time, and it is something that is cumulative in its effect. It builds up over a period of time and at a later date the results begin to be noticed.
Then too, of course, in a military sense atomic energy can be used for powering
2032	HOUSE OF
Committee on Atomic Energy submarines; and probably before long it will be used to provide the power needed for aeroplanes and so forth. If that dream is realized, it will be possible for heavy bombers to fly around the world probably three or four times without refuelling, or something of that sort, so that any spot in the world will be within range of atomic-powered bombers if they are developed.
But we should not get the idea that in the field of destruction alone atomic energy is of importance. Atomic energy has great importance in other fields, as has atomic research. One of the most important is its use in science. Many radioactive isotopes of the elements can be made which can be used as tracers in the study of life, metabolism, and for many uses in science. Then there is the isotope of cobalt which is used in the cobalt bomb for the treatment of cancer; and there are other substitutes for radium in the treatment of cancer.
Then there are many applications of radioactive elements in industry as well; but perhaps the most important potential use for atomic energy is in the field of industry for the generation of power. There are many reasons to believe that atomic energy can be produced at approximately the same cost as hydroelectric power. If that is a fact, when it is developed it will have a profound effect on our economy.
For instance, in the reduction of aluminum, it will no longer be necessary to bring the raw material from South America to Canada where there is a cheap supply of electric power in order to have it reduced. Electric generating plants can be built at the source of supply and powered by atomic energy for the reduction of aluminum in South America. That is one possible example of what might happen.
Then there are a great many industries which use a vast amount of power and in which the power consumed is one of the major costs involved, where atomic energy can probably be used to advantage. Along with the reduction of aluminum, there is the chlorine and caustic soda industry, the phosphate fertilizer industry, the cement industry, the glass industry and the steel industry.
In some of these cases, of course, new methods of production would have to be evolved. In the case of the reduction of iron ore, for instance, coal is used both as a source of energy and as a chemical because iron ore is reduced by carbon monoxide and heat; therefore in that case, if you were to use atomic energy you would have to reduce iron
(Mr. MacLean (Queens).]

ore by some other means, probably by hydrogen and the application of heat in the form of electric power.
Then again, if cheap electric power could be produced from atomic energy it could be used to advantage for the electrification of our railway system where traffic is heavy and the population is dense. In addition to that, it is predicted that atomic energy can be used economically for the heating of homes on a central heating basis, where one large plant is built to heat a section of a city.
The characteristics of atomic energy are such that the pattern of our economic life may be changed very considerably. And if atomic energy is used to the best advantage we can have a levelling effect, an evening up effect on the economy of the world in general and above all on the economy of any given country. For instance, in a country like Canada cheap electric power is available in the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario. It might not be feasible or advisable to try to make atomic energy compete with it, but atomic energy is easily transported, and it could be used to produce cheap electric power in the parts of this country where hydroelectric power is not available, such as the maritime provinces and the prairie provinces.


Mr. Stick:: Especially Saskatchewan.


John Angus MacLean: Especially Saskatchewan. After all, the problem of transportation of fuel is almost non-existent in the case of producing energy from atomic sources, because the amount of fuel required in the form of uranium for atomic power is very small indeed. As a matter of fact, a pound of atomic fuel, even under present-day processes, is equal to 1,250 tons of coal. In other words, in the form of atomic fuel a carrier pigeon could carry almost as much energy as a freight train can carry in the form of coal. Hence the question of transportation is almost non-existent.
Of course the question arises as to whether there are sufficient supplies of the fuel for atomic energy, namely uranium. Uranium is a relatively common element. As a matter of fact, uranium is about twenty times as prevalent as silver, and is about one-twelfth as common as lead. There are very large amounts of uranium in the earth's crust, and the energy which it will provide is much greater than the energy which might be provided from the known store of all other forms of energy-producing minerals, coal, oil, natural gas and everything else put together. Therefore it is not inconceivable that a time might come when our present

sources of energy, coal, oil and natural gas will begin to become exhausted, and if for no other reason than that our economy will have to turn to atomic energy for its support.
When atomic energy is brought into everyday use in this country I hope the benefits which it can bring will be realized. I hope it will be used as a source of cheap power in the areas of this country which need it most. It may be said that a remark of that kind is premature, but it should be realized that with the rapid advances in the scientific field today, atomic energy for ordinary uses may be brought into existence within a very few years.
That being so, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed to see that this committee to study and examine the operations of the government in the field of atomic energy is being set up. I think it is very necessary, and I believe that it is faced with a greater responsibility than possibly any other committee that ever has or ever will be created in this House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. J. McCann (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act. 1944, to extend its operation for a further period by closing out on March 31, 1953, in lieu of February 28, 1954, the present three year pool of loans guaranteed by the government under the act and by providing for a new three year pool commencing April 1, 1953, and ending March 31, 1956; to provide further that the maximum amount of bank loans made in the new period and guaranteed under the act shall be three hundred million dollars.


Mr. Speaker:: It was suggested that when a motion similar to this was called I should hear representations from hon. members with respect to standing order No. 60. I might say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) informed me that he could not be in the house this evening after nine o'clock, and it is nine o'clock now. I should like to have his views on the standing order. Also I have recently understood that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will be away for the next few days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members will regret it when they realize that the reason is that there is sickness in his family. Probably someone else in the C.C.F. party could express the views of that party or would the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
Farm Improvement Loans Act express his views this evening and members of other parties at a later time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not speaking to the resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; I am speaking to the point of order which Your Honour has suggested might be dealt with on this occasion. The point of order arose in connection with another debate, namely one on the resolution preceding the emergency powers bill; and I believe it is understood that whatever ruling is made now, that debate, when resumed, will be permitted to go on its weary way.
This question as to whether or not there should be a debate, and if so to what extent, on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair and for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the resolution preceding a money bill, is one that has been before us a number of times in 1952 and 1953. I think it is only fair to say, however, that there was practically no discussion on the point, none that I can dig up at any rate, between 1942 and 1952.
Furthermore, if one reads the debate on the point of order which took place in 1942 he will find that Mr. Hanson, who was then leader of the opposition, said that to his knowledge it had not been raised for twenty years prior to that time. However, despite the fact that the number of occasions this matter has been before us is very few, it has become a quite important issue.
Let me say at the outset that I do not think it is necessary for me, or for any others who take part in the debate, to cover again the ground we have covered in previous debates on the point of order. I can imagine some hon. members in the house saying, "Why do you not apply that rule on other occasions?". There is a difference, and it is that in debates on issues of substance we do hope that we can make some impression upon the minds of other hon. members in the house, and perhaps some impression upon those outside the house who follow the debates.
But in this particular instance, if I may so put it, in a sense we are in court, and it is Your Honour who must make the decision. I think therefore it would be wrong for us to try to cover ground we have covered before, because we know Your Honour has heard our previous representations. In addition, I have no doubt you have reread those debates, and are well aware of all the points we have made.
If I may, then, just by way of summary of the previous arguments I have made, make
2034	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act a brief statement, I would then go on to new material I should like to add. May I say it seems to me quite clear from standing order 60 and from standing order 38 that a motion for Your Honour to leave the chair at this stage of debate is debatable. This is clear not only from standing order 60 and standing order 38, but also clear from Your Honour's own ruling in June of 1952, and from Mr. Speaker Glen's ruling in 1942. Both Mr. Speaker Glen on that occasion, and yourself, when you have dealt with this matter, have said-and there is no question about it-that the motion is debatable. The question you had to face was this: To what extent is the motion debatable?
In 1942 Mr. Speaker Glen made a ruling that the debate should be directed to the negative of the question. I shall have something to say about that in a moment; but may I jump ahead ten years in the story by saying that Your Honour made the same ruling in 1952. However, you admitted a few days ago that you had found it difficult if not impossible to enforce that ruling. From what Your Honour said a few days ago I gathered you felt there would have to be a new ruling on this question.
Following what Your Honour has said, it seems to me the point to which we must address ourselves is not the question as to whether the motion is debatable, but rather we have to address ourselves to the question of the extent to which it is debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is what I said in 1952. I am not so sure now that I was right at that time. I still have to be convinced that I was right at that time. In other words, I am doubtful whether the motion on the second day is debatable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, in the light of those remarks it becomes necessary for me to traverse again some of the ground I thought we had covered. Surely from standing order 60 it is clear that the motion is debatable, if one reads the relevant part, which says:
-and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house-
I have picked that out, because that is the point we have reached now-the proposal to refer the motion to the whole house. That act of referring the motion to the committee must be construed with standing order 38 which says that every motion standing on the order of proceedings for the day, except government notices of motions for the house to go into committee at a later date, is debatable.
That exception, of course, refers to the day a minister stands up and announces the


Governor General's approval of a motion placed before the house. That is the only item standing on the orders of the day which is not debatable, according to standing order 38. This motion is not that one that is excluded from the right of debate; therefore I submit that it is included among motions which are debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member suggest that if a purely procedural motion stood on the orders of the day it would be debatable?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would suggest that any procedural motion, if it is the kind of motion that calls for the usual 48 hours' notice and therefore has to appear on the order paper under notices of motions or under government orders, would have to be regarded as debatable. I do not think we can draw that kind of line and use the word "procedural" to exclude from debate any motion that is really a motion of substance.
I was also going to remind Your Honour of what appears at page 164 of Beauchesne's third edition, where Dr. Beauchesne has set out in specific detail the procedure to be followed on money bills. This information comes under citation 435, and it tells in detail how such matters are dealt with. He gives the first day's proceedings, and then the second day's proceedings in connection with legislation of this nature, and he says under item 6:
6. Minister moves that Speaker leave the chair for house to go into committee of the whole on the resolution.
And then No. 7:
Speaker puts question on motion. Debate allowed.
That is surely a very clear statement by the author of the latest book under which we operate in the house. It does seem to me that the authorities make it clear that the motion itself is debatable.
The question is raised sometimes as to whether it is a motion dealing with the substance of the resolution behind the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair, or whether it is just a motion for that one event to take place, namely for Mr. Speaker to get out of the chair he is in, and sit somewhere else.
I submit that we have a number of types of debate that take place during the course of a session which are in a sense in the same category, in that we do not direct the debate simply to the technical language of the motion itself. For instance, the session begins with

what is known as the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The motion put to the house on that occasion is that a message of thanks be sent to His Excellency the Governor General. Once that motion is read I do not suppose any hon. member ever debates whether or not a message of thanks should be sent to His Excellency the Governor General. We recognize in that debate a vehicle for discussion of what is in the address and also for discussion of what is not in the address that hon. members think should be there.


Mr. Maclnnis:: It is the custom.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) points out, that is our custom and our practice in that regard. Similarly I would point out that there are occasions, not very often I admit, when we have a motion to adjourn the house under standing order 31. But no one stands up and argues that the house should or should not be adjourned. A debate takes place on the substance of the proposal behind the idea of adjourning the house, a matter of urgent public importance.
Similarly, when we debate the motion to go into supply and hon. members raise grievances or move amendments, or even if they do not move amendments-


Mr. Speaker:: The motion to go into supply is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee, but on that motion it is not permitted to discuss anything which it is proposed to consider in committee. The custom in connection with so-called money resolutions is that we discuss with the Speaker in the chair what the house has decided to discuss in committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The point as to what we discuss on the motion to go into supply constitutes another point of order that I would rather not argue at this moment.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member follows me to the extent that on the motion to go into supply an hon. member is not permitted to discuss what the house proposes to discuss in committee of supply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will accept that for the purposes of this debate at any rate, but I would point out to you that what hon. members are permitted to discuss on that occasion is not just the question as to whether or not Mr. Speaker should leave the chair. They 68108-130
Farm Improvement Loans Act are permitted to discuss any grievances which Your Honour allows as in order which they care to raise on that occasion.
Similarly I would point out that on Thursday night of this week the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will make what is known as the budget speech. Then other hon. members will follow. What will they speak to? They will speak to the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means. Hon. members will not be required to confine themselves to the question as to whether or not the Speaker should get out of the chair; they will be permitted to discuss the whole matter of government fiscal policy, indeed they will be permitted to discuss almost anything under the terms of that debate.
The point I am making is simply that it is hardly correct to say that because the motion before the house is that Mr. Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole we must direct ourselves just to that specific language. As I say, we have these other debates which through custom, if for no other reason, have become vehicles for recognized debates. I accept Your Honour's suggestion that there are certain limitations, but certainly they go far beyond the question of just whether or not Mr. Speaker should get out of the chair.
I want to come now to the problem which it seems to me was created by Mr. Speaker Glen's ruling in 1942. I should like to say a word about the circumstances that led up to that ruling, and then I want to ask the house to consider very carefully just how the house of that day considered Mr. Speaker Glen's ruling. I shall give what I think is most conclusive evidence as to what was the view of the house of that day with respect to that ruling.
The ruling was given on February 23, 1942. The house was then discussing a very contentious issue, namely the proposal for a plebiscite on the question of conscription. Mr. McLarty had moved the motion, Mr. Hanson, then leader of the opposition, Mr. Walter Tucker, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) and others had spoken. They did not speak in that order, because the speaker whose action produced the issue was the hon. member for Bow River, who moved an amendment to the motion.
At that point the then prime minister, Mr. King, raised two points of order. One was
2036	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act as to whether or not an amendment of any kind to that motion was in order, because after all it was a motion the terms of which had been agreed to by His Excellency the Governor General, and the other point of order was as to whether any debate was allowed at that point. The then prime minister did not attempt to restrict the extent of the debate, he simply argued' that there should be no debate at all despite the fact that it had gone on for some considerable time.
Discussion followed in which Mr. Hanson, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and one or two others took place. As a result of that discussion Mr. Speaker Glen considered the matter during the recess between six and eight o'clock, and. then gave his ruling after coming back at eight o'clock.
It seems to me that that incident is far enough back in history for us to be able to say with great respect that it was a considerable problem with which Mr. Speaker Glen was faced on that occasion. Here was a most contentious issue, and feeling in the house was quite high over this question. The then prime minister had raised those two points of order and presented the Speaker of that day with a real problem.
Mr. Speaker Glen was able to agree without question with the prime minister on the point that the motion was not amendable. I am inclined to agree with that aspect of the ruling that was made on that occasion. But on the other point, Mr. Speaker Glen brought forth a compromise. Let us be fair with ourselves. It is now eleven years later, and surely we can look back at this in the perspective of history, and realize that it was a compromise.
Mr. King had argued that there should be no debate. Mr. Speaker Glen had said, "I cannot go that far; I have to rule that the motion is debatable." He quoted standing order 60 and he quoted standing order 38. He pointed out that if there was any doubt, if there was any conflict between them, standing order 38 was passed in its present form after standing order 60 and would govern. So he ruled that the motion was debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: He went further than that; he ruled that the resolution was debatable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He ruled that the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair was debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: I think his ruling was that the resolution itself was debatable. I am not sure that I am in accord with that part of the ruling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker Glen, according to page 800 of Hansard of February 23, 1942, after quoting standing order 60 and standing order 38 said:
The resolution is on the order of proceedings for the day. I would point out that standing order 60 was passed in 1867, while standing order 38 was passed on March 22, 1927. In other words, standing order 38 is remedial to standing order 60, and I must conclude that standing order 38 must rule, and decide that the resolution before the house is debatable.
What was before the house? The house was not in committee. What was before the house was the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the resolution that was on the order paper. I submit that as one-half of his compromise he ruled that the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair was debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should call it a compromise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The reason I suggested it was a compromise is that having said it was debatable, he added a limitation that in his view the debate should be directed to the negative of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member thinks the ruling was a compromise, I do not think we should feel required to follow it too closely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, I agree, Mr. Speaker; and I suggest that we are making headway. The point I now wish to draw to your attention-and this is not going to be as long as it might sound from the detailed way in which I am going into it-is what happened in the House of Commons in 1942 following that ruling made by Mr. Speaker Glen.
The ruling was made on February 23, 1942. As a matter of fact immediately afterward, just over on the next page, there was another resolution for the Speaker to leave the chair on another proposition of the same kind and no questions were asked. It passed and the Speaker left the chair without a word of debate. During the next few days there were a couple more such motions on the order paper which were disposed of in the same way. The Speaker left the chair without any debate, no one questioning it from either side.
However, I would ask hon. members to turn now to the 18th March, 1942. If you look there, about three weeks later, and only 17 sitting days later, and look at pages 1416 and 1417, you will find that the then minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, moved a rather lengthy

resolution. Let me read it or at least let me read the parts of it that are by way of preamble. It appears on page 1416 of Hansard of March 18, 1942:


Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide:
Then there are four paragraphs. The Speaker was in the chair and Mr. Ilsley, the minister of finance in Mr. Mackenzie King's government, stood up and said:
Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a statement to the house on this resolution while Your Honour is in the chair.
Seventeen days after Mr. Speaker Glen had ruled that the debate on that occasion should be directed to the negative-and you can bet your boots that Mr. Ilsley did not speak to the negative of his resolution-he spoke to the affirmative with great vigour and at considerable length.


Mr. Speaker:: Probably Mr. Speaker Glen had as much difficulty in enforcing his rulings as I have had in trying to enforce mine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point, and I submit that Mr. Speaker Glen never again tried to enforce his ruling. This particular debate-and I have checked it, Mr. Speaker-was carried on over three days. It took 78 pages of Hansard to record the debate that took place with the Speaker in the chair on Mr. Ilsley's resolution of March 18, 1942, and that must have been eight or ten hours of debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members must at least agree that I have faced the issue sooner than Mr. Speaker Glen did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would go further, Mr. Speaker, and say that you have not only faced the issue but you have probably indicated the difficulty of carrying out the ruling Mr. Speaker Glen gave and, as a result of taking that stand, we are trying to help you to arrive at a better ruling than the one Mr. Speaker Glen made.
Without giving all the history, may I say that I have taken the trouble to go through Hansard from that date down to the present time and, if there were time, I could give in every year examples of major debates of this kind that took place with the Speaker in the chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I hardly think that is necessary for my purposes. I have gone through Hansard also, and that will not help me greatly in coming to a conclusion.
68108-130i
Farm Improvement Loans Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure you have gone through Hansard, Mr. Speaker, and I readily agree it is not necessary. I am sure the house can take our word for it that the debates are there in every year from 1942-17 days after the ruling was made-right through to as late as the fall session of 1951 when the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was moving that very important piece of legislation, the Old Age Security Act. Without any question he made an eight-page speech with the Speaker in the chair, and his speech was followed by a four-page speech by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), and followed by forty-minute speeches by a number of us who were keenly interested in that question. No question was raised as to the propriety of the debate at that stage.
So I submit there was a period of ten years from the time Mr. Speaker Glen made the ruling until we got to the National Library Act last year, when this question was raised. True, there were many occasions when ministers indicated their preference for dealing with the matter in committee of the whole rather than with the Speaker in the chair. Sometimes they won their point, sometimes they did not. But, as a point of order, it was not raised until the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) raised it on the library bill in the session of 1952. It was not settled conclusively at that point, but on June 4, I believe, the issue came up on another measure and was resumed on June 16; and that was the occasion when Your Honour made the ruling along the lines made by Mr. Speaker Glen in 1942.
If I may say so, I for one deeply appreciate the position you have since taken as a result of the debate a week or so ago on the emergency powers bill, and I think the ruling is difficult to enforce even by one like Your Honour who has faced up to it as you have. I submit that the idea of a debate that is directed to the negative should be forgotten. I think it is an interesting ruling that is back there in the books in 1942, but I think we should not regard it in terms of stare decisis-if that is the right use of that Latin phrase-but we should improve on it at this stage. I think we should decide, on the basis of standing order 60 and standing order 38, and of the practice across the years, that the motion is debatable.
I think, too, that we should recognize, with these other motions that seem just to resolve that the Speaker leave the chair, that what is really before us is the question of why the
2038	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act Speaker should leave the chair. Your Honour said the other day, even when you tried to limit debate to the negative, that you had to permit members who were opposed to the motion to state why they were opposed to it; and when they went so far as to deal with the terms of a resolution to the substance of which they were opposed, you had to allow it because that had to be recognized as a reason for opposition to Your Honour leaving the chair.
I think we are reaching a point where if you are going to have debate it should be allowed pro and con, and I would say similarly that those speaking for Your Honour to leave the chair should be able to speak to the merits and the good points for our going into committee of the whole. In other words, it seems to me that the real difficulty in practice, and the great difficulty we have had because Your Honour has had to enforce Mr. Speaker Glen's ruling of 1942, makes it clear that we should now decide upon a different course.
I would like to say something now, Mr. Speaker, that seems to me not so much procedural as being in terms of practice. I am sure, speaking as a member on the opposition side of the house, that we do not want to have a debate with the Speaker in the chair on every one of those resolutions preceding money bills which come along.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear some of my Tory friends applaud that sentiment. Many of those resolutions are not of such consequence as to require a lengthy debate at that stage. If I may say so, quite frankly I think the reason we have asked for it perhaps more often than we really wanted it has been because of resistance from the other side of the house to have debate at that stage. I would hope that out of this discussion which Your Honour has been good enough to invite we might not only reach a decision in terms of procedure, a decision as to the debate that is allowed, but we might also reach some better understanding between the two sides of the house.
I think we on the opposition side are prepared to be parties to such an understanding. To let it be clear I am saying here in the open that we do not want to debate every one of these motions with the Speaker in the chair. There are many of them in connection with which it is more satisfactory to go straight into committee. The government can know that and quote it back at us. There


are, however, occasions such as the emergency powers resolution, and the resolution concerning housing which is coming up soon, when the matter is of such importance that we feel we should not be asked to surrender a right that has obtained in this House of Commons across the years.
As everyone knows, there is a lot more one could say, but there is really no need to multiply words or repeat arguments. I simply press the point that the circumstances that led to the ruling in 1942 should be understood, and I won't be impolite if I say we should recognize that 17 days later that same House of Commons which had heard the ruling chucked it out the window. On that occasion the chief chucker-outer was none other than Mr. Ilsley, and the house readily joined in his suggestion that there should be that 78-page debate on that occasion with .the Speaker in the chair.
I may point out again that during those years when these debates took place, two or three each year, there were many resolutions on which there was no debate with the Speaker in the chair. I think we should return to that sort of understanding, that sort of modus operandi, under which it is clear that we have the right to debate the motions that are important. That is what we ask from the government side and that is what we ask from the Chair. I think the Chair and the government side have the right to expect from us, if that is the case, that we will not exercise that right on every occasion. I thank you, sir, and I thank the house for listening to this argument at length. I certainly hope our point will be given consideration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does Your Honour wish to have further discussion on this point now or is it your intention to adjourn this discussion until a later date?


Mr. Speaker:: I am in the hands of the house. If the house would like to have further discussion at this time or at a later time, that can be done. I am doubtful if the debate could be concluded tonight, but we could hear the views of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) if the house is agreeable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not at all anxious to do that. If, rather than break up the debate into two or three parts, it would be more convenient for the government to leave it until the whole matter can be concluded, that would suit me.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is not a matter for the convenience of the government, it is for the

convenience of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) who is not here this evening. I am quite prepared to reserve what I have to say until it will be possible to conclude the debate on the point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My only point in referring to the convenience of the government was to ascertain whether they would prefer to go on with other business now rather than go on with this. I was not making any invidious suggestion thereby. I merely thought it would be more convenient to leave the discussion until the whole matter could be concluded.


Mr. Speaker:: Naturally I am anxious to dispose of the matter as soon as possible. There are twen+y-five minutes left before ten o'clock, unless the house would prefer to dispose of the resolution which is before the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think it might be more convenient if we postponed the continuation of the debate on the point of order until the time we could expect to complete it and ask Your Honour then to consider the arguments and give your decision. We might, perhaps, proceed with this resolution. It is probably not of a controversial nature.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; give us a chance to prove our point.


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the resolution, I wish to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for the manner in which he has presented his arguments. I can assure him they will receive my careful consideration. Other members of the house will have had the benefit of hearing his argument before presenting their arguments. I can assure him that I will read Hansard, and will give full consideration to the points he has raised.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Mr. Lesage:: As hon. members know, a system of encouraging intermediate credit for farm improvements was approved by parliament in the Farm Improvement Loans Act of 1944. The primary purpose of the act was to fill a gap in the credit system which has been developed in Canada to meet the needs of agriculture. That gap related chiefly to the provision of intermediate credit and certain types of shortterm credit to farmers for the improvement and development of farms and for the improvement of living conditions thereon. The act aims at assisting, particularly, the
Farm Improvement Loans Act average farmer who in the past has frequently not been able to secure bank credit for these purposes. It aims, moreover, at providing credit in a form and under terms and conditions which are convenient and suited to the needs and conditions of the particular farm borrower.
The principle of the act is that the government undertakes to reimburse the chartered banks for losses incurred on loans they make under the terms of the act up to a maximum of 10 per cent of the aggregate principal amount of loans made by each bank.
The original act established a limit on the total amount of loans that may be made from time to time under the act. The practice has been to set this over-all limit by three-year periods. The first period was the three years ended February 29, 1948, and the limit was set at $250 million. During that period the total loans made were of the order of $35 million. At September 30, 1952, the amount outstanding for that period was $258,282.18.
The second three-year period ended February 28, 1951 and had a limit of $150 million. In that period a further amount of $135 million was lent and at September 30, 1952, the outstanding amount for that period was $23,025,609.62. In March 1951, parliament set up a third three-year period ending February 28, 1954, with a limit of $200 million. At September 30, 1952 a total of nearly $170 million had been lent out of the $200 million and the amount outstanding was $122,454,211.34.
Up to the end of December, 1952, loans totalling nearly $350 million have been made under the act. Total losses paid to the banks from the inception of the act to the end of December, 1952, have amounted to $38,383.93 for 80 claims, and of this amount $2,010 has been subsequently recovered from borrowers.
_ The total number of loans from the inception of the act to December 31, 1952 has been 331,965, and at that date the total number of loans in default was 28,916. The trend of lending has been accelerated to such an extent that for the first 22 months of the current three-year period, loans under this act have reached a figure of over $183 million and it is clear that the $200 million limit presently in force would be reached some time in April or May. It therefore becomes necessary to amend the period and the limit if farm improvement loans are to continue to be available after April or May of this year.
The bill which will follow the resolution contains three things. First, it shortens the

Farm Improvement Loans Act present three-year period ending February 28, 1954, to an approximately two-year period ending March 31, 1953, March 31 being a more convenient terminal date than February 28. Second, it creates a new three-year period ending March 31, 1956. Third, it sets a limit of $300 million for this new three-year period.
I do not wish to take too much time to elaborate upon the value and usefulness of this act. In the past it has received unanimous support and the commendation of all sections of the House of Commons. However, it might interest hon. members to have some details on the operations under the act since the last report made by my predecessor in the house in February, 1951.
All hon. members know that in recent years economic conditions have made it both possible and desirable to improve and extend the mechanization of farm operations. The history of the act in that field, as well as in the general field of farm improvement, is

one of constantly growing and increasing usefulness. Farmers have been using more and more the facilities of the banks under this act to obtain intermediate and short-term credit.
In the first year of operation-that is to say in 1945-the total amount of loans was roughly $4 million. In 1951 the total was $85 million and in 1952-that was last year- an amount of over $98 million was reached. There was an increase of 15 per cent.
With the permission of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I should like to place on Hansard at this point a table showing the number and amounts of loans made in each year from 1945 to September 30, 1952. This table also shows the number and amounts of loans in each province for each year.


The Chairman:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Lesage: The table is as follows:

THE FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT LOANS CLASSIFIED BY PROVINCES Yearly Since Inception 1945 to September 30, 1952
British Columbia	Alberta	Saskatchewan	Manitoba	Ontario	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.1945 (10 Months)	71	66,849 83	1,633	1,250,447 85	1,035	834,498,85	751	537,450 53	586	523,518 111946	467	343,706 21	4,798	3,388,114 70	4,075	3,140,157 35	1,928	1,397,538 74	1,443	1,369,371 471947	525	444,078 50	8,169	6,537,872 92	7,798	6,464,263 64	3,237	2,518,362 19	1,876	1,845,830 861948	765	747,323 27	10,962	10,634,375 65	10,725	10,505,458 91	4,788	4,532,345 37	2,427	2,260,050 521949	1,344	1,358,712 27	14,430	14,659,490 19	15,588	16,497,396 97	7,128	7,242,324 01	4,340	4,260,504 551950	1,693	1,709,994 57	17,161	18,508,716 74	20,090	22,557,445 30	7,712	8,263,981 50	7,914	8,043,839 451951	2,010	2,070,467 54	20,309	23,240,815 82	23,272	27,876,923 08	10,120	11,370,755 09	11,323	12,178,465 301952 (9 Months)	1,626	1,758,793 43	18,404	22,226,055 93	23,974	30,343,023 98	8,262	9,392,948 34	9,193	10,051,377 17Total	8,501	8,499,925 62	95,866	100,445,889 80	106,557	118,219,168 08	43,926	45,255,705 77	39,102	40,532,957 43Quebec	New Brunswick	Nova Scotia	Prince Edward Island	Newfoundland	Total	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount	No.	Amount$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.150	Ill 965 75	29	26,437 20	37	23,213 40	19	7,360 50	4,311	3,381,742 021946	193	146,639 00	42	34,541 16	76	55,617 11	8	4,880 00	13,030	9,880,565 741947	315	246,366 81	55	46,392 35	56	46,223 20	15	11,431 00	22,046	18,160,821 47530	447,359 12	83	85,595 33	90	72,615 83	61	46,006 70	30,431	29,331,130 701 388	1,341,867 92	168	182,255 66	163	132,450 91	226	204,077 87	44,775	45,879,080 351950	3,003	3,097,204 42	348	358,755 50	340	274,940 47	706	605,518 45	2	966 66	58,969	63,421,363 061951	5,405	6,125,621 89	655	696,750 78	695	619,719 71	1,271	1,144,295 31	3	2,412 50	75,063	85,326,227 021952 (9 Months)	4,596	5,426,270 73	669	698,508 65	704	679,203 10	1,281	1,237,538 52	30	37,864 00	68,739	81,851,583 85Total	15,580	16,943,295 64	2,049	2,129,236 63	2,161	1,903,983 73	3,587	3,261,108 35	35	41,243 16	317,364	337,232,514 21
*1

tfl
a
cj
>
a
Farm Improvement Loans Act
2042	HOUSE OF
Farm Improvement Loans Act
From this table it will be noticed that in the first years of operation of the act its facilities were used mostly in the western provinces. However, the farmers of the eastern provinces in recent years have been using them to a greater and greater extent, especially for the mechanization of their farms. They have been doing so to such a point that from the table it will be seen that the increase in the amount of loans in 1951 over 1950 in the maritime provinces was a little over 100 per cent; in the province of Quebec, 97-7 per cent; and in Ontario, 51-4 per cent.
I have with me another table which I believe would be highly interesting to members of this committee. It gives the number of farmers for each province according to the 1951 census, with the number of loans made in each province for the period January 1, 1951, to September 30, 1952. The percentage relationship is indicated for each province and for the whole of Canada. Is it agreed that I may put this table on Hansard!


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed that this table go on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Lesage: The table is as follows:
The Farm Improvement Loans Act
Percentage Relationship between the Number of Loans and the Number of Farmers
for the period-	-Jan. 1,	1951 to Sept.	30, 1952
	Number	Number	
of	of	PerLoans	Farmers	centBritish Columbia	3,636	26,406	14Alberta 	38,713	84,315	46Saskatchewan ....	47,246	112,018	42Manitoba 	18,382	52,383	35Ontario 	20,516	149,920	13Quebec 	10,001	134,336	7New Brunswick	1,324	26,431	5Nova Scotia 	1,399	23,515	6Prince Edward	Island 	2,552	10,137	25Newfoundland ..	33	3,626	1Total	143,802	623,087	23
From that table it will be seen that while the figure for the whole of Canada is 23 per cent, the figure for Alberta is 46 per cent; for Saskatchewan, 42 per cent; for Manitoba, 35 per cent; then it drops to 25 per cent for Prince Edward Island; 14 per cent for British Columbia; 13 per cent for Ontario; and 7 per cent, 5 per cent and 6 per cent respectively for Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and only 1 per cent for Newfoundland.
If the western farmers have been using the facilities of this act to a greater extent than have their eastern friends, it is mainly owing to the fact that in the west the farms are much larger and also relatively new, so that the total cost of implements to the western farmer is usually much higher. In the east the farms are smaller. As an easterner I can say that we have principally mixed farming. Most of our farms are old establishments of one, two or even three centuries.
The number of loans made under the act in the last full calendar year for which we have complete data-that is 1951-was 75,063, an increase of 27 per cent over 1950. In that year loans for agricultural implements, including farm trucks, again constituted by far the largest percentage, namely 92 per cent. The purchase of livestock accounted for 4 per cent. Loans for the construction, repair or alteration of farm buildings accounted for 3 per cent; and all other loans, 1 per cent.
A table giving a statement on loans, classified by purposes, for the years 1950 and 1951, and also giving the total from the inception of the act up to December 31, 1951, can be found on page 12 of the annual report of the Farm Improvement Loans Act for the calendar year 1951. I have with me a table giving the number of loans and the total amount of such loans, classified by purposes, up to September 30, 1952. With the permission of the committee I should like to have it printed in Hansard at this point.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is that request agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Lesage: The table is as follows:
The Farm Improvement Loans Act Loans Classified by Purposes to September 30, 1952
1.	For purchase of agricultural implements	
2.	For purchase of livestock	
3.	For purchase or installation of agricultural equipment or a
farm electric system	
4.	For alteration or improvement of farm electric system	
5.	For erection or construction of fencing or works for drainage
on a farm	
6.	For construction, repair or alteration of, or making additions to,
any building or structure on a farm	
7.	For any other work for the improvement or development of a
farm designated in the regulations	
Total	

No.	Amount
279,453	$306,611,040.41
10,357	8,440,187.66
1,923	908,139.44
53	51,336.43
407	252,434.50
14,798	16,166,259.11
10,373	4,833,116.66
317,364	$337,232,514.21

In the year 1951 farm implement loans amounting to $78,302,384 were made. This represents an actual sales volume of farm implements and trucks of $136,798,751. Loans for the purchase of trucks showed a sharp increase over the preceding year, namely by 61 per cent. Combine loans also increased substantially, namely by 47 per cent. For tractor loans the increase was 13 per cent. It is estimated that approximately 45 per cent of new tractors and 60 per cent of new combines sold in Canada in 1951 were financed under the act.
The act was used considerably to assist the farmers of Canada to finance the building of new homes, new barns and other buildings, and the repair or renovation of their present buildings. Since the commencement of the act, $14,798,000 has been provided for these purposes.
Livestock loans have marked the largest increase in any classification since 1950. The total of loans for that purpose, which amounted to $3,815,000 at the end of 1950 had reached a total of $8,440,187 at September 30, 1952. The amount has more than doubled in those 22 months of operation.
Improvements to and developments in connection with Canadian farms, valued at $1,010,109, were financed under the act in 1951. The loans for this purpose were $694,460 and were made for a variety of purposes, the most important of which is the clearing and breaking of new land. The extent to which the act has been used for this purpose is such that to the end of 1951, 373,641 acres had been brought under cultivation with 7,764 direct loans for this purpose. In addition, loans under the act have been made for a considerable amount of machinery and equipment for this same purpose. No record of the acreage brought under cultivation as a result of the purchase of this machinery is maintained, but it must be substantial.
In conclusion, I believe hon. members will agree that this legislation has done very much to improve the economic status of the Canadian farmer. Anything that helps the farmer contributes to the economic welfare of all Canadians. In addition, the expanded mechanization and electrification of Canadian farms and improvements to farm homes have added much to the farm family's way of life.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to say a word in reference to this proposed legislation. As the parliamentary assistant has pointed out, this has meant a great deal to
Farm Improvement Loans Act the agricultural areas of this country. He pointed out the great amount of credit that had been issued in western Canada as a result of this legislation. I know some communities in western Canada where a great deal of the farm implement business has been financed through this Farm Improvement Loans Act. I remember a discussion back in February, 1951, to which he referred, when we had had some six years of the operation of this legislation. I think the amount of money and the percentage used for the purchase of farm implements were comparable to the figures he has given for the period since that date. The same applies to livestock. It is rather surprising that such a small percentage has been used for the construction or the repair of farm buildings under this set-up.
Since the act was first brought into being in 1944 there has been a great increase in inflation in this country. The maximum individual loan provided under the act is $3,000. I do not think that is adequate under present-day conditions, especially when one takes into consideration the price of the big farm implements themselves. The parliamentary assistant dealt with the matter of tractors and combines; but the self-propelled combine, for instance, which is in very great use in western Canada today, costs almost twice as much as it did at the time this legislation was enacted. Likewise the diesel tractor is at least 80 per cent higher today than the retail price of the machine at the time this legislation was enacted.
I am wondering whether the government has given any consideration to increasing the individual maximum loan limit to more than $3,000. I should think they might well increase it to at least $5,000 at this time. As proof of that necessity the parliamentary assistant will realize that at the last session of parliament an amendment was made to the Canadian Farm Loan Act, which is a different form of legislation for financing the purchase of land for farming purposes. If my memory serves me right-I have not checked on this-I think the original maximum individual loan was increased from $5,000 to $10,000; in other words the amount was doubled. If that was necessary at that time, I think it is equally necessary that the individual maximum provided under this act should be increased to some extent, and I would suggest at least from $3,000 to $5,000. Can the parliamentary assistant say whether consideration has been given to that matter? I shall have some other questions later on.


Jean Lesage: Yes, consideration has been given to that matter. In considering the possibility of increasing the ceiling of $3,000

Farm Improvement Loans Act on individual loans, the government has taken into account the amount of pressure from farmers to obtain maximum loans of $3,000. I hold in my hand a table showing all loans in the amount of $3,000 which have been made since the inception of the act, to September 30, 1952. With the permission of the committee I should like to have this table printed in Hansard at this point.


Mr. Jutras:: Is that for all provinces?


Jean Lesage: It is by provinces and by banks.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed that this table be printed in Hansard"!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Lesage: May I finish my answer. The total is 6,343 loans of $3,000 each, and of a total number of loans of over 300,000 it is less than 2 per cent.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does that take into account this kind of a situation? A farmer may have obtained two $1,500 loans, shall we say, six months apart. Are these actually single loans that are not over $3,000?


Jean Lesage: It is two minutes to ten. The officials of the department who were supposed to be here this evening have not yet arrived. They will be here when this matter comes up again and I shall be in a position to answer my hon. friend's question at that time. Perhaps the chairman would call it ten o'clock.


William Joseph Browne: In the meantime, is the hon. member going to put the table on Hansard?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I understand that has been agreed to.


Jean Lesage: The table follows:

THE FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT All Loans Since Inception in the Amount of $3,000 to September 30, 1952
B.C.	Alta.	Sask.	Man.	Ont.	Quebec	N.B.	N.S.	P.E.I.	Nfld.	TotalAgricultural Implements	2	139	323	34	14	3	3	2	2	12	-	17	-	7	-	-	-	-	-40	31	47	8	1	-	-	-	-	-5	88	232	61	23	-	-	-	-	-	-1	125	283	17	9	-	-	-	-	-	-41	446	640	184	31	8	1	-	1	-	-13	554	820	283	15	1	1	-	1	-	-Montreal	8	446	483	128	27	4	4	1	1	-Total	82	1,838	2,812	771	127	24	9	3	5	-	5,671Livestock	2	7	3	26	3	1	2	1	1	-	-	1	2	8	-	-	-	-	-2	5	3	13	-	-	-	-	-	--	4	5	2	1	-	-	-	-	-	-1	-	-	-	3	-	-	-	-	-	-6	8	2	4	16	4	2	-	-	-	-16	8	1	1	6	-	-	1	-	-	-Montreal	10	6	5	-	14	1	-	-	Total	35	35	21	11	81	16	3	3	1	1	207Construction	4	19	5	4	19	1	2	5	1	1	-	-	6	i	18	-	-	-	-	--	i	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	--	7	9	1	16	-	-	-	-	-	17	8	-	20	1	4	-	-	-	-21	31	20	6	10	48	2	4	1	-	-4	9	2	1	10	4	2	-	-	-	Montreal	26	27	12	7	33	4	1	-	2	Total	55	111	56	25	109	76	H	9	4	1	457Brushing & Breaking	2	1	1	_	--	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	Montreal	-	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	Total	-	5	1	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	86,343



&quot;1 M ffl C

[Stage Direction]
>
*
to
o
*.
tn
Farm Improvement Loans Act
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House Progress reported.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Fournier (Hull): Tomorrow we will continue consideration of the resolution which we have been discussing with respect to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944. Then we shall take up the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister respecting the Emergency Powers Act; Bill No. 48, respecting
food, drugs, cosmetics and therapeutic devices; the resolution of the Minister of Fisheries respecting confirmation of the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean, signed by Canada, the United States and Japan; and if we have time left, Bill No. 44 and Bill No. 46.
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Appendix-Floods


[Stage Direction]
GOVERNMENT HOUSE Ottawa 2.
Office of the Secretary to the Governor General
February 6th, 1953.
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Immediately upon receipt of your letter of the 4th February, the text of the resolution passed by the House of Commons on Monday, the 2nd February, was forwarded to the private secretary to the Queen to be laid before Her Majesty.
Word has now been received from the private secretary to the Queen stating that Her Majesty greatly appreciates this resolution and that he was commanded to convey to the Governor General the Queen's sincere gratitude for the sympathy and generous offer of help to which this resolution gives expression.
Yours sincerely, LIONEL MASSEY, Secretary to the Governor General.
The Hon. W. Ross Macdonald, Q.C.,
Speaker of the House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario.
ROYAL NETHERLANDS EMBASSY February 12th, 1953.
Dear Mr. Speaker,
You were so extremely kind to send me with your letter of February 4th copies of the House of Commons debates of February 2nd and 3rd in which reference was made to the dreadful disaster which has befallen my country, as well as a copy of your letter to the Honourable Lester B. Pearson, in respect to the resolution referred to in the Debates.
I need not emphasize how grateful my government and people are for the sympathy and help from other friendly nations, last but not least from Canada.
On Sunday last Her Majesty Queen Juliana spoke to her people on the occasion of our national day of mourning and the Queen said:-
"The greater the misery caused by the losses we have sustained, the more deeply do we feel the fraternity of mankind which has found an echo in the breasts of men and women far beyond the confines of our country. Men of the free world have responded to the fierce tides with a mighty tide of Christian charity".
Yesterday a motion in parliament was proposed, unanimously carried, and worded as follows:-
"The Second Chamber of the States General deeply touched by the tide of compassion and love for his neighbour, as well as feelings of unity, which has been so strikingly demonstrated not only by the people of The Netherlands but which has also come to us across our borders as a demonstration of the unity of peoples, express to all friendly governments and peoples their gratefulness which they hope they will be able to prove themselves worthy of for the benefit of the world".
Very sincerely yours,

[Stage Direction]
The Honourable W. Ross Macdonald, Speaker of the House of Commons,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
The following is a translation of the communication received:

[Stage Direction]
February 9th, 1953
Sir:
I have had the honour of placing before the King the letter in which Your Excellency has been pleased to acquaint me of the resolution voted on February 2nd last, by the Canadian House of Commons.
His Majesty is deeply touched by the sympathy which the House of Commons has expressed for the Belgian people, so sorely tried by the recent floods. The King would be most grateful to Your Excellency if you would be so kind as to request the honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons to convey to that exalted body his most heartfelt gratitude for the sympathy it has so cordially expressed to the Belgian people as well as for the very kind intentions it has voiced with regard to the victims.
I avail myself of this opportunity, sir, to renew the assurances of my highest consideration.
CARTON de WIART Grand Marshal of the Court BN
The Canadian Ambassador,
Brussels.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 18, 1953