1953-12-03

Mr. Roch Pinard (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) I beg leave to lay on the table the following international agreements:
The first two are multilateral agreements. The first is an agreement on German external debts signed at London, February 27, 1953, English and French texts. The next is a final act of the United Nations opium conference, signed at New York June 23, 1953, English and French texts.
Then there are the following bilateral agreements: An exchange of notes between Canada and the United Kingdom, constituting an agreement extending the double taxation agreement of June 5, 1946, with respect to income tax, to Southern Rhodesia; signed at Ottawa on February 27 and April 9, 1953; English and French texts.
An exchange of notes between Canada and the United States of America constituting an agreement concerning the sealing of mobile radio transmitting equipment, signed at Washington March 9 and 17, 1953; English and French texts.
An exchange of notes between Canada and France constituting an agreement providing for the entry into force of the convention for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to succession duties, signed at Paris March 16, 1951, and signed at Ottawa May 28, 1953; English and French texts.
An exchange of notes between Canada and France constituting an agreement providing for the entry into force of the agreement regarding the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, signed at Paris March 16, 1951, and of the codicil to this agreement signed at Ottawa October 6, 1951, signed at Ottawa May 28, 1953; English and French texts.
An exchange of notes between Canada and the United Kingdom constituting an agreement extending the double taxation agree, ment of June 5, 1946, with respect to income
tax, to the colony of Dominica, signed at Ottawa June 30 and July 21, 1953; English and French texts.
An exchange of notes between Canada and Mexico constituting an agreement for the operation of air services between and beyond their respective territories, with schedule, signed at Mexico city, July 27, 1953; English, Spanish and French texts.



STATEMENT AS TO DELIVERIES AND QUOTAS

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity of reporting on the progress of grain deliveries in the prairie provinces and advising the house of certain quota changes which will become effective at an early date. I am glad to report that up until the close of business on December 1, producers' deliveries of all grains in the west amounted to about 259 million bushels. With some space now available in country elevators in all three provinces and with car loadings running at a high level, I am confident that the objective of grain deliveries for the August-December period will be realized. With actual deliveries of about 260 million bushels up to Deceember 2, I am confident that producers will have the opportunity of marketing well over 300 million bushels by the close of the present calendar year.
I would now like to advise the house that the Canadian wheat board is today announcing an increase in delivery quotas to take effect on December 14. I might add that this fall and especially during the past few weeks the railway companies, in co-operation with the transport controller and the Canadian wheat board, have been endeavouring to provide sufficient space at all delivery points to enable producers to complete delivery of their initial quota and the supplementary quota for oats, along with deliveries for which special permits have been issued by the board.
Although this objective is not entirely reached yet, considerable progress has been made and at many points the required space has been provided along with some excess space. The railway companies have been requested to continue preferential car supply at delivery points where space is still required

Inquiries of the Ministry for delivery quotas presently in effect and it is anticipated that these remaining points will be taken care of before the end of the present month. Having this fact in mind and the possibility of a change in weather and road conditions, the wheat board considers it desirable that an increase in delivery quotas should take place at the earliest possible date.
The increase in delivery quotas which is being announced by the board today provides for a second quota of two bushels per specified acre at all delivery points effective on December 14. The second delivery quota is subject to a minimum delivery of 300 bushels; that is, under the second quota producers may deliver two bushels per specified acre or 300 bushels, whichever is the higher.
I think the provision of minimum deliveries under quotas this year is very important. Members will recall that under the initial quota the minimum delivery of 500 bushels was provided for and this was later increased to 700 bushels. With the provision of a minimum delivery of 700 bushels against the initial quota and the minimum delivery of 300 bushels against the second quota, all producers have now been authorized to deliver a minimum of 1,000 bushels of grain under the combined initial and second quotas.
While the new delivery quota will not become effective until December 14, the board has made provision whereby elevator agents at delivery points which now have adequate space may apply to the board for earlier permission to accept deliveries from local producers up to two bushels per specified acre, these deliveries applying against the second quota which will become effective on December 14.
I might also add that the transport controller has announced the lifting of the suspension of the operation of car order books effective from December 14, 1953. The house will recall that the car order book was suspended on October 19, 1953, as a measure to facilitate the shipment of grain and grades of grain required to meet market requirements. As from December 14 the operation of car order books will again be restored.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on the statement he has just made in regard to quotas. Could the minister tell us his estimate as to what proportion of farmers have already delivered their quota of three bushels an acre? I ask that question in view of the fact that such a large proportion had not delivered their quota some three weeks ago when I left Calgary.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, great progress has been made since my hon. friend left Calgary. I do not know that I can give the proportion, but I will look into the possibility of doing so. Points that have not delivered the quota are a matter of record, and I am told there will be very few left by the 15th of this month, which is not so very far away.



CHURCHILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question of which I have given him notice. Is it the government's intention to increase grain storage capacity at Churchill, and if so when and to what extent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the government's intentions in that regard will be made known as and when the estimates are tabled in the house.
(Translation):



ST. JOHNS ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN &quot;LE DEVOIR&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Vincent (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) whether he has seen the item published on December 2 in Le Devoir of Montreal, which contends that the province of Quebec may lose St. Johns Royal Military College. Could the minister reply to my question and tell us what the situation is?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have read the article which states:
We are about to lose St. Johns Military College.
There is no truth in that statement. There is not one word of truth in that article, which was prompted by a mere change in administration.
Until now, the St. Johns Royal Military College has been administered by the army, but in order to permit each branch of the armed forces to look after the administration of its own school, as is the case for Royal Roads College, which is administered by the navy, and the Kingston Royal Military College, which is administered by the army, we have transferred the administration of St. Johns Royal Military College from the army

to the air force. That is the only change that has been made and we have no other change in mind.
[Later:3


Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask an additional question of the minister concerning St. Johns Royal Military College. Could the Minister of National Defence tell us what is the purpose of this change from the army to the air force, and who will be the next commanding officer?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained it. It is desirable for each branch of the armed forces to be responsible for the administration and expenditures of only one military college. It is much better to make each branch of the service responsible for only one college, rather than to entrust the army with the administration of two colleges, leaving the air force with none.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Just another question, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Minister of National Defence whether he knew the name of the new commanding officer who would be appointed.


Brooke Claxton: The commanding officer is the same, Colonel Lahaie, who is there at the present time. With regard to the commanding officer, there is no change.
(Text):



VETERANS LAND ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe). The question is this. Has any further consideration been given to allowing veterans who have small holdings which have been included within cities to sell part of their holdings in view of the fact that the taxes on these holdings have been increased to such a terrific extent?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been considered but no decision has as yet been taken.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But, Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under consideration for some two years, and why has not something been done regarding it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry POLIOMYELITIS



REQUEST THAT OUTBREAK IN ALBERTA BE CONSIDERED A NATIONAL EMERGENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Basing my question on the very commendable action of the government in declaring the Red river flood, the Rimou-ski fire, and the Fraser river flood national emergencies, would the government consider the present outbreak of polio in Alberta a national emergency and give assistance on that basis?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend did not give me the required notice of the question-


Some hon. Members:: It is not required.


Mr. Marlin:: Some hon. members say it is not required, but it is always helpful in making sure the answer is as complete as possible. I may say that I will take notice of my hon. friend's question and I will be prepared to deal with it later; but I would call attention to the reply I tabled yesterday on the federal government's efforts to assist the provinces in the field of poliomyelitis, which I think very fully answers the question. If the hon. member has read it he will see that the government's action has been very complete.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question as I feel this is an emergency. Since there does not appear to be sufficient doctors available, would the government give consideration to making doctors and other personnel from the armed services available in this emergency?



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. H. Hollingworth for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, during the last few days there have been a number of exchanges between the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) and myself with respect to a recent

The Address-Mr. Knowles ruling of the tariff board concerning the 10 per cent sales tax as applied to apparatus used for the production of electricity. I do not intend to spend very long on this question, but there is underlying it an issue which I feel to be of great importance, and I think it should be brought before the house with the least possible delay.
The immediate and most obvious issue, Mr. Speaker, is of course the question as to whether this particular type of machinery is to be exempt from the 10 per cent sales tax. That immediate issue is of concern not only to the particular company which was the appellant before the tariff board, but it is of interest to farmers and others who are purchasers of this kind of machinery. But there is more involved in this issue than just the question of whether or not this particular type of machinery is to be subject to the sales tax. The deeper and more fundamental issue is this. Is the law of this country to be defined and set out clearly so the citizens of Canada will know what it is; or is it to be made by ad hoc decisions by a minister of the cabinet or by some deputy or civil servant to whom that minister delegates his authority?
For the suggestion I have already made to the effect that this matter is being dealt with in the wrong way I rely on a ruling made by the tariff board under date of November 24, 1953, and also on certain extremely interesting sections of the proceedings of the tariff board. The proceedings I have in my hand are those of October 28, 1953.
The particulars of the case briefly are these. A certain company in Canada which makes power plants for the production of electricity and makes these power plants available for use on farms as well as in other places, applied to the Department of National Revenue for those power plants to be exempt from the sales tax under the provisions of schedule III of the Excise Tax Act. The Department of National Revenue denied that request. Thereupon the company appealed that decision to the tariff board.
A good deal of the discussion of this case before the tariff board turned on the question of whether or not the minister had carried out the provisions of the Excise Tax Act. As a matter of fact the judgment of the tariff board on that point can be found in these words from the decision or declaration of the board:
As regards the minister's obligation to define "machinery and apparatus'', there is no evidence in the record that it has ever been defined.
When this question was before the tariff board there appeared on behalf of the government, or on behalf of the Department of


National Revenue, counsel from the Department of Justice. The name of the lawyer in question was Mr. D. H. W. Henry and his submission, of course, was that the decision of the Department of National Revenue should be upheld. But during the discussion questions were asked him about the meaning of the pertinent part of schedule III of the Excise Tax Act; and Mr. Henry said to the tariff board, on the date I have already indicated, that the wording of the section, after he had quoted it-
-indicates that it was the intention of parliament that the minister should in the first place make regulation-in other words that he would exercise a legislative function in defining what the expression "machinery and apparatus" means.
Mr. Buchanan, a member of the board, interrupted at that point and said:
I am wondering if that definition of "machinery and apparatus" is available.
The chairman said:
Or put it another way. Did he ever define, and if so, at large or in a specific instance?
Then Mr. Henry, counsel from the Department of Justice, representing the Department of National Revenue before the tariff board, said:
My instructions are that there is no general definition that has been made by the minister of the first branch of this provision-namely: what is "machinery and apparatus"?
Then after the matter was discussed a little further Mr. Henry, counsel for the defendant, if you please, said this:
Again, if X may continue with the answer to Mr. Buchanan's question, the opinion may be formed in particular cases but in my submission it was primarily intended by parliament to form part of the general rules laid down by the minister.
In other words Mr. Henry, who was representing the government, admitted that it was clearly the intention of parliament as it was put in the act that the minister should first of all define this class of "machinery and apparatus" so that citizens applying for exemption from sales tax would know what definition their particular articles had to meet. At that point Mr. Buchanan again entered the discussion and said:
That would at least put them in a position to understand where they are in these matters. That is exactly mv question. If these things are to be done on an ad hoc basis every time anybody makes an importation of "machinery and apparatus" he is going to do it in ignorance of the state of the law.
Right there, Mr. Speaker, is the nub of the real issue in this case. In this country we believe in the rule of law. We believe in laws being spelled out so that all may know what they provide. In particular in this type of law, the general practice is that the

average citizen will know what the law is and what the definition is that his particular article may have to meet. In this instance we find there has not even yet been any general definition of "machinery and apparatus" as is required by the Excise Tax Act. The situation is rather that the Minister of National Revenue, either on his own or on the recommendation of the people in his department, is making a decision on an ad hoc basis with respect to each application that comes along. Later in this same discussion before the tariff board the chairman said this:
If it has not been made public-
That is the list of ad hoc decisions.
-it simply amounts to the fact that there are in the files of the department a number of decisions.


Mr. Buchanan:: That is exactly the difficulty with ad hoc decisions.


Mr. Henry:: -
Again Mr. Henry, counsel from the Department of Justice.
-It may be that you will come to the conclusion that in the absence of regulations of a general nature to which a taxpayer may refer, that the conditions required as a prerequisite under this section have not been fulfilled. That is a matter for the board to decide.
On that point, Mr. Speaker, in its declaration of November 24, 1953 the board expressed its opinion. Its opinion was that the minister had not carried out the requirement of the act to spell out this definition first so that all comers might know what was the definition, the test which their articles would have to meet.
In the questions and answers that we have had across the floor of the house since last Friday the minister has said that it is difficult to meet the requirement of the act. In fact he went further and said that it is impossible to spell out such a definition in advance. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is no more an answer to the requirement of an act of parliament than was the answer which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) made when we criticized him for disobeying a requirement of the Combines Investigation Act a few years ago. Surely laws passed by parliament are laws and their requirements are to be met not only by the humblest citizens of the land but by the Minister of Justice and by the Minister of National Revenue.
It may be that the Minister of National Revenue can demonstrate to parliament that the wording of that act in its present form presents a difficulty or even an insurmountable barrier. If so, I submit that his course is to come back to parliament and ask for a change in the wording of the act in order 83276-37
The Address-Mr. Knowles to put it on a workable basis. But my reading of the proceedings of the hearing before the tariff board, Mr. Speaker, and my reading of the declaration made by the board lead me to feel that these gentlemen were of the opinion that it was possible to have such a definition in advance, and that therefore the will of parliament in that regard should be adhered to by the minister. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that the government reconsider its position with respect to this matter.
I am concerned about the immediate issue as well. It seems to me that power plants for the production of electricity on farms should be exempt from the sales tax. Incidentally, yesterday when the Minister of National Revenue was replying to one of my questions on this matter, he referred to this apparatus as being used in connection with summer resorts and motels. I take it that it was only a slip in the rush of answering the question that led the minister to omit a reference to farms. I place emphasis upon that, and suggest that power plants for the production of electricity for use on farms should, as a matter of common sense and fairness and in the light of the terms of the act, be exempt from the sales tax.


Mr. McCann:: They are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But there is now some doubt, and I hope the whole question of the application of the sales tax to such articles will be reviewed. But as I have already indicated in what I have said thus far, to me an even more important issue is the question as to how ministers of the crown regard and treat acts of parliament. It is not good enough for them to say they are not going to carry out this section or that because it is impossible or because another minister advises them not to do so. The rule of law is too sacred and important to democracy for it to be put aside lightly in that way.
I had thought of leaving this matter until we got to the minister's estimates or to a discussion of the Excise Tax Act later in the session, but the more I thought it over the more it seemed to me there was an obligation that I must fulfil, namely that I should raise the matter now at least to this extent so it might be aired in this way, and so the minister might have time to think it over and make the necessary corrections. I do not ask him to rely on my statement of the case, although I think it is a fair one, but I do urge him to study very carefully the opinions expressed by the tariff board; and I think he should read again, as I have no doubt he has already done, the representations made by Mr. Henry on his behalf and

The Address-Mr. Knowles the views which Mr. Henry expressed as to what the Excise Tax Act requires. Let us remember all through the piece that the rule of law is very important to democracy.
There is another matter on which I wish to say a few words at this time.


James Joseph McCann: May I ask the hon. member a question at this point?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


James Joseph McCann: In view of the fact that the hon. member has made references to the tariff board's action in this matter, will he put on the record the last paragraph of the tariff board's decision?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am very glad to do that, and I do so in relation to tbe minister's statement of yesterday when he said the tariff board upheld the decision of the department. I suppose it is the minister's desire now that I put on the record the part of the declaration that seems to bear out his contention of yesterday, but which I do not think is really telling the whole story. The last two paragraphs are the ones the minister wants me to put on the record, I believe, and I may say in advance that it will take some thinking on the part of hon. members to realize what they mean. They read as follows:
However, it seems clear that the minister never expressed an opinion relative to "machinery and apparatus to be used directly in the production of" electricity.
Remember, the board has already said he should have done so.
If, as counsel for the appellant argues, the minister cannot "look through" electricity to other goods, then all foregoing expressions of ministerial opinion are nullities.
Keep in mind that "all foregoing expressions of ministerial opinion are nullities". I go on:
The consequence of such a finding must be that the electric generating sets at issue, and, indeed, all other electric generating sets, are subject to tax. If, on the other hand, the minister can "look through" electricity to other "goods", his expression of opinion is clear and the electric generating sets at issue are not within the exemption.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Hon. members can pore over that and figure out what it means. I have done so. I have pored over the whole declaration of the board, and the evidence and proceedings at the sitting of the board, and I think it is a fair summary to say that what the board did was not to uphold the decision of the minister that these goods were subject to tax but rather to dismiss the appeal of the company on the ground that there was nothing before it against which they could test the particular class of goods the company wanted to have exempted.

All the way through the piece they point out that there is no definition as required by the act and nothing against which to test these goods. Therefore the board had no option but to render a decision not upholding the decision of the minister to apply the tax but dismissing the appeal of the appellant because there was really nothing on which the appellant could base that appeal. Why is there nothing on which he can base an appeal? Because the minister has not spelled out the definition required by the act of parliament. In other words, as Mr. McKinnon, the chairman of the board, said during the course of the discussion, it is unsatisfactory for people not to know in advance what the law is.
I repeat my appeal to the minister and also to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson)- I am glad to note his interest in this legal question-to give further study to the matter in the light of something with which we all agree, namely that the rule of law should prevail.
As I said a moment ago, there is another matter on which I should like to say something at this time. It too arises out of exchanges across the floor of the house during questions on the orders of the day. Yesterday on the orders of the day I put a certain question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) arising out of the fact that the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada had presented its brief to the federal government at noon yesterday. I will not say anything more about the nature of the answer the Minister of National Health and Welfare gave me yesterday. My leader said he found it difficult to understand what the minister was saying, and I think many other people were in the same boat.
But I would call to the attention of the house that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had something to say with respect to the same matter, namely the appeal of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada for health insurance. The Prime Minister met a delegation from that labour body yesterday. With respect to the question of health insurance itself the Prime Minister made the usual answer we get from Liberals so often, namely that one has to consider the position of the provinces, the cost of the proposition and so on. I have dealt with those phases of the matter a good many times before and probably will do so a good many times in the future, at any rate until we get legislation on this matter.
But the particular phase of the matter which the Prime Minister dealt with yesterday that really concerned me was this refusal

to agree even to the request of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada that a special parliamentary committee be set up at this session to go into the whole question of health insurance. The government knows, and hon. members know, that we are fully aware of what can on occasion be the result of sending a subject to a committee. At times it may simply mean that it is shelved, but there have been occasions when the house has done exceptionally good work through the medium of committees. Veterans affairs committees of bygone sessions are particularly outstanding examples of the work private members of parliament can do when they get together and are given a certain amount of latitude to go into a question and deal with it on its merits.
Another instance where a good job was done by private members was the committee on old age security in 1950. I mention it because I am told that the Prime Minister made reference to it yesterday when he was answering the representations of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. I was not present at that meeting, but I am informed that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) told the delegates that as a result of the deliberations of the committee on old age security in 1950, and as a result of the report and recommendations they made to the house, the government felt itself at that time to be at least under a moral obligation to carry out the recommendations of that committee. Apparently, because of that experience, the Prime Minister told the labour people yesterday that he was fearful-that is the word in quotation marks in the Canadian Press dispatch in the Gazette this morning-of sending the question of health insurance to a committee of this house.
I am not surprised at his being fearful, Mr. Speaker, but I am surprised at the Prime Minister admitting it, admitting that he is fearful of sending the question of health insurance to a committee. Why do I say I am not surprised that that is his feeling? I say that because of what happened in 1950. All of us who were here will recall that some of us were fighting hard, with a great deal of public support, to get rid of the means test from the old age pension. When the suggestion was made that a committee should be established many of us were afraid it was simply a means of shelving the issue. I recall those debates very well, and it was clear to me at the time that it was the government's thought the committee would simply find that it was too costly to remove the means test from old age pensions, and that it could not be done unless we inaugurated the insurance principle involving contributions by individuals into personal accounts.
The Address-Mr. Knowles
Though that was apparently what the government thought the committee on old age security would find, and that on the basis of that finding the issue would be shelved, the committee did not make that finding. The committee did a very good job, and I say that for the members of all parties on the committee. I would even say that for the representatives from the other place who were on the committee. In addition to the freedom we had as individual members, and in addition to the excellent study that was made of the question by hon. members, we had the best advice obtainable on this question from the deputy minister of welfare and the other officials from that department, particularly from the research division of that department. They were exceedingly able people; they had the material, and on the basis of their material we were able to make a thorough study of this question.
As a result of that thorough and useful study the idea of recommending the strict insurance principle was rejected. Instead, we recommended back to parliament that we have a system of universal old age pensions, and that the collection of the funds necessary for old age pensions be on a taxation basis. In other words we recommended pensions as of right, paid for according to ability to pay. As I say, the work of that committee is in a class with the work of the veterans affairs committee, in that it did an excellent job and brought back a very valuable report. The plain fact of the matter is that it was such a good report, and it had such wide popular support, the government found itself in the position of having to consider the recommendations of the committee. In due course those recommendations were implemented in their main outlines, and they are now on the statute books of Canada.
I suppose that is what the Prime Minister now has in mind. In 1950 the government thought they were getting rid of the question of abolishing the means test for old age pensions by referring the matter to a committee. Instead, the committee did a good job and put the government in a position where they had to go through with legislation to abolish the means test, at least as at age 70. It is on the basis of that background that the Prime Minister now tells the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada that he is fearful of referring the question of health insurance to a committee. He goes on to say, of course, that his reason is that if this question were referred to a committee the government would be thereby implying that if the committee made a report back to the house recommending health insurance-


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I rise not to suggest that the
580	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles observations the hon. member is now making are out of order, but to ask you whether or not it is in order for an hon. member who has spoken to the subamendment, dealing with the subject matter now under discussion, to speak again about the same subject matter once that subamendment has been disposed of.
I shall be frank with the house and state that I had intended to speak on the subamendment which my hon. friend proposed, but because of another engagement I was unable to do so. I had thought I would not be in order in speaking now on the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). I would ask you whether it is in order for an hon. member under those circumstances to speak a second time about the same subject matter, in respect of an amendment that has been disposed of.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I speak with respect to the point of order? I would suggest that as one who spoke to the previous subamendment, and spoke on the question of health insurance itself, were I now speaking to the amendment itself or were I now speaking specifically on the question of health insurance, the minister's point might be well taken.
I am not doing that. I am speaking with regard to a question that arose yesterday concerning the appointment of a committee to go into the question of health insurance. Apart from the general latitude that is allowed at all stages of the throne speech debate, I think on that basis I should be permitted to speak on the question of setting up a committee of this house on the question of health insurance.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has risen to indicate that after an amendment to the amendment has been disposed of which related specifically to health insurance, the hon. member is now talking to that particular subject. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that he was not discussing health insurance but was discussing representations made yesterday by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada to the cabinet.
I do not think we ought to be concerned about the subject matter of his speech, because the relevancy of debate to amendments, during the throne speech debate, has been done away with for quite some time. I might point out that when the amendment of the leader of the C.C.F. party, which related specifically to health insurance, was before this house, we had speeches on national defence and wheat. At that time hon. members of the C.C.F. party or anyone else would have been quite right, if the minister


is right today, in rising to a point of order and requesting that members make their remarks strictly relevant to health insurance. Such a course was not adopted then, so I do not see why it should be adopted now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to make a correction in that, Mr. Speaker. I was not rising to suggest that the hon. member was out of order. I was rising to ask you whether he was in order or out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: In reply to that particular question I may say that for the last few minutes I have been wondering whether or not I should rise, not on the point the minister has developed but because of the fact that the hon. member seemed to be imputing motives to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He was trying to read the Prime Minister's mind. The hon. member states that what the Prime Minister had in mind when he said he was fearful of sending this matter to a committee was that the Prime Minister recalled what had happened when the old age security committee reported to the house, and that such a report might be an indication that the measure might have to be enacted sooner than the government might wish.
Well, I think in that particular part the hon. member was skating on very thin ice. I would ask him to bear in mind that he is not supposed to impute motives or to attempt to read the minds of other hon. members who can speak for themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, this has been an interesting interlude. It is also interesting to note that we may now expect a speech from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) on the question of health insurance. I hope he will also discuss the question I have been discussing, namely whether or not we are going to have a committee on health insurance at this session of parliament.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I have not been on too thin ice in my reference to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I accept your suggestion that we must let him say what he meant. I shall rely simply upon the quotation that is attributed to him in the Canadian Press dispatch appearing in this morning's Montreal Gazette, namely that he was fearful of establishing a committee on health insurance.
Perhaps I might be permitted to say this, that the Prime Minister should not be afraid to establish a committee on health insurance. The fact of the matter is that until such a committee is established many people will feel that no chance has been given to private members in the House of Commons to go

into this question. I am satisfied it is an exceedingly popular issue in the country today. I am satisfied there is a great deal of support for it among Liberal members in the house. I am satisfied that if we had a committee made up of the kind of members we had on the old age security committee in 1950, a study by such a committee of the excellent material the minister's department has prepared on the question would result in the members of that committee wanting to make a report to the house recommending health insurance. So I hope when the minister speaks, as he has now implied he will probably do, that he will face this fact, that he is not only denying the right to the opposition but he is denying the right to members of the Liberal party in the house to go into this question as it should be gone into if no committee on health insurance is established at this session of parliament.
In connection with this whole matter of health insurance there is just one other comment I should like to make-and I realize, of course, that because there has been some time lost in discussing points of order, my time is running out. The point I would make is in relation to something said the other day by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor). Now that I happen to be the senior member from Winnipeg may I take this opportunity to welcome the junior member from my city to the house, the new member for Winnipeg South. I am sure such a well known and outstanding citizen of Winnipeg, and one who is so well known and outstanding in the medical profession, will make a real contribution to the debates in the house. I was also pleased to note that he came to the house without any inhibitions, that he had no hesitation in quarrelling with half a dozen senior members in the house and no hesitation in stating his views, and stating them strongly. We Winnipeggers are like that; that is the sort of thing we do out in Winnipeg. We express our views and we say what we mean. I am glad he started off that way.
However, I wish to let the house know, and also the government, that the strong views he expressed on some questions were only his own strong views. They are not the views of the people of Winnipeg; and most certainly he was not speaking for Winnipeg when he expressed opposition to health insurance.
Because I have just said that the hon. member for Winnipeg South expressed his own views rather than those of Winnipeg, may I support my statement by reminding the house that in the election on August 10, when my good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South was elected, he actually
The Address-Mr. Knowles polled only 38 per cent of the total vote cast in the constituency of Winnipeg South. Someone will ask how the C.C.F. did in Winnipeg North Centre, and my answer is that we polled in that constituency 54 per cent of the total vote cast. So I submit that my colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) and I, here in the C.C.F. group, represent far more clearly than does the hon. member for Winnipeg South the views of the people of Winnipeg.
Now, lest anyone thinks I am being unfair in picking out our two constituencies and comparing them with Winnipeg South, let me give the picture for the whole of Winnipeg. In that city there are four seats, namely Winnipeg North, Winnipeg North Centre, Winnipeg South Centre and Winnipeg South. Here is the total number of votes for the three major parties in those four ridings. The C.C.F. polled the largest number of votes with a total of 40,432. Then who came next? Well, it was not the Progressive Conservative party. They got two seats, but they did not even come second in the voting. The Liberals came next with 38,655 votes-but no seats.


Mr. Churchill:: Repeat that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is enjoying this. I have said that the Liberals got no seats in Winnipeg. The third group, in point of votes, was the Progressive Conservative party, which polled only 30,722 votes. And if anyone is doing some arithmetic on the matter I would add that there were 5,095 votes for another party which ran candidates in all four ridings.
When we add this all up we find it amounts to this, that on August 10 the Conservatives in Winnipeg polled only 26-7 per cent of the votes of those who went to the polls on that date. So as I have already said, the new member for Winnipeg South, like his colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, while he speaks his mind strongly when he rises in the House of Commons, is not expressing the views of the people of Winnipeg when he voices opposition to a program of health insurance. The members in the House of Commons who are expressing the views of the people of Winnipeg are my colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) and I, representing as we do the party which polled the largest number of votes in Winnipeg, and remember that in the campaign health insurance was our primary domestic issue.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that that is the view of the people of the progressive and important city of Winnipeg. I tell him that I am sure it is the view of

The Address-Mr. Yuill very many Liberals sitting around him in the House of Commons; and I think the least that can be done-particularly in the light of the fact that yesterday the Prime Minister said he was fearful of setting up a committee on health insurance-


An hon. Member:: Say it again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will say it again, and many times, may I say to the hon. member who just interjected. The least that can be done, after what was said yesterday by the Prime Minister, is for the government to make it clear that it is not afraid of this question, and that it is prepared to let members of the house discuss it in a special committee. I am satisfied that if that is done the committee will make a report which will reflect the thinking of the Canadian people, that the time for action on health insurance is now.


Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, may I as a newcomer to the House of Commons be permitted to add my voice to those who, in such glowing terms, paid tribute to those sterling qualities which so admirably fit you for the carrying out of your highly responsible duties as Speaker of this house. I am impressed by your wisdom and impartiality in your adjudication thus far. May I extend to you my sincere congratulations and wish you every success in your new duties.
May I take this opportunity also to compliment the hon. members for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) and Roberval (Mr. Ville-neuve), mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, upon making a very worth-while contribution. May I also congratulate the lady members upon their election to the House of Commons. I am sure they will have many gems of wisdom to pass on to this house during this session.
I deem it a very great honour to have been elected by the people of Jasper-Edson constituency to represent them in this twenty-second parliament of Canada. I am deeply conscious of the tremendous responsibilities that go hand in hand with this high honour. I feel most humble and grateful to the people of my constituency for their expression of confidence, and I shall do everything within my power to justify it.
The constituency of Jasper-Edson is one of the largest and perhaps the most diversified of constituencies, both from the viewpoint of industry and topography, changing as it does from the level and fertile farm areas in the east, gradually running into the foothills and finally reaching the rugged grandeur of the Rockies. Although agriculture is perhaps the greatest industry of all, embracing as it does grain farming, dairying and stock raising,


because of the tremendous development in oil and natural gas this whole area is becoming more and more pockmarked with oil and gas wells, which add materially to the economy of the area.
We have millions of feet of first-grade lumber being manufactured each year, and there are many thousands of acres of virgin timber yet to be cut. We have unlimited deposits of the finest steam coal to be found anywhere, and in Jasper national park we have one of the masterpieces of nature. There you find the grandeur of the snow-capped mountains, the breathtaking beauty of lakes and canyons, a profusion of beautiful wildflowers, an abundance of wildlife and rivers teeming with all types of game fish. All these beauties along with her gigantic icefields have made Jasper national park truly a paradise which annually attracts thousands of tourists from all parts of the world, thus making the tourist trade a very vital and important factor in our national economy.
I was keenly interested in the forecast of proposed government legislation which was outlined in the speech from the throne, the indication of the need of further assistance in the matter of housing and the intention of the government to give assistance to the physically handicapped. Both these matters are of great concern to the constituents of Jasper-Edson, as they are to the citizen of Canada as a whole.
I was greatly impressed with the many fine arguments presented on behalf of the physically handicapped, whether it be through old age, blindness, war disability or physical handicaps of some other nature, and the almost unanimous recognition on all sides of the house that something must be done about it. I concur wholeheartedly with them. It should be the main purpose of government to look after those members of our society who are unfortunate and handicapped, for it is my belief that the individual and his wellbeing represent the greatest asset of our country, and every citizen is entitled to protection against the hazards of life and old age. The lack of adequate assistance to these fine people is shocking and a disgrace. With our country literally bursting at the seams with the essentials of life, and billions of dollars being provided each year for armaments, comparatively little or nothing is being done for our aged and handicapped and underprivileged. It surely is a strange paradox.
I have listened with interest to the many eloquent appeals on behalf of the fishermen, the fruit growers, the coal miners, the textile workers, the lumbermen and the farmers and their storage problems. I recognize that

they have many grave problems. It is becoming more obvious to thinking people that we may expect this condition to continue until this government recognizes that the consumer must be given more purchasing power for local consumption, and until there is a willingness on the part of this government to trade on a basis of mutual advantage and to accept sterling from other trading nations.
These things have been discussed at some length, so I do not at this point propose to take up time in discussing them further. But there are one or two things I should like to discuss briefly that play a very important part in the economy of the farmer and the consuming public as well. I bring to this house 42 years of experience in the retail meat trade, and feel that what I have to say in this regard comes from the school of experience rather than from just trying to be critical. I refer of course to the unfair practices of the meat packing industry.
There was a time in the packing industry when there was some semblance of compatibility between the livestock prices and the wholesale prices of the finished product, but not any more. During the last war we had price controls which helped, but now they have thrown discretion to the winds and are out to take the public for all the traffic will bear. The quality of their products in many cases has deteriorated, and the wholesale prices do not reflect any relationship between rail grade price and the wholesale price.
For example, let me go back to last Easter. Most of you know there is an extra demand for smoked ham at this season of the year. Let us see what happened. About the time the butchers were thinking of ordering their Easter hams, bingo; up went the price of smoked hams 8 cents a pound overnight. But on checking the rail grade price we found that that same day the rail grade price had dropped 65 cents a hundred.
I have seen the prices of cooked ham and bacon go up as much as 10 cents a pound overnight, in one instance at least, with little or no justification for it. Can the minister or anyone else tell me why this should be? Can he tell me why, with top rail grade prices ranging from 284 cents to around 34 cents, cooked hams should sell for $1.02 or $1.04 or $1.06 a pound wholesale, depending on how much they thought the trade would pay, or why sliced back bacon should be sold at 95 cents a pound wholesale under similar rail grade prices?
You will have quite a job to sell me the idea that these wholesale prices were necessary to make a good margin of profit when the rail grade prices were at the level I quoted. The same thing happens with beef.
The Address-Mr. Yuill The farmer is again at the mercy of the packers and has to take almost anything they want to offer, particularly if he has an off-grade type animal; but in spite of this it invariably finds its way well up the grade when offered for sale at wholesale.
There is also an inevitable law that when there is a decline in hog prices and public sentiment demands a reduction of say 2 cents a pound, it is a safe bet that the price of beef automatically goes up 2 cents without fail. I suppose it is their usual good reasoning, that what we lose on the peanuts we make on the bananas.
These things are happening and I do not have to go outside my own shop to prove it. They try to justify their action by the old story of supply and demand. Assuming that they are right, do you not think the farmer should be allowed to enjoy some of the fruits of his labour and share in this increase?
There is another thing that causes some concern to the farmers in my constituency.
It is the attitude shown by this government during the period of the foot-and-mouth disease. This epidemic was perhaps no fault of the government, nor do I quarrel with the way they controlled and finally stamped it out, but what puzzles the farmer is why he was not considered when it came to this question of price support.
The farmers were told, by inference at any rate, that there was nothing to worry about, that they would still receive the basic floor price of around 23 cents and that then all would be well. But imagine their surprise and disappointment when they sold their heavy hogs, into the raising of which they had put all their extra grain and a great deal of labour, for as low as 114 cents a pound, or only 50 per cent of the price they expected. The government then turned around and paid the packers 60 cents a pound to process hogs for which in some cases they had paid only 114 cents. Surely the farmers should have received the subsidy. I suggest that the government take immediate steps to check and put a stop to these unfair practices, for one can readily see how such practices affect the purchasing power of the consuming public.
One other thing I feel should be stressed is the importance of our tourist trade. Tourists in ever-increasing numbers have been visiting Jasper national park from all parts of the world. They spend large sums of money in this country. It is not all spent in our national parks, but it is spread all across the country and sooner or later finds its way into our national economy. Many of these tourists comment on the lack of trans-Canada highways; they are amazed that a country the size of Canada has no trans-Canada highways.

The Address-Mr. Yuill These tourists think perhaps only in terms of their own convenience, but the need is very obvious. Every day we hear about the urgency and the necessity of civil defence. Millions of dollars are being spent every year in this way; yet if we were attacked from the west coast we have scarcely a highway on which to transport men and munitions.
Through my constituency runs the proposed Yellowhead route which, if built, I am sure will be one of the most serviceable and economical routes in western Canada. Apart from its strategic importance in the event of war, it would prove a boon to the tourist trade and of great advantage to the residents along that route. It is important that this highway be built as soon as possible.
In the town of Jasper we have a problem that is perhaps common to all towns within the national park; that is the problem of providing hospital and nursing services for the tourists and residents of the town and the surrounding area. Like many other places the demand in Jasper for these services grew to a point where the present unit proved inadequate and a new wing had to be built at a cost of some $70,000. This hospital, known as the Seton hospital, is privately administered by the Sisters of Seton of Halifax.
In view of the fact that Jasper is a ward of the federal parks administration and therefore not recognized as a municipality by the provincial government, it must forgo any municipal hospital building grants, and for some reason it has not received any building grant from the federal authorities in the same way that hospitals do elsewhere. This makes their financial position very precarious indeed, and it would seem only fair that they should receive favourable consideration, especially in the light of the fact that a large sum of money was spent in the building of a swimming pool in Jasper a short time ago. Surely this hospital and nursing service should receive a grant sufficient to make it the boon to humanity it was designed to be.
In general, the federal authorities should give greater attention and more assistance to this great resort centre. The development of the tourist trade is the best way to promote good will, and it is one of our greatest sources of revenue. This is borne out by the fact that 26,276,834 tourists visited Canada in 1952 and spent $275 million. I believe this revenue would be greatly increased, certainly in Jasper national park, if we had a Yellow-head trans-Canada highway to serve the people of western Canada from coast to coast, less regimentation of the businessmen catering to the needs of these people, and more assistance in providing hospital and nursing services for all.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to indicate certain views in regard to the amendment to the amendment which is now before the house. I think it appropriate to express an opinion as to the effect of that subamendment, and while doing so I also wish to refer to another subject which has come up before and in regard to which we have had no satisfactory information of any kind as yet, though we have now been meeting for some three weeks and there have been a great many speeches during this debate.
During the course of discussions that have taken place several ministers have availed themselves of the opportunity to place before the house explanations in regard to the activities of their own departments. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on more than one occasion has explained to us various aspects of the problems with which he is directly connected. I wish only to refer to one remark he made earlier this week, which I would not wish to let pass without comment if only because there sometimes is a tendency to accept a statement which has not been answered as though the statement itself were not challenged.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke about his confidence as compared with the pessimists. I must admit without hesitation that he did not define the pessimists. However, by inference, he left a very clear suggestion as to who the pessimists were when he said the opposition had something in the nature of a vested interest in depression.
May I point out that confidence in Canada, confidence in the future and in our immense opportunities, is not the exclusive privilege of the Liberal party, nor has there been any suggestion in any of the speeches that have been made by members of the Conservative party that we have not at least as great confidence and, in some respects, I believe a great deal more in the possibility of the expansion of this extremely fortunate land of ours. It is no evidence of fear about the future to deal with weak spots in our economy and suggest that it is the responsibility of government to recognize these situations and deal with them in every way within the power of the government.
We have pointed out certain problems which the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself readily admits do exist. I grant that they are not interpreted as being unduly serious in the remarks of the minister. He passes rather lightly over the problem of the accumulation of wheat. He passes very lightly over the situation in the textile industry. He deals in very casual terms with the problems confronting our cheese

producers and our other agricultural producers who have been so seriously affected by the curtailment of sales. That procedure, I concede, is perfectly natural.
One might not expect him to go too far in admitting that the warnings which have been uttered for some time in this house have now been more than justified by events. But let me say most emphatically that the Conservative party believes in the future of Canada. We believe that the way to avoid difficulties is to expand the resources of our country and give employment to Canadians by the use of our own resources in every way that is humanly possible. Wherever we have pointed to difficulties or to situations that should be faced, it has been only with the thought that we do not want to see the forward march of this great country of ours interrupted unnecessarily at any time by avoidable difficulties which now present themselves in different forms.
I am not going to enlarge upon these remarks except to say once again that most certainly an examination of the record this session and during preceding sessions will not justify any suggestion that we lack faith in the future of this great nation or in the immense opportunities that are open to the people of this country if under a free enterprise system the energy, the initiative and the skill of hard-working men and women are rewarded in the way they can be rewarded under a system of free enterprise, or free competition, call it what you will.
I wish now to deal as briefly as I can with a subject I mentioned in my opening speech in this debate. At that time I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) if he would agree to refer back to the house or to a committee of the house the question of the location of the national film board, a matter which has been under discussion for some time both inside the house and outside of it. I propose to deal with this matter before the present debate closes, and to renew my request that such an opportunity be afforded. In renewing this request I wish to give evidence to the house as to why we should know a great deal more than we now know before so important a decision is carried to a conclusion.
The national film board is an essential part of the cultural and educational life of Canada. It performs extremely useful services, and it supplies excellent films to the thousands of outlets where these films can be shown. Many of the films produced by the film board are used for educational purposes in every province of Canada. The desirability of having a publicly-owned operation of this kind, providing a type of service that might 83276-38
The Address-Mr. Drew not otherwise be available, has not been questioned, so far as I am aware, by the members of this house. That fact, however, does not dispose of the question now before us.
In my opening speech I pointed out that we knew little or nothing about the reasons the film board was being moved to the Montreal area. I also pointed out that this extremely important question had not been decided in the ordinary sense by the parliament of Canada. I conceded without any reservation that all members of parliament, in varying degrees, must accept some responsibility for a system which appears to result in decisions through the acceptance of items in the estimates which constitute, in fact, the only authority for proceeding with a great number of these activities.
When I conceded the joint responsibility of all members in some measure, I also pointed out that there is no course open to the opposition to prevent these things happening, except to talk indefinitely on a single item. There is no recorded vote in the ordinary way on division. There is no effective way of dealing with this subject. We know only too well the procedure that has become much too common. The government sits back, listens to the questions and the statements, and gives as little information as will at least present some appearance of according respect to parliament. Then in due course there is a loud chorus of "carried" and finally, in an atmosphere of complete frustration, the item is adopted.
To that extent at least it can be said there has been a decision by parliament. However, there is no opportunity for orderly debate, for examination of any records or for an understanding of what the policy of the government really is. The government waits in pained impatience for the opposition to exhaust itself. Then in due course that exhaustion becomes a reality. To the extent that we become exhausted, we are guilty; but we certainly have asked frequently enough that some other method be employed to deal with these estimates, and that it be one which will make it possible to approach them in an orderly and sensible manner.
I have mentioned this subject again because the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in replying to my speech at the beginning of this debate, referred to the occasions when this matter had come before the house, and there is a possible interpretation of these remarks that the house was really informed with respect to this subject. I merely take one quotation from what he said on November 16. After referring to earlier occasions

The Address-Mr. Drew when there had been votes the Prime Minister said, as appears at page 46 of Hansard:
Then, on April 9, 1953, over a month before the concluding day of the session, there was a discussion of this matter, as reported at page 3645 of Hansard for that date.
I think it worth while, Mr. Speaker, to place on record what that discussion was so members of the house will remember how little they knew or were permitted to know, and also so members of the press and the public who are interested in public business may know exactly how much information came before this House of Commons that can be interpreted as affording an opportunity to the parliament of Canada to reach an informed decision.
So far as I can ascertain, the first time the subject came before the house was on March 21, 1951. We find at page 1489 of Hansard that on that day Mr. Earl Catherwood, the member for Haldimand at that time, asked the following question:
Having regard to the fact that provision has been made for a $300,000 building in Montreal, which rumour says is to be a national film board undertaking, will the minister comment on a report to the effect that the headquarters of the film board are being moved to Montreal?
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that it was rumour only upon which the hon. member had to rely at that time, and he was asking for information. To this question the Minister of Resources and Development of that time gave the following reply:
Mr. Speaker, the film board Is at present occupying, in whole or in part, eight buildings in Ottawa and three at Pendleton. In the interests of efficiency and economy, it is considered that steps should be taken toward consolidating the board's operations under one roof. In this connection some thought has been given to a suitable location. Montreal is among the centres under consideration. Being a centre of bilingual culture, it has much to commend it. No site has been chosen and no plans have been prepared. The amount in question in the estimates is for the purpose of obtaining a site and starting plans for a suitable building. I might add that this is a long-term plan and that no move is imminent.
Certainly no information was given to the House of Commons on that occasion which would make it possible to form any judgment as to what should be done. No plans were prepared and no move was imminent. Then last year the national film board committee, made up of members of the house, reported on June 24, and at page 77 of the proceedings of that committee we find this statement:
Your committee inspected the production premises at John street and found that these premises are unsuited to the purposes of the board. Your committee concurs in the recommendations made in survey of organization and business administration report of J. D. Woods and Gordon
TMr. Drew.]
Limited in March, 1950, and by the royal commission on development in the arts, letters and sciences in 1951, that the headquarters of the board-
May I repeat that.
[DOT]-that the headquarters of the board be centralized in one building designed and constructed especially to meet the production, technical and distribution needs of the board.
It should be noted that the recommendation was that the headquarters of the board, along with the technical and distribution needs, be centred in one building. Now we are told that is not going to be done, that the headquarters of the board are going to be in Ottawa and that the operational activities are to be in the Montreal district. May I now refer to the recommendation in the report of J. D. Woods and Gordon Limited, one of the outstanding firms of business experts either in Canada or the United States. They were called in to examine the film board, and the government has frequently referred to their report. This is what they say, and may I emphasize the words:
The work of the board in Ottawa should be centralized and suitable accommodation provided.
There was no suggestion that it would be advisable to move the board to some other place. May I repeat:
The work of the board in Ottawa should be centralized and suitable accommodation provided.
This subject had been discussed at a meeting of the national film board committee on June 3 of last year. At that time the chairman of the national film board gave his evidence to the committee. He was asked the following question by Mr. Browne, the former member for St. John's West, as appears at page 88 of the proceedings of the committee: "Are the plans made?" To this the chairman of the board answered, "No, the plans are not finished." A further question was asked:
They are going to Montreal instead of remaining in Ontario?
The chairman answered, "That is the policy." Then the question was asked:
What is the reason for locating in Montreal?
To this the chairman replied:
That is a matter of policy, sir, and I do not know whether or not I should review it.
I am referring to this matter again today, Mr. Speaker, not alone to emphasize the justification for my repeated request that this matter be referred back to the house or a committee thereof, but also to give vivid evidence of the kind of information we get about these sacred cows once they have been created. No one is raising any question about the desirability of setting up an

organization of this kind, but we do object to the suggestion of sanctity which immediately surrounds these publicly-owned bodies and makes it an almost indescribable offence to raise any question at all as to how their business is carried on.
Just think of it. Just last year it was asked: "Are the plans made?" "No, they are not finished." Yet this is a matter the house is supposed to have decided. The chairman was asked if they were going to Montreal, and he said that was the policy. He was asked why, and he said it was a matter of policy and he did not know whether he should review it. There the matter rested, and that was all the information that was really available.
Now we come to the present year. On February 13 of this year it was definitely stated for the first time that it had been decided to move the operating sections of the national film board to the Montreal area, and that a site was in process of acquisition by the Department of Public Works in Ville St. Laurent. These were the words of the minister on February 13, as recorded at page 1906 of Hansard:
. . . it has been decided to move the operating sections of the national film board to the Montreal area, and a site has been acquired by the Department of Public Works in Ville St. Laurent. Plans are presently being completed and it is proposed that construction of the building will start later this year.
At least it was indicated then that the decision had been made. On February 26 the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) was pointing out the various items about which we should have known a great deal more than we did at that time, and in regard to which there was every possibility that economies could have been effected without in any way impairing the efficiency of the operation. In an excellent speech he dealt with a number of items reviewing the broad field of government expenditure. At that time the hon. member asked a question which was designed to find out what had happened. The answer was given at page 2415 of Hansard for February 26, 1953, in these words:
No price has yet been offered.
In other words the acquisition had not then reached the point where any price had been offered; that was on February 26 of this year. The subject came up for discussion briefly on March 12, 1953, when the hon. member for Kamloops indicated the need for further information. He made this statement appearing at page 2869 of Hansard for March 12, 1953:
Eut I question very much whether the people of this country would be prepared to consent to the spending of $5,225,000 to build a central office for the film board in Montreal. I wonder if it would 83276-381
The Address-Mr. Drew
not be possible to establish an adequate central office without spending nearly five and a quarter million dollars?
That seemed like a reasonable question to direct to the government and to the house. The very form in which the question of the hon. member for Kamloops was framed indicates how little information was available to the members of this house last spring when the very limited discussion took place which is to be found in the records.
The most revealing questions and answers are found in Hansard for April 9, 1953. I refer to them particularly because it was to the comments on April 9 that the Prime Minister referred as "discussion" on this subject. May I indicate just how much real discussion there was. In fact, it sounds a little like Alice in Wonderland. When the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser), who has been one of the most ardent supporters of the film board on either side of the house, was trying to get certain information about what was taking place, he asked the Minister of Public Works the following questions. These questions and answers are recorded at page 3645 of Hansard for April 9, 1953:
Is it the intention of the government to proceed with that building this year?
Now, having regard to the statements made outside the house that this matter has been decided by parliament, may I ask the members to really think of the amount of information contained in the reply of the Minister of Public Works. These are his words as recorded on the same page of Hansard:
I am not too sure that we have completed purchase of the site. I think somebody raised that question earlier in the session and I answered that we were negotiating with two or three parties who are the owners of the site.
The hon. member for Peterborough proceeded to question the minister with the tenacity he exhibits in regard to matters in which he is interested. I must confess that his tenacity was not substantially rewarded on this occasion. He asked further questions, and let me repeat one of them, as recorded on the same page of Hansard of that date:
Has the minister any idea of the total cost of the building?
That would seem like a fairly important question in dealing with a matter of this kind. The minister replied in these words:
I am told that right now they think that the building will cost $5 million, but we have not got the plans and it is quite difficult for me to make an estimate.
It must have been rather difficult for him to make an estimate when the estimates were being prepared, because it was obviously not based on any plan.

The Address-Mr. Drew Then the hon. member tor Peterborough asked the following question, which seemed like a very sensible question to ask and which does indicate that the members of this house were interested in finding out what was happening. This question is recorded on the same page of Hansard:
What will the site cost on top of that?
This would seem like the question of a cautious person interested in public affairs; and this is big business, the business of the country. To that the Minister of Public Works replied, and one could almost see the bland expression with which he answered:
I cannot give an estimate for the building before the plans and specifications are prepared and I cannot say whether the site will be comprised in that amount. We have not completed the purchase of the land and I would not like to give the figures I have here at this time.
That was the last time, Mr. Speaker, there was even any pretence of giving information, if you could call this information. This matter of great importance to the people of Canada, whom we collectively represent, had not been sufficiently explored to give even the most elementary information to the house and through this house to the people of Canada whose money will be spent. No indication was given as to why this move was being made. There was no indication as to why the recommendations of the committee of the house were being disregarded. There was no indication why the headquarters was going to be at Ottawa and the operations in Montreal, perpetuating some of the very difficulties pointed out by J. D. Woods and Gordon. There was no indication why a site was chosen which, according to common report, may call for certain soundproof equipment to make it possible to operate in that particular area. In fact there was no information of any kind upon which this or any other legislative body could possibly be said to have formed a decision.
There were a lot of other equally uncertain answers. I have not given all the answers, but they were just as vague, just as uncertain and just as meaningless. However, that was the decision of parliament to which reference has been made. Unfortunately this is only too vivid an illustration of what happens when the government takes over some of these operations which, although excellent in themselves, are then placed behind a veil. We must not ask too much about them in case it be suggested that we are showing undue interest in the private activities of those who might be engaged in the same business.
What did J. D. Woods and Gordon mean when they said the work of the board in 

Ottawa should be centralized and suitable accommodation provided? As I read those words they contemplated that this operation would remain in Ottawa and a site would be found to accommodate the whole operation under one roof.
Every remark I make now is directed to the whole question of the operation of public activities of this kind, and to the type of information the members of this house should have before a final decision is made. I am not referring to the film board alone. I am taking this as an example because only yesterday in this house we had the suggestion that there is something very improper if anyone begins to ask questions about these operations which the government undertakes. I grant you that on that occasion it was not a supporter of the government who made the remarks to which I refer.
Certainly administration is part of the operations of the board; and certainly if these recommendations mean anything they should be brought together. Why are they not all brought together? We still have a right to know that. In fact it seems, from the discussions which took place earlier, that the very key to the success of the operation was to bring everything together in one comprehensive operation.
There was one other occasion when one may say there was reference to this subject. That was the day before the last session of the last parliament closed. Just as a reminder to hon. members of how this process of frustration finally works, I would refer to Hansard of May 13 of this year, when the supplementary estimates dealing with the film board, which were shown as Nos. 247 and 248, were announced. The house was about to close, or the session was about to close, and the process of exhaustion had won its weary battle. Therefore we find the last reference to this subject:


The Chairman:: And what about items 247 and 248?


Some hon. Members:: -
And here is the anvil chorus-


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
And it was carried. That was the last reference to it. That was what took place in dealing with this very important subject. Yes, we are all to blame; we are all to blame to the extent that we are not prepared to sit here debating months on end just in the hope of delaying the passage of an item of this kind, because no other process is available to us.
Every time the question was asked, "What are the plans?", the answer was "There are

no plans." "Have you acquired a site?" "It is not settled yet". "What is the policy?" "I don't know whether I can answer that. You are merely members of parliament. You are merely elected representatives of the people. It is not your business. Go home; we are tired of you." That is the way this has operated. And I repeat that we are all to blame. But therein we have one perfect example of why we need some committee on estimates, why this particular subject should be brought back to the house to be examined. This series of questions and answers illustrates what took place on this particular occasion.
We do not know anything yet about the total cost. The minister did not like to give us the figures because he did not have the plans. That may not seem too strange, in a way. But what is the total cost? Is it $10 million? Is it $15 million? We do not know, and the government did not know at that time, the last time it was discussed. We know nothing about the reasons for the board's decision. We certainly have no information as to why the government is going to go directly against the report of the business experts it engaged, and that of a committee of the house. We do not know why it is to be built in a place so noisy that special devices will have to be introduced to suppress that noise. Were there not compensating factors in some other site where that problem would not have arisen?
It is not a question as to the desirability of Montreal. It is a question of the desirability of knowing what the facts are. The only suggestion by way of a reason is that Montreal is the centre of bilingual culture. But, Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that Ottawa was also a centre of bilingual culture. And I think we have seen increasing evidence to the effect that not only is it a centre of bilingual culture but that it is the centre of an increasing effort to do business in this country in both languages.
No, Mr. Speaker, we have no evidence of any kind before us yet. But this is something that goes far beyond the question of whether or not a site in Ottawa or in Ville St. Laurent is the proper one. This is something that goes to the root of the whole question of the operation of public activities of this kind. Of course it may be suggested that any argument that we should weigh the facts is an argument in favour of private film industry in Canada. Surely we will not hear chestnuts of that kind. We believe and we have no hesitation in saying that we believe in the value of private initiative and of personal skill and of personal drive in building up this or any other industry.
The Address-Mr. Drew Never has it been suggested that the national film board was intended to mean the nationalization of the film industry in Canada. If that is the intention, then let it be said. But it has never been said yet.
If that is not the intention, then let us be sure the field is still open for private industry to build up film production in Canada within its own field. That, after all, is the basis of competition, in which we have expressed our belief. But do not let anyone in this house, Mr. Speaker, permit the impression to be conveyed that it is only the national film board which has produced excellent films. Splendid films which have been recognized by awards outside of Canada, in different parts of the world, have been produced by the private film industry in this country, and they should be encouraged.
They should be encouraged by having the fields of public and private activity clearly defined. One thing we do not know, one thing about which we have received no hint at any time, is what really are the terms of reference to the film board, and what they have been told they should do. Before any decision is carried to its conclusion this house should know just exactly how far the national film board is to go, and whether in fact it is going to go into the competitive production of films as well as produce the type of films it already produces.
I am not suggesting that it does, but we say we do not know. Let us be sure whether it be in this, or in the operations of the C.B.C.; whether it be television or radio or transportation, or in any other public activities, that the boundaries of public activity be clearly defined, and that members of this House of Commons, who represent the people of this country, know within what boundaries public funds are going to be expended.
I do suggest that this could be done in the most satisfactory way by agreeing now to refer this matter to a committee of the house, so this could be discussed not merely from the point of view of this one problem but from the point of view of principles which are to apply to public ownership, when the government enters fields of activity of this kind. Mr. Speaker, if this is the kind of information that is to be regarded as information upon which decisions can be made in parliament, what is the use of our pretending to discuss these matters at all? If the information given in this case is to be regarded as adequate information, what is the use of setting up committees and pretending they can make proper recommendations to parliament itself?
Every one of these questions and answers points not only to the need for a committee

The Address-Mr. Drew to deal with this subject, but to the need for a comprehensive review of our whole method of dealing with the estimates and with legislation generally, to assure that in future committees of this house of parliament will have the kind of information they should have. At a time when we profess our belief in democracy in such vigorous terms, and support without hesitation all proper expenditures required to defend that democracy, let us be sure that the processes of democracy are vigorous, strong and effective, right here where the representatives of the people of Canada meet to do the business of the nation.
I suggest once again that this is not a case where there should be a setting up of some atmosphere of sanctity and a suggestion that just because the government has created this sacred cow we should all bend the knee and worship in abject reverence before this idol which the government has set up. I close these remarks with a repetition of the request and the suggestion that the evidence supports the reasons why I contend that this request should be granted.
I wish now to deal briefly with the subamendment on which we shall be called upon to vote. The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and seconded by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) removed from the amendment we had presented the words "free competition" and substituted therefor the words "private enterprise" and further added to our amendment in regard to the restoration of markets and the expansion of international trade the words, "by the acceptance of sterling in payment therefor". The amendment as amended reads:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that the welfare of Canada Is dependent upon private enterprise; and that the prosperity and security of all Canadians will be advanced by government policies which will restore markets for primary products and generally promote a high volume of international trade by the acceptance of sterling in payment therefor.
I must confess that I am unable to understand from anything that has been said why it was deemed advisable to substitute the words "private enterprise" for the words "free competition" because I am under the impression that, in the ordinary use of words, free competition, free enterprise and private enterprise are synonymous terms.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


George Alexander Drew: I am quite prepared to have hon. members explain why they are not, but I am personally of the belief that in the ordinary use of these terms they are synonymous. There may be refinements. I


notice that the hon. member for Peace River nods his head in assent so I assume that the hon. member who moved the subamendment agrees that he has not changed the effect of that part of the amendment but has simply substituted one similar term for another. That being the case-*


Mr. Low:: I think it does clarify the meaning of the words "free enterprise".
Mr. Drev/: I take it from the assent expressed a moment ago by the hon. member for Peace River that he agrees that in ordinary discussions they would be synonymous terms. The hon. member indicates that that is so. That being the situation, whatever refinements our friends to the immediate left may seek to apply to these terms, in the thoughts of those who moved the subamendment they are synonymous terms. I must be completely fair to the hon. member for Peace River and say that apparently he feels that the words "private enterprise" more clearly express the meaning he wishes to convey. I am not going to quarrel in any way with that contention. I agree that in ordinary use the words "free enterprise" and "private enterprise" are perhaps more frequently used and perhaps are better understood. I think that free competition is an even wider term, but in any event I think they are all synonymous and mean freedom, and just that.	.
I think that freedom is an indivisible term and that what we are talking about is freedom of the individual to carry on his own business, either as an individual or with others collectively, according to his own ideas within the framework of just and equitable laws which will prevent abuses and permit the individual or groups of individuals to take his or their risks and seek the reward that comes with risk and the profits that are an encouragement to take such risks. That is what has built up this country and other countries which have grown greatly in these past few years. Therefore we do not seriously question that, although we do wonder why it was thought necessary to change the wording.
We come now to the words used at the end of the subamendment, "by the acceptance of sterling in payment therefor." The party which I have the honour to lead in this house has been constant in its demands that this government take the initiative in seeking convertibility of sterling and dollars so that what we have described as the log jam of non-convertibility may be broken. I do not suggest any exclusive virtue in this respect on our part, but I do say most emphatically that no party in this house has been more consistent in its demands that

everything possible be done to maintain, to expand and to increase our trade with the United Kingdom, the nations of the commonwealth and the sterling area generally.
We have introduced resolution after resolution to that effect and those resolutions have been voted down by the supporters of the government. I want to read just one or two of those resolutions to indicate the consistency of our position in this respect. On October 21, 1949, as reported on page 1023 of Hansard, the following resolution was moved by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and seconded by the then hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris):
That all the words oE the resolution after the first word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
this house regrets that the government has failed to take effective measures to prevent the present decline in our trade with the sterling area and is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of inviting the nations of the commonwealth to a conference in the immediate future for the purpose of working out arrangements to preserve and enlarge those traditional markets on which jobs and opportunities for Canadians very largely depend.
That motion was voted down by the supporters of the government. Every member of the Liberal party voted against it.


Mr. Mclvor:: Was that a question of nonconfidence or was it a question having to do with the value of the amendment?


George Alexander Drew: It is open to the government at any time to accept suggestions from the opposition, particularly when the opposition indicates, as it did on this and other occasions, that it is quite prepared to have the government act and not have the suggestion treated as a want of confidence motion. That has been suggested over and over again. We have made it clear that we were asking, first, that the government act in this matter. Whether the government in one particular case can or cannot point to an example where that was not done, the government at all times had it within its power to say, "If this is not to be regarded as a want of confidence motion, and the members of the house will support it, without regarding it as a want of confidence motion, it can be treated in that way." That is a parliamentary practice, and we would have been ready to accord that tonight. In so far as that is concerned, again in 1950 there was a resolution dated February 28, as recorded at page 308 of Hansard, and I quote:
this house is of the opinion that the government should take immediate steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth and the countries of the empire to devise policies to restore our lost markets, and thereby to provide jobs for our Canadian people.
The Address-Mr. Drew
In that case again it was an amendment by the Conservative party and it was voted down solidly by the members of the Liberal party in the house at that time. Then, on June 3, 1952, there was a resolution moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), and I quote from page 2853 of Hansard of that date:
this house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of taking steps to convene at the earliest possible date a conference of the nations of the British commonwealth to seek means by which there may be convertibility of commonwealth currencies, and to explore all the possibilities for restoring and enlarging those traditional markets upon which our prosperity so largely depends.
I read these resolutions, Mr. Speaker, because we have been insisting over and over again that steps be taken to produce effective convertibility between sterling and dollars. It may be recalled by some that the genial Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) treated with some ridicule these suggestions that this could be done. Now, I am happy to find that, with some measure of satisfaction, he announces that he will proceed to Australia in January to discuss this very subject. I regret that our proposal was not accepted four years ago, and I also regret that the initiative was not Canada's initiative, and that the meeting is not going to take place here in Ottawa where we can act as the great interpreter between the United Kingdom and the United States. I would also point out that every Liberal member in the house voted against that latter motion.
We believe, Mr. Speaker, in the future of the United Kingdom; we believe in the future of the commonwealth of nations; we believe that every possible step should be taken to recognize that, sentiment apart, this great partnership presents immense opportunities for profitable trade to Canada as well as to the other nations of the commonwealth. We have asserted our belief over and over again that this is not a mere question of sentiment, affection or loyalty. We have made it clear that while we certainly believe that all these have a place, and a very important place, this is also a matter of good business for Canada.
We have pointed out the traditional place of the United Kingdom as a market for Canadian foodstuffs, Canadian raw materials and Canadian products of various kinds. Never once, however, have we suggested that we should not trade in every way we can with our great neighbour to the south-


Mr. Chevrier:: Yes, you did.


George Alexander Drew: -but that, on the contrary, in the matter of trade we should seek the very

The Address-Mr. Drew widest markets that are available to us. I hear from across the house, "Yes, you did." Mr. Speaker, that is not so.


Lionel Chevrier: No truck or trade with the Yankees.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, that was before the hon. member was in the house and long before I was in the house. I do not know if that was ever said in this house. I am talking about what we have been dealing with here at the present time. I have no doubt that the statement referred to by the hon. member is one of these comforting statements that are treasured to be used on occasions when other statements of that kind, brought out of the past, seem to give such a measure of satisfaction to certain members of the party across the floor.
These resolutions speak for themselves and there is no member of this house who has been following this debate who is in any doubt about the fact that we want trade with the United States, as well as with the United Kingdom and the nations of the commonwealth and the sterling area generally. We have said, and we do not hesitate to repeat it, that we do not want all our eggs in one basket, and we also do not hesitate to repeat that when it comes to using resources which could be employed for the purpose of giving employment to young Canadians in Canada instead of giving employment in the United States, we think the first consideration should be for Canadians.
But that is not to be interpreted by any reasonable person as denying the principle of trade on a sound basis which shall respect the rights of our own people to the proper use of those resources which God has given us for our own particular trust. In fact, I find that we had support for that principle from the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) a few days ago, and when we receive support for this principle from any quarter in this house I think there is no reason why we should not indicate our acceptance of the support of our arguments along that line.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to come to the effect of these words. It is appealing to suggest that we accept sterling, but I want to emphasize exactly what the words are, and I quote from page 386 of Hansard dated November 26, 1953:
. . . that the prosperity and security of all Canadians will be advanced by government policies which will restore markets for primary products and generally promote a high volume of international trade by the acceptance of sterling in payment therefor.
That is not very clear. We hope that out of the meetings in January some method may


be found by which sterling may be really convertible. However, I think it must be said that the objective of all members, now that the government has come to this view itself, is convertibility. We want convertibility. We want sterling as freely exchanged for dollars in Canada as it was in days gone by. We have indicated our belief that Canada should be prepared to take some risks in that respect which will be related to its confidence in the United Kingdom and the commonwealth partnership generally.
But, Mr. Speaker, surely it is appropriate that we ask ourselves, at the same time that we are called upon to vote on an amendment to our own amendment which we have presented in regard to trade, just what the effect of these words really is. The words, as they read, imply that we are going to solve the problems of international trade by accepting sterling; and that, as one interprets the words, would seem to be sterling currency. Mr. Speaker, there is a vast difference between making arrangements which will permit the interchange of sterling and dollars and entering into an open-end arrangement for the acceptance of sterling which we have reason to doubt the British government would itself be prepared to enter into at this time.
One of the things which the British government has been making very clear is that it wants trade, not aid. One of the things which the British government has been making very clear is that it wants convertibility. Another thing they have been making very clear is that they have to get some control over the sterling now loose if they are going to be able to achieve convertibility. There is no evidence that this proposal has been submitted to the government of the United Kingdom, and I would be extremely doubtful whether the government of the United Kingdom would feel that any such arrangement was workable. On the contrary, I am inclined to think that any open-end arrangement under which sterling was to be taken for purchases, without some specific plan, would in itself delay the day when these currencies might become convertible.
I grant that these are debatable subjects; but we have not had the proposals defined to us in terms that we can understand. One thing which perhaps caused some concern in the minds of many Canadians was that press reports from the United States conveyed the impression that the government of the United States was going to accept up to $250 million in soft currencies, for foodstuffs of different kinds, from friendly nations. That is not the arrangement. The proposal which was referred to in these reports which created the impression that the

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
United States was going to take sterling and other soft currencies for foodstuffs was, in fact, an amendment to the Mutual Security Act and is known as the Mutual Security Act of 1953. Under section 550 of that act of the congress of the United States it is provided as follows:
Not less than $100 million and not more than $250 millicn of the funds authorized to be appropriated under this act shall be used, directly or indirectly, to finance the purchase of surplus agricultural commodities, or products thereof, produced in the United States.
What that means is that the United States congress is setting aside $100 million to $250 million to purchase their own foodstuffs and to make them available to the soft currency countries. Then there is a further provision in regard to that matter. It is provided that the local currency made available in that way is to be spent for military projects; and those military projects are such projects as the extension of air bases and other details of that kind. In brief, what this act really amounts to is a procedure by which the government of the United States disposes of some of its surplus food products and, in the process, furthers its declared objectives of creating increased defence strength in those friendly nations with which agreements are made. There is no question whatever about the United States government's accepting sterling and getting it in the form of currency; none whatever. It has nothing to do with special prices or anything of that kind. It is simply a case of injecting into the mutual security aid program, to the possible extent of a quarter of a billion dollars, this two-pronged process of delivering farm products and getting certain defence projects carried to completion.
Mr. Speaker, may I make it perfectly clear that I personally would be happy to hear discussed any specific proposal of this nature. Whether we could support it or not would, of course, depend upon the terms in which it was presented and how the proposal was to be carried out. Most certainly, if there is some specific proposal that will aid in the sale of surplus stores of wheat or of other grain or of other food, let us have that proposal made in definite form. Also, Mr. Speaker, may I emphasize that we would welcome-and we said that at the outset- any suggestion by this government for some plan by which they can speed up the movement of that surplus grain which now lies in such large quantities on the farms of western Canada. This is something above politics. It is something above any sectional consideration. This is something that affects
the whole national economy. We would welcome those suggestions. But, Mr. Speaker, before supporting a resolution of this kind simply because the general purpose seems to be attractive, we surely must ask ourselves these questions: Is it practical? Is it sensible? Is it workable? Is there any evidence whatever that the other party to the proposal would be inclined to accept the proposal if it were made?
I should think that everything that has been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom would make it perfectly clear to us that they would be disinclined to accept any such open-end proposal. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, believing that we should do everything humanly possible to achieve convertibility of sterling and dollars, and believing that we should do everything humanly possible to expand trade between the nations of the commonwealth and Canada as well as with every other trading nation of the free world, may I say that I do not believe that I personally can see any practical effect to this particular motion which makes it possible for me to support it. Therefore, personally, I shall vote against the subamendment that is now presented.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say briefly why the party which is associated with me in the house will vote against the Social Credit amendment. But first of all, in view of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) this afternoon and his discussion of national film board affairs, may I say that I believe the plea he has made, that the move from Ottawa to Montreal should be reviewed by this house, should be accepted by the government. I say that as one who believes that a good argument can be made for the placing of the production end of the film board activities in the city of Montreal. It is a centre to which people of many shades of cultural activity go and where there are opportunities for theatrical people and others to carry forward their professional activities in a manner for which we have not provided in this city of Ottawa. It is in many respects the bilingual cultural centre of Canada, and I think that a very good case can be made for removal to that city. On the other hand, I also think that a good argument can be made for the retention of the film board in the city of Ottawa. This is the headquarters of the government. Here are the departments that need to use the facilities of the national film board; and, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech this afternoon, this house neither knew nor understood the conditions which led the government to decide on the removal of the board to Montreal. I
594	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Coldwell think it would be in the interests of all concerned, and particularly in the interests of support for this very important public utility, that the matter should be reviewed by this parliament. Therefore I throw that out as a suggestion to the government.
With respect to the subamendment, it contains two proposals. If I may take the subamendment as finally worded in relation to the amendment of the official opposition it reads as follows:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that the welfare of Canada is dependent upon private enterprise; and that the prosperity and security of all Canadians will be advanced by government policies which will restore markets for primary products and generally promote a high volume of international trade by the acceptance of sterling in payment therefor.
As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, what they did in the first part of the amendment was to strike out the reference to "free competition" and substitute "private enterprise". If I were forced to vote as between the two phrases I would vote for free competition rather than for the words used by the Social Credit party. I think as a matter of fact that those who believe in the capitalist system par excellence can make a very good case for a free competitive system-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: -a system that has long since passed away and cannot be revived; but theoretically a case could be made for it. As for private enterprise, what does it mean? It means that every individual who has either the opportunity or wealth acquired by his own efforts or by inheritance shall have the right to conduct his own business in his own way for his own ends and for his own profit regardless of the community in which he lives. That is private enterprise par excellence.


An hon. Member:: It is par excellent.


Mr. Fleming:: C.C.F. dogma.


Major James William Coldwell: That is the kind of private enterprise that has been carried into effect in the northern area of the province of Ontario at the present time by the mining interests in that area. All you have to do is to look at the power of one man in that area, the power of Mr. Murdoch.


An hon. Member:: The power of Mr. Millard.


Major James William Coldwell: Very well, Mr. Millard, but Mr. Millard has to submit every proposal he makes to the rank and file of his organization.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to learn where the Liberals-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member not referring to an industrial dispute about which this government can do nothing?


Major James William Coldwell: Well, the interruption, Mr. Speaker, prompted me-


Mr. Speaker:: Is it not a matter for the Ontario labour department?


Major James William Coldwell: The interruption prompted me to say what I did say and I think I should have the opportunity of saying it. I am glad to know where the Liberal party stands from their hear, hears.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Liberal party has not expressed its view.


Major James William Coldwell: Evidently they are in support of the autocratic and despotic attitude-


An hon. Member:: Of the Millards.


Major James William Coldwell: -of the mine owners-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not fair.


Major James William Coldwell: -of northern Ontario-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not fair.


Major James William Coldwell: -as I think can be shown.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not going to pursue that any further. I was prompted to say what I did by the interruptions from the other side.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said that was not fair comment.


Major James William Coldwell: But we are opposed to this kind of private enterprise and under no circumstances therefore could we vote for a motion which says that the welfare of our country depends upon private enterprise.


Mr. Gillis:: It has given us three wars in one generation.


Major James William Coldwell: The second part of the subamendment speaks of the acceptance of sterling. As the house will well remember, on numerous occasions over the last six or seven years we have urged the acceptance of sterling in part payment for supplies that we send across the sea. We still believe that that is a reasonable proposition, but the subamendment goes very much further than that. It virtually asks for the acceptance of sterling without any limitation. It says:
. . . and generally promote a high volume of international trade by the acceptance of sterling in payment therefor.
There is no limitation. We have suggested that sterling might be accepted in part payment to the extent that it might be used for Canadian purposes, Canadian investment and,

if you like, Canadian aid in those parts of the sterling area where we could assist in the development of undeveloped areas requiring such assistance.


An hon. Member:: Where are they?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: We still say that is a reasonable proposition, but the subamendment goes far beyond that and consequently we cannot support it on the two grounds I have given. The first is that the phrase "private enterprise" is even more objectionable to us than the phrase "free competition".


An hon. Member:: More Tory than the Tories.


Major James William Coldwell: The second reason concerns the question of the acceptance of sterling without limitation. I quite agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says he does not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain would accept a proposition of this description. Since the war the British have had a great deal of difficulty with accumulation of sterling in India, Egypt, Pakistan and other countries and unless you can use that sterling for some purpose without having it as a dead weight upon the economies of the sterling countries you are not going to ease the problem but are going to increase it.
But to the extent that one could take sterling and use it for capital expansion and the development of underdeveloped regions within the sterling area I think one would be justified in accepting sterling. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition relied on convertibility. I believe that convertibility is the ideal way out of this difficulty, but at the same time I find some of the followers of the Leader of the Opposition, indeed, some of the followers of the government itself, complaining about the importation of certain types of goods from overseas. If you are going to have convertibility there is only one way to have it, and that is to bring in the goods that will earn the dollars that will permit of the converting of dollars into pounds and pounds into dollars.
You cannot talk about convertibility and demand more protection for Canadian industries to keep goods from overseas out of the country. That is incompatible. You cannot have it both ways. Either you must have freer measures of trade, to allow goods from the sterling areas into this country if you want convertibility, or you must face the fact that we are going to continue very much as we are. I think that convertibility on the basis of managed trade thus freeing exchange between nations is in the long run the only way out of our difficulty. But I do not think
The Address-Mr. Coidwell you will get that as long as you have competing capitalist nations in the world, and all of them trying to raise barriers against each other. Not until we improve the international organizations for international trade, not until we plan the trade between nations by intelligent international agreement or bilateral agreements between nations, shall we approach that desirable end which we call convertibility. You cannot have high protection and convertibility at the same time in the kind of world in which we live.
We shall, therefore, vote against the Social Credit amendment, although it is worded in such a way, as these amendments sometimes are, that it would embarrass us. It does not embarrass me a bit because I can make a very good argument concerning it, and 1 believe I have done so.


Solon Earl Low: We had no thought of that. We knew that was impossible.


Major James William Coldwell: I notice that the president of the Social Credit party who is also deputy leader of the Social Credit group in this house paid me a compliment the night before last when he was speaking at Regina. I am very interested in this, and I should like to see the full text of it. Evidently, in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) stated he was expressing a personal opinion the other day, he seems to have been expressing, to a large extent at least, the opinion of the president of the Social Credit organization in Canada and the deputy leader of that party in this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who is the president?


Major James William Coldwell: The president is the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). I had better read this press dispatch from Regina which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of December 2, 1953:
E. G. Hansell, Social Credit member of parliament for Macleod and the party's national president, said Tuesday Canadian socialists are "selling their country down the river" by attacking United States Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Evidently there are a lot more socialists in this house than are associated with the C.C.F.
Mr* Fulton: You said it.


Major James William Coldwell: I continue quoting:
"Every socialist and newspaper in the country is after Senator McCarthy's hide because he is trying to ferret out the subversives boring within our governments", he said in addressing the annual convention of the Saskatchewan Social Credit League.
Mr. Hansell singled out M. J. Coidwell, national leader of the C.C.F., and Premier T. C. Douglas of Saskatchewan in his attack. He said he had a great deal of respect for Senator McCarthy and his work.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
I am not going into McCarthyism this afternoon, but if there is one thing which I believe threatens the welfare, peace and democracy of North America, perhaps of the world, it is the kind of man that Joseph McCarthy is. I have no hesitation in saying so.


Mr. Blackmore:: Why not tell us why?


Major James William Coldwell: I shall tell you why if the hon. member will just be patient. I shall use the hon. member for Lethbridge's own words; that is the best way of settling that question.
Speaking in this house last Monday afternoon the hon. member gave the answer to that himself. He said that McCarthy was being attacked by various people and newspapers, and asked why. He said it was because, and these are his own words as found at page 444 of Hansard for November 30:
McCarthy assailed the top-notehers of the communist organization, the big fellows, . . .
Pay attention to those words.
. . . the top-notchers of the communist organization, the big fellows, the people whom most people cultivated . . .
Then the hon. member names those big fellows who are the top-notchers of the communist party. Who are they? They are Acheson, Tydings, Jessup, Lattimore, Stevenson and Benton. The hon. member then goes on to say:
All of them are now gone, but McCarthy still remains.
The little people all over the nation therefore liked and trusted him. It is easy enough to jump on the little, poor, weak fellow: but to jump on the big fellows requires courage and conviction.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: I say that this kind of propaganda makes for ill will, makes for distrust of public men who have earned the respect and confidence not only of their fellow citizens in their own country but of those all over the world who know what they have done for freedom and democracy. We have such outstanding men as Dean Acheson.


Mr. Hansell:: Move over, boys.


Major James William Coldwell: X see the hon. member for Macleod is here. Then, we have Stevenson, the man who was a candidate for president of the United States. I say it is a disgrace to this parliament that men of that description should be pilloried and vilified in this house. So far as I am concerned, to have my name mentioned in the same connection as those gentlemen is indeed an honour that I did not anticipate would come to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to discuss the matter which it was my intention to go into this afternoon I would like to turn my attention to the most recent remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell). I do not want to be unfair to the Leader of the Opposition, but I gathered that what he said was that he simply could not see how it could be possible to use British pounds to back Canadian dollars to advance to Britain in order to permit Britain to buy Canadian goods.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt but the remarks that have been attributed to me bear so little resemblance to anything I said that I cannot help wondering if the hon. member was in the house at the time.


John Horne Blackmore: It would help a little if the Leader of the Opposition would tell us
The Address-Mr. Blackmore just what he did say. I think everybody in the house certainly gathered from his remarks that he could not see how the proposal by the Social Credit party could be made feasible. Do you agree to that?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: I think it is clear that the Leader of the Opposition, because of the onerous burden of his responsibility, has not yet had time to study the methods of financing that were used in world war I by Sir Thomas White, who was minister of finance for the Conservatives in those days. If he will just look at the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada, published in 1933-and I shall be glad to send him a copy immediately-and turn to page 22, paragraph 47, he will read there that in 1917 the minister of finance created $50 million in bills. I hope the hon. member can understand that. That means he printed them and he took those $50 million in Canadian bills, bought Canadian goods, and sent these goods over to Britain, and as a backing for these bills he used British pounds. I think probably that fact will help the Leader of the Opposition comprehend the Social Credit amendment.
If the device worked back in 1917 under war conditions with about $4 billion of Canadian production to back the money, can the Leader of the Opposition or any other twenty men in this house tell why it is that Canada now, with a $24 billion production to support the money, could not safely create enough money to buy her surplus goods and send them to Britain or to any other country she might wish to send them to?


George Alexander Drew: Since the hon. member has
directed a question to me, may I say that I am not anxious that the answer be given by a chorus of twenty, but as far as I am concerned I can simply answer as a blanket statement that anything that has been directed to me bears no resemblance to what I said, and most certainly I am not for one moment in a position to understand how the statements the hon. member is now making bear any relation to the amendment we are discussing.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, that deals with the Leader of the Opposition and I am not going to waste another moment's time on him. He indicated that the Social Credit party proposal was not feasible, but his own party's minister of finance, who was minister of finance for eight years and handled financial matters through a world
598	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Blackmore war, demonstrated beyond peradventure that the system is feasible and did work miracles in world war I.
I just want now to turn for a moment to the leader of the C.C.F. party. I do not blame him for one moment for all the things he has said. He just does not know. By the time Senator Jenner and others in the United States who are finally becoming active investigating the administrations under Truman and Roosevelt get done with the job, exposing what actually happened in the days of those presidents, I think probably the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) will be led to think a second time.
May I just read to the house for a moment the following quotation from an article by Owen Lattimore in the Sunday Compass of July 17, 1949, in which will be found this statement by Owen Lattimore:
The thing to do, therefore, is to let South Korea fall but not to let it look as though we pushed it.
The United States, he means. Now, I wonder if the member for Rosetown-Biggar would be quite so proud to be seen in that man's company.
The following statement is also true, and concerns the earlier part of Mr. Lattimore's argument. In that article, he points out that the state department's big problem in China was how to let China fall to the communists without having it appear that "we pushed her".


Major James William Coldwell: Read the context of these
two sentences.


John Horne Blackmore: That is enough. I have
other things to say.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes, you can pick a
sentence out of its context and make it appear to be what it is not.


John Horne Blackmore: My hon. friend can get
the article and read it and tell the house the text himself. I have given the facts. He is the man who knows all about Acheson and these others. But I will give the story about Acheson at some future date.
Let me state one more thing.


Some hon. Members:: What about the magazine?


John Horne Blackmore: Never mind the magazine.
I will tell you what the magazine is.


Some hon. Members:: What about the magazine?


John Horne Blackmore: I wonder if we are going
to have a repetition of Friday night.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the hon. member what magazine the hon. member is quoting from?


John Horne Blackmore: I will tell the hon. member. The document I am quoting from is a document by McCarthy himself. It is called "McCarthyism. The fight for America".


Major James William Coldwell: By Senator McCarthy?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, it went to press-


Major James William Coldwell: I agree with what Truman
said about McCarthy.


John Horne Blackmore: -on May 18, 1952. Not a single word of it can be proved untrue, and there is no man on the American continent better qualified to speak on the subject. He proves everything he says. In dealing with Acheson in the year 1946-


Mr. Speaker:: Surely the hon. member is
not going to quote from that book for forty minutes.


John Horne Blackmore: But, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member began his speech by discussing the remarks made earlier by the leader of the C.C.F. party. Then he quoted words from this book, which he has just cited, attributed to Mr. Lattimore. Now he is going to quote what was said by Senator McCarthy about Mr. Acheson. I want to warn the hon. member right at the start that he is supposed to make his own speech and not to read into the record quotations one after the other. I would ask hon. members not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor. That procedure is not conducive to orderly debate in this house. I would therefore ask all hon. members for their co-operation so that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) may have the silence required in order that he may make his speech. The hon. member may now continue.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you ever so much, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to quote to any great extent at all this time. I have not quoted any more than just the words of Lattimore, and there they stand.
In 1946 Acheson had the United States government advance $90 million to the communist party in Poland; and the communist party took that $90 million and built up a powerful enough secret police to crush and to destroy-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nonsense.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the hon. member what is his authority for the statement that Dean Acheson lent that amount of money to the communist party? Does he mean the government of Poland?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He said to the communist party.


Major James William Coldwell: 
John Horne Blackmore: You will find that Senator McCarthy will laugh last. He is not done with Truman yet; not by any means.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I am a new member of the house. I wonder how the hon. member makes this subject matter relevant to the subject now before the house?


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I might settle this point now. It is one that was raised earlier. Great latitude has been allowed in the debate on the speech from the throne. I am greatly concerned about the latitude that is exercised in debating amendments, especially having regard to the rule which says that the debate, once an amendment has been moved, should be relevant. But for years the debate has not been relevant to amendments moved to the address. I will repeat what I said earlier during the day. After the amendment having to do with health insurance was moved by the C.C.P. party the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) made a forty-minute speech on defence. Then later the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made a forty-minute speech on the wheat situation. Other speeches which were completely irrelevant to the amendment were also made on all sides of the house. I mention just those two examples because they were striking ones. Those speeches were not contravening the rules because this has been our practice in the throne speech debate. Amendments are moved, and the debate is not necessarily relevant to the amendment itself. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has made an amendment. The leader of the C.C.F. party has moved one. So has the leader of the Social Credit party. But not in any one of those cases- not only in this session but in previous sessions for years back-has the debate necessarily been strictly relevant to the amendments moved. We have heard members give a report as to what their ridings produced, and as to the beauties of their ridings; we have heard it whether there was an amendment moved or not.
At the beginning I said that this situation gives me concern. I think that the committee on the rules which was set up not long ago should look into this matter carefully. It does not seem to be consistent that, after an amendment is moved, subjects irrelevant to the subject matter of the amendment should
The Address-Mr. Blackmore be discussed or that the same subject which is made the subject of an amendment should, after the defeat of the amendment, still be discussed again. That procedure does not seem to be consistent. As I say, at the moment I am obliged to leave the matter at that. But later I would imagine that the committee on rules would look into this matter.
While I am on my feet I may say that there is another point which also gives me some concern and that is with respect to remarks in this house about some people who are now holding or who have held important positions in the government of a country which is friendly to Canada. I wonder whether some remarks are perhaps not going too far. I know that in the past our rule having to do with disrespectful language directed towards ministers of the crown or judges, and high officials of the government of Canada, has been extended to cover the high officials in foreign countries which are friendly to Canada. I think perhaps this is another point which the committee on the rules might look into.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might speak to the point of order which was raised by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) and which was, I submit with great respect, not without some great value. Surely Your Honour would want to make a distinction between the kind of speeches that were made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Defence and the kind of speech that we are now listening to. The speeches made by the two ministers in question were on matters that obviously had relation to some problem affecting this nation; they related to domestic questions. But the hon. gentleman is now speaking on a matter which has nothing to do directly with this country. He is dealing with a matter outside of this country, with personalities outside of this country and in a context that, I suggest with great confidence to Your Honour, must be looked at with great care because of the implications involved in what the hon. member is saying. As one member of this house, I would strongly urge that Your Honour would conclude that there are degrees of relevancy that must be looked at with great care. I submit that by no stretch of the imagination can what the hon. gentleman is saying be said to have any relevancy whatsoever to the motion before this house.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to prolong the discussion on the point of order, but the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) are certainly to the point when he says that, in a debate of
*See page 600, column 1.

The Address-Mr. Blackmore this kind, we should not be concerned with matters other than those within the realm of Canadian public affairs, and that we should not go outside this country.
It is now six o'clock. I hope that the hon. member will, when we resume, continue his speech having in mind the points which were brought out in this discussion.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I have the opportunity to correct a misstatement of fact which I made just before six o'clock during the speech of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). I said:
Truman was right when he called him a liar.
The reference was to McCarthy. What I should have said was:
Truman was right when he called another critic a liar.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) resumes his speech, at six o'clock we were discussing the relevancy of debate to amendments before the house during the debate on the speech from the throne. I mentioned two examples. I would not wish to leave the impression that these two speeches were the only ones which were not relevant to the amendment which was then before the house. I have looked at Hansard and I have found that most of the speeches which followed the amendment moved by the leader of the C.C.F. party were not relevant to the C.C.F. amendment. The only relevant one I can find in Hansard is a speech that was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose this evening to present to the house a few facts pertaining to Owen Lattimore, one of the men whom Senator McCarthy has searched out in the United States administration and exposed as a key figure in the communist organization of that country. Before I proceed, may I point out to the country at large a thing which I think is not generally understood in this house or in the country, namely, that the whole matter at issue in Senator McCarthy's struggle is whether or not it is going to be possible to remove from the United States administration the communists who are endeavouring to shape American policy to agree with the policy of Russia. It is not all of this other nonsense that we hear talked about. That is the whole matter. McCarthy, as I said not very long ago, is a great anti-communist


crusader, and that is all there is to it. Because he is bringing communists down, opposition has been raised against him as it always is when anybody successfully attempts to strike a blow at the communist organization.
It may be asked, what has Lattimore to do with Canada? Is he not strictly a United States problem?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: I ask hon. members this question. Did it or did it not affect Canada when China went behind the iron curtain and under the iron heel of communism and was turned from a friend into a dangerous potential enemy? I ask hon. members if that had no effect on their children and their children's children.


Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: We do not
know yet.


John Horne Blackmore: It is a pretty safe bet that when 400 million people are taken away from your side and put on the other side it throws that many more people against you. It does not take much arithmetic to see that, does it? Does it make to Canada no difference that China, with her more than 400 million people, an almost limitless pool of manpower upon which communist Russia has already freely drawn; that China, a potential industrial nation of great power; that China, the control of which brings Russia perilously close to Japan and America, has gone behind the iron curtain? Again I ask whether it was not a matter of concern to Canada when the free world lost China.
What had Lattimore to do with the loss of China to America? I read a statement just before the house took recess to show what he had to do with it. He said in effect that the problem of the United States administration, if you please, the state department, the Far Eastern administration, was to lose China to communism without letting the American people realize that America had pushed China under communism.
The word "traitor" just breaks down when one attempts to use it to describe a man who would do a thing of that kind. It appears that Lattimore was one of the key agents, if not the main agent, in pushing China into communist hands. Lattimore was a highly intelligent man who called himself a foreign affairs expert. He was often called the architect of United States Far Eastern policy. Did Lattimore's part in this nefarious performance with respect to China affect Canada? Has it already affected Canadian boys who went to fight in defence of Korea and found themselves overwhelmed by vast, seething hordes of men who could bear them down if

they only used their claws and no other weapons? Did that make a difference to us? I imagine it would.
Has anything occurred since 1945 that should concern this house and the nation more? Before the house took recess I read a short passage from an article by Lattimore which said that the chief problem of the administration in respect of Korea is to let Korea fall without letting the American people know that we pushed her. Hon. members are wondering why Syngman Rhee is making such a determined stand. A little bit of careful study and reading between the lines will help all hon. members to see that what Syngman Rhee is desperately struggling against is that very thing that Lattimore maintains was the chief object of United States foreign policy and the American state department.
These things are not among Canadians generally understood, but it is not going to be very long before they will be understood, and I hope we understand them before it is too late. That is what the fight over McCarthy is all about. I ask hon. members: Did the Korean trouble affect Canada? If South Korea were in real danger of being manoeuvred into communist hands right now would that affect Canada? We have set aside something like $2 billion a year presumably to fight communism in Korea. If that is to be in vain, together with all the men whose lives are thrown away, is anyone going to pretend that is not a matter of serious concern to Canada and should not be a topranking topic for discussion in the throne debate right in the house? After thinking about it I do not imagine any hon. member would venture to say that it was not a matter of serious concern.
It may be said that all this is happening over in the United States. But we are intimately bound up with the United States in the defence of this continent. If the United States falls, Canada falls. Where the United States goes to fight, Canada is going to be more or less involved, as she has already been in Korea. What is the sense of voting $2 billion a year and imposing upon ourselves almost unbearable taxation only to see the fruits of victory for which we have made all this sacrifice filched away by clever manoeuvrers in the Far Eastern department of the United States administration? Let me give a timely tip to those who have not taken the trouble to study McCarthy and what he is struggling about. Let them read, let them get right down and get the facts, not what is scattered around in newspapers, because that is highly-paid propaganda. Let us remember that I am not so much out of
The Address-Mr. Blackmore order as some hon. members have tried to make it appear.
If I am justified in making the implications which I am making right here on the floor of this house, implications which I am positive I can substantiate to the very nth degree, then I ask hon. members whether there is anything that Senator McCarthy, as chairman of the Senate permanent investigations committee of the Senate government operations committee, should more meticulously, diligently and determinedly study than this thing?


Mr. Habel:: Let him do it. Do not do it
for him.


John Horne Blackmore: But the propaganda that
is going around all over this country about him would1 make you think that he was a monster the equal of Mussolini, Hitler and all the other enemies we have had in the last 500 years put together.
We would expect Senator McCarthy to use all honourable means at his command, but we would expect him not to let down, to stay right with his man until he got him if he was on the track of a man whom he knew to be a communist. Did McCarthy do that very thing I have suggested? Did he take a man who, he had been informed, was a communist and follow right through? Did he follow rules of moderation and common decency as between man and man?
I propose to give the house the story of one of these men whom he hunted down.
What were his methods about which everybody is talking? I frequently speak with people about this matter and they say, I agree with what McCarthy is doing but I do not agree with his methods. If you ask them what his methods are, they do not know. Where did they get the idea his methods are wrong? It is carried to them by the propagandists whose purpose it is to defeat the senator. If, in the case of Owen Lattimore, we can ascertain those methods it will help us to put our feet on the ground.
On Monday I told the house that the then United States secretary of state, J. F. Byrnes, made known the existence of 284 names that the president's personal security committee submitted to the president as being unworthy by reason of communist connection or sympathy. Only 79 of those persons were dispensed with by the department, leaving 205 to be dealt with by somebody else. The president did not do his job.


Henry Joseph Murphy: We heard that last week.


John Horne Blackmore: I know, but you did not
believe it. You had better become informed.

The Address-Mr. Black more
Senator McCarthy managed, no one knows by what means, although I think it was through the help of loyal men in the department, to learn the names of 81 of these. Of those 81, 57 were pretty certainly communists. Owen Lattimore was one of those. On February 20, 1950, Senator McCarthy gave a speech on the floor of the United States Senate, and commented upon the seriousness of neglecting these 205. He discussed the 81 cases he had, but refused to name any one of them publicly even though certain senators almost savagely demanded that he name them. That does not sound like the Senator McCarthy you have heard about?
On April 5, 1950, Senator Hickenlooper spoke to the Senate and mentioned the fact that Senator McCarthy insisted that these names be not made public. Here are his words:
Tydings insisted on a public disclosure of names. The senator from Wisconsin, on February 20, 1950 repeatedly stated and restated on the floor of the Senate that he did not want to make names public; that, he would not tell the names to the Senate in public.
Now then, those of you who wonder whether or not that is true can ascertain that by merely reading the Congressional Record, unbound, of April 5, 1950, pages 4957 to 4958.
When Senator McCarthy was pressed for the names in the Senate he said that the names were available to the senators if they cared to have them, but if they should label one man a communist when he was not a communist it would be too bad. That does not sound like the McCarthy you hear about. He thought the sensible thing to do would be to have a proper committee and go over the whole situation. Then, they could meet in executive session, which corresponds to our meeting in camera, and get the names. Before the Tydings committee, again Senator McCarthy urged that they go into executive or secret session and he would give all the names. The Tydings committee ruled that McCarthy must give the names in open session if he gave them at all.


Mr. Pouliot:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John Horne Blackmore: Please do not use up all of my time with a lot of useless discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise, sir, to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has been denouncing communism and communists since before dinner. I do not know what he means by that. Would he be kind enough to define "communists" and "communism"?


John Horne Blackmore: If the hon. member does not know, it is too bad for him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter raised by the hon. member for Temdscouata is in the form of a question, and not a point of order. However, I am glad that he did rise because it affords me an opportunity to tell the hon. member for Lethbridge that, having started by stating that he was relating what he had to say to matters of Canadian concern, he seems to be getting away from that point now. As I said earlier, great latitude is given during the debate on the speech from the throne, but the subjects discussed should be at least related to Canadian affairs.
Furthermore, if the hon. member looks at citation 226 of Beauchesne's third edition, on page 95, he will see the following:
It is a mistake to believe that the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne allows members to raise all kinds of issues on the mere ground that they relate to the general situation of the country.
The hon. member explained that what he would say would relate to the general situation of the country when he commenced his remarks, but I feel that he has strayed away from that now.


John Horne Blackmore: As I have said before, the thing that caused me to discuss this matter was the speech which was delivered by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) on November 23, and the position which he took in respect of McCarthyism.


Mr. Byrne:: He only made one speech.


John Horne Blackmore: You can call a man a fool in just a fraction of a second, but it will take you hours to prove that he is not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member for Lethbridge to address himself to the Chair, and I would ask hon. members not to interrupt. It is true that the hon. member for Spadina spoke on this question of McCarthyism, but he did so as it related to references which were then made in the press and in this parliament about some United States agency asking for the appearance of Mr. Gouzenko before a committee in the United States. There was a reference also to attacks which had been made upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). The hon. member made a forty-minute speech in reply to the one made by the hon. member for Spadina. If he looks at standing order 40, the second paragraph, he will see that repetition is not allowed.
The hon. member is now seeking to make another forty-minute speech to defend

McCarthy. I do not think the hon. member is now replying to the speech made by the member for Spadina. He is going into the methods used before a committee of congress by a man who is in charge of a committee, and that is not of Canadian concern.


John Horne Blackmore: One of the main reasons why Senator McCarthy wais condemned in the speech by the hon. member for Spadina was his methods. It certainly should be appropriate in answering that speech to make some reference to Senator McCarthy's methods. I am merely stressing, for the country and the house, the methods used with reference to Owen Lattimore. If that is not relevant to the situation, then I must say there is just no such thing as relevancy at all. I think I ought to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, a fact which you know is true. On the night of November 27 members of this house interrupted me so much, and the Deputy Speaker spent so much of my time, that it took away at least 20 per cent of the time I had available to me. This was an indirect way of denying me freedom of speech on the floor of the house. It cannot be interpreted in any other way.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member would wish to leave the inference that Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hon. members who did raise points of order, interrupted him unduly. It is the right of the hon. member to speak; but it is also the right of other hon. members to raise points of order. And it is the duty of the person occupying the chair to try to interpret those points of order as they arise. Allowance for the time lost in discussing points of order will be given to the hon. member to a reasonable extent.


John Horne Blackmore: I will ask no more. All I wish is to bring this case, which is of very great importance, to members of the house and country at the present time; because it shows the methods used. When I have finished-and I shall not be more than two or three minutes more-I shall close that part of my speech and go on to another subject which I am anxious to talk about tonight.
McCarthy told the Tydings committee that he must give names in order to present his case. He said he would have to name names in the committee. The committee voted to hold open sessions, which meant that they were going to force Senator McCarthy to give names in public, without having proof established.
McCarthy then gave each of the pressmen a copy of his testimony on the Kenyon case. If he was going to give the committee the material anyway, he might as well put it in the hands of the press, so that they would have it straight. As soon as Tydings saw
The Address-Mr. Blackmore that the details of the Kenyon case were already in the hands of the press, and therefore the hands of the public, Tydings offered to allow McCarthy to testify in executive session.
Hon. members and people throughout the country will readily discern how easy it thus became for Tydings or any other opponent to misrepresent McCarthy's methods in respect of Kenyon, one of his cases, before the Tydings committee. It will readily be discerned also that, most people of the country not being able to learn or even to understand the technicalities of the circumstances, it would be wellnigh impossible for Senator McCarthy or his friends to answer the misrepresentations beyond possibility of question. That is, a sort of contemptible trick was used. People will see such a thing happen, and the interpretation may be at variance with what it ought to be because the people do not understand the rules under which it was done.
Thus we see the reason for Mr. Tydings' cleverly deceptive gesture as regards the Kenyon case. The Tydings committee heard the evidence on only nine of McCarthy's cases, and then it decided to hear the remainder in closed session. This was done after a number had been held in open session, so McCarthy's enemies could blame McCarthy for trying to smear those whom he investigated.
The Lattimore case came up first in closed session. Then the committee did not allow McCarthy to present any more cases in executive session. McCarthy insisted upon, and had, a strict understanding that Latti-more's name would not be divulged to the public by the committee until his case had been fully investigated.
Who, then, made Lattimore's case public? Drew Pearson made Lattimore's name public. According to Owen Lattimore's book "Ordeal by Slander," Mrs. Lattimore wrote to him on March 26, 1950. Drew Pearson's broadcast really "broke the story". You see the trick played there?
Lattimore's book "Ordeal by Slander" reveals the fact that Lattimore's lawyer, Abe Fortas, knowing beforehand that Lattimore's name would be made public in this broadcast, invited Mrs. Lattimore to listen to the broadcast. If you want a dirty sort of trick, there you have it. It appears that Drew Pearson, upon the advice of Lattimore's lawyer, Abe Fortas, deliberately made Lattimore's name public and then started running a smear campaign against McCarthy, claiming that McCarthy "had publicly smeared Owen Lattimore under the cloak of congressional immunity". Now, can you think

The Address-Mr. Blackmore of a dirtier trick than that to play on any person? And that is the sort of thing we have been listening to in Canada.
Drew Pearson charged McCarthy with having publicly smeared Owen Lattimore under the cloak of congressional immunity. Owen Lattimore challenged McCarthy to make his statements about Lattimore outside the Senate, and out from under the protection of congressional immunity, so that Lattimore could sue McCarthy. McCarthy offered to waive immunity if Lattimore would consent to have the legal evidence in Lattimore's F.B.I. file made available in any lawsuit which Lattimore might start.
Now what does Lattimore do? Senator Hickenlooper during the Tydings hearings asked Lattimore if he would be willing to have the legal evidence in his file made available. Mr. Lattimore refused to ask that his file be made available on the ground that, in his words, "I should be asking for a favour, and that I refuse to do". I suggest that hon. members should see the Tydings committee hearings of April 6, 1950, pages 483 and 484.
Lattimore's reply is not hard to appreciate, when we remember that Senator McCarthy, in presenting the Lattimore case to the Tydings committee, said that he was willing to stand or fall on the Lattimore case.
Now, there is the case; you can draw your own conclusions. So if hon. members will excuse me I shall not spend more time on this, but I shall proceed to some other things.
I am receiving quite a lot of correspondence.


An hon. Member:: I bet you do.


John Horne Blackmore: You would be surprised if you knew the kind of thing which comes in by correspondence, too.


An hon. Member:: And where it comes from, too.


John Horne Blackmore: If hon. members knew that scores of letters do come from all over Canada, and that only two of them have taken issue with what I did-and the writers of those two refused to sign their letters- they would be surprised. If you knew the kind of thing they say about certain important men in Canada you would be more surprised, too-and troubled.


An hon. Member:: Smear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: You can keep your wisecracks to yourself; you will need them. For example, this morning I received a letter from Hendersonville, North Carolina, dated December 1, 1953.


An hon. Member:: Stamped or franked.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not know whether I ought to read it. I will tell members what is in it.


An hon. Member:: Save it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to read a letter, he will have to indicate the source. It is not in order to read anonymous letters into the record.


John Horne Blackmore: I will be happy to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: I may add that, as I said earlier to the hon. member, because he was interrupted I felt I should make an allowance to him in the matter of time. I would point out to him that he is now on that allowance. While I want him to have the full opportunity to make his speech, I should like him to consider concluding now.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes; I think perhaps I had better just tell what is in the letter. I will just read two lines of it.


An hon. Member:: Source.


John Horne Blackmore: It says, "May I commend you on your courage-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to read a letter he must give the source. He cannot read anonymous letters into the record.


John Horne Blackmore: I'll tell you what I'll do, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: I want to discuss another important matter before I finish tonight. I will just stop right here except to say that with this letter there have been sent copies of editorials in two United States papers, each of them supporting Senator McCarthy and challenging anyone to produce one single bit of evidence against him. One paper is the Charleston News-Courier and the other is the News-Times of Hendersonville, North Carolina. You have newspapers in two states of the United States taking the same position. I could read them, but I shall leave them now and if anyone wishes to see them he may.
Before I take my seat I wish to say a word about an entirely different matter, namely the Waterton Lakes national park in southwestern Alberta. I feel that our parks in Canada are extremely important because of their influence upon tourist trade. This particular park is in my constituency and consequently I appreciate how important it is. As I said, it is located in southwestern Alberta and borders on British Columbia and Montana. It is just across the border from the Glacier national park in the United

States. These two parks have been combined idealistically to form what is known as the Waterton-Glacier international peace park.
The development of this park is considerably behind what it should be for reasons which I will not now go into. Its complete development has been delayed now for about twenty years and it is highly important that considerable money should be spent on the park immediately in order to bring it up to the standard it warrants.
This is an extremely interesting park to tourists and great numbers come to visit it in increasing numbers every year. If we can attract tourists with high-class parks then we shall be in position to tap the source of American dollars provided by tourists to this country.
This park contains many wonderful lakes. There are the Waterton lakes and I do not think any more beautiful lakes can be found anywhere in Canada. There is the delightful Cameron lake, the Carthew lakes, Bertha lake and Wall lake. They are all exceedingly beautiful, nestling among mountains of extreme beauty. These lakes fall just short of equalling the beauty of the famous lake Louise in Banff.
There are two beautiful falls in the park, Cameron falls and Blakiston falls. Either one of these falls is worth going 500 miles to see. There are a number of beautiful creeks such as Cameron creek, Pass creek, Red Rock canyon and Blakiston creek.
The park contains many types of animals such as mountain goats and mountain sheep, white-tailed deer, mule deer, red deer, black bears, brown bears, grizzly bears, cinnamon bears and elk. There is a buffalo paddock containing a number of fine buffalo roaming around just as their forebears did long ago. There are great numbers of fish in the park; in fact it is one of the most valuable fishing resorts to be found anywhere. With a little more money being spent it could be made even better.
There are mountains of remarkable beauty, lofty, rugged, colourful and unique in their general appearance. They would be an inspiration to anyone.
The park contains many good roads. There are hard-surfaced roads in the townsite. The Waterton-Pincher road is almost all hardsurfaced now. The Waterton-Carway road is almost all hard-surfaced. The road to Cardston is all ready to be hard-surfaced and the Cardston-Lethbridge road is already hard-surfaced.
The Address-Mr. Winch
Further improvements in the park would attract more tourist traffic because it can draw on a tremendous territory including southern Saskatchewan, southern Alberta, southern British Columbia and all through the western states.
People come by the thousand to see this beautiful park. One thing that brings them there is the fact that Glacier national park is just across the American border. In it is the Logan pass. To travel the Logan pass highway would give a person the thrill of a lifetime.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has much more to say on national parks-


John Horne Blackmore: Just one minute.


Mr. Speaker:: Both the hon. member and I are in the hands of the house.


An hon. Member:: Go on.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless consent is given the hon. member cannot continue.


John Horne Blackmore: There are just a few more words I would like to say. This park is capable of being developed into a winter playground because it can provide skiing and other winter sports. Tourists will come there in the wintertime provided there is suitable accommodation in the park. That would add tremendously to the tourist traffic and increase our supply of American dollars.
One of the improvements that should be made is the installation of a swimming pool. This would help in creating this park as a winter playground; thus it would become a valuable element in our American trade relations. I ask the government to give thought to pouring a large sum of money into the hands of those who have charge of developing the Waterton Lakes national park. Then next year I will come back and tell you all about the growth.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity which the procedure followed by this House of Commons gives to an hon. member to rise on various amendments if he feels that something should be brought immediately to the attention of the government. I assure hon. members that it is not my intention to abuse that privilege. However, I do want to say that I do not agree with the view expressed by an hon. member on the other side or in certain editorials or by certain columnists, that there is too much talk during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In my estimation, I am not sent here by the electors of Vancouver East for the purpose of sitting on my
606	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Winch seat, and I use that word in the physical and not the constituency sense, and just drawing my cheque.
I consider this parliament as a board of directors of 265 conducting the biggest business in the Dominion of Canada, a business which has to raise and spend approximately $4,000 million a year. According to the way we vote on policies and legislation we affect the life of every man, woman and child in the Dominion of Canada. Therefore, it is our responsibility as members of that board of directors to speak if we feel we have something that should be said.
Over a period of centuries a parliamentary procedure has been laid down under which only the government can introduce legislation dealing with policy or with taxation or the expenditure of money. The debate on the throne speech and that on the budget afford the only opportunities a private member has of bringing to the attention of the government matters of policy or of legislation that he thinks should be introduced. I hope the government will give consideration and perhaps do something at this present session of parliament on the matters drawn to their attention. When I spoke a week ago last Tuesday I drew the attention of the government to three matters which I considered of importance. I now have an additional two points that I desire to draw to the notice of the house at this time. Before dealing with them, however, I would like to make a few comments upon the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) who has just spoken.
I will not take up the time of the house in commenting on his charges, or in commenting on his attacks on individuals in other countries. I only want to deal with what I consider to be his approach, because I feel it is important that his approach should be commented upon.
After listening to him this afternoon I felt I had to refresh my memory on a report I read only this morning in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix dated Saturday, November 28. When I read that report this morning I thought it was something of a joke, but after listening to the hon. member I think the matter is serious. It is not a joke because the item referred to in the Star-Phoenix seems to express an approach that is almost identical with that of the hon. member for Lethbridge. Let me quote from the Star-Phoenix of November 28 which deals with an election in the University of Saskatchewan. Most universities have students' political groups and they nearly all have a parliamentary forum
[Mr. Winch.l

or mock parliament, and most of these university political groups discuss matters of the day and take politics very, very seriously, as they should. But apparently a change has come about in Saskatchewan, if the report in the newspaper I have mentioned is true, because they have just had an election in the University of Saskatchewan and according to the press more Social Credit candidates were elected than were elected from any of the other parties. But let me quote from page 3 of the newspaper I have mentioned:
A jclier party wins university election. A joker party under the name of Social Credit has won the parliamentary forum at the University of Saskatchewan. For several weeks before the election there has been much debate on the campus about whether the mock parliament should be kept on a serious political level.
Now, Mr. Speaker, at the same time that I saw this newspaper this morning there came into my hands another publication that I have never heard of before. It also is published in Saskatoon and it calls itself Straw 'n Chaff. In its write-up it completely substantiates what was in the newspaper I have just quoted from and it goes even further. It outlines the slogans, the platform and the policies of the various parties that ran. It states that the C.C.F., the Liberals, the Conservatives and other groups ran a campaign on the issues of the day and it set forth what they would do if elected. The Social Credit group went off on a completely new tack and I want to quote from this publication Straw 'n Chaff because I think it indicates, from what I have heard from the hon. member for Lethbridge this afternoon, their thinking and their approach and what their battlecry was in this election. The Social Credit battle-cry was, and I quote:
Arise, you idiots, you have nothing to lose but your brains.
And it goes on:
Culminating in a spirited campaign which placed the issues squarely before the electorate the Socreds relied entirely on the desires of the student body to return the mock parliament to its original status of more mockery and less parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that I took this as a joke. But I think it is serious when I find in the same publication a statement by Mr. J. Haver, a Social Crediter and federal candidate for the constituency of Saskatoon in 1953 and a member of the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member has been referring to an election in the University of Saskatchewan. If he wishes to read from a publication to refute something said in this house I cannot allow him to do so.


Harold Edward Winch: I am quoting from a publication I found here in this house. This publication refers to the election iat the University of Saskatchewan and I am quoting from it and when I say quote, I mean exactly that. The statement of Mr. Havers reads, and I quote from this publication:
I would like to extend to Mr. Spencer and his colleagues my sincere congratulations on their outstanding victory for Social Credit at the university polls. They have done an excellent job and it proves what thinking men and women can do when they are not only aware of, but also imbued with the desire to correct, the flaws in the present economic system.
This being in quotes I take it this is a direct statement by a candidate for the Social Credit party in the last election. I say, sir, that this is not a good approach. If all this is a joke, then it is in bad taste. If Mr. Havers did not make such a statement then it should be repudiated because it is of the utmost importance that in what we say on the floor of this parliament, and in the manner in which we conduct ourselves outside this parliament, we should maintain a respect for democracy, a respect for parliamentary institutions, and a respect for those who are elected to parliament irrespective of their political affiliations.
If we ever allow through our actions in this house or out of it a feeling of disrespect or cynicism to get abroad then we are laying the groundwork for a situation which could only coincide with what took place in Germany and Italy, and which, because of a feeling of cynicism and disrespect for parliament and members of parliament, led to the establishment of nazism and fascism.
I have felt it a great privilege, Mr. Speaker, to listen to all of the debates this past three weeks. I have learned a great deal. I have at the moment only two slight disappointments-no, not slight. One is a great disappointment and that is that unfortunately I do not have a knowledge of French. I regret very much that in my schooling I was taught Latin instead of French and I want to say that my lack of knowledge of the French tongue has been a great handicap. But, I assure the French-speaking members of the house I do not like sitting here out of courtesy listening to them and not knowing what they are saying and having to wait for French translations in Hansard, and may I assure them, Mr. Speaker, that it is my hope that in the not too distant future I will be able to sit here and understand what they are saying when they are saying it.
May I also comment on the system of oral questioning which I am not quite used to. I could not help noticing the great courtesy with which the majority of cabinet ministers
The Address-Mr. Winch answered questions and the explicit manner in which they answered them. That is true in the majority of cases but unfortunately there are one or two about whom I cannot make the same statement, and in my opinion they are a little bit evasive in some of their answers and sometimes more than evasive. In western Canada there is a word that is now coming into use and it is known as "weaseling". Now, "weaseling" has a political interpretation in two ways. First of all, it means saying something when you do not say "yes" and you do not say "no"; secondly, it means answering a question without giving any information. There are certainly one or two here who answer questions without giving any information. In particular I refer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I certainly hope that he follows the example of the majority of his colleagues and gets away from his own expression.
I said, sir, that there were two additional matters that I wanted to raise at this time. I want to add my voice to the words that have been spoken by members, I think, from all parties in this house asking the government to recognize the need for thinking about and for formulating some policy of decentralization of industry in the Dominion of Canada. There can be no question that the future prosperity of Canada depends upon an over-all, well-rounded system. We cannot have that if we have a concentration of industry in two provinces in Canada or if we have a concentration of industry in two of the large cities or centres of a province.
Decentralization is a major requirement at the present time. One way in which I believe something could be done about it is for the government to make a full and complete study of the system of industrial estates as it operates in Great Britain. I believe a few years ago in Great Britain a major advance was made when they recognized that they had depressed areas, that they had to decentralize industry. The government took the initiative in analysing the over-all picture in that country and then moved into the areas requiring attention. The government built the factories, the offices and the homes, put in the streets, the waterworks and the electric lights. Then the government went out with a definite plan of getting new industries established and of getting established industries to move from the centres of industry, of getting them to open branches and of assisting anyone who had a good idea, one which the government thought was practical, to have a factory in which to operate. They rented those establishments-and there are several now in Great Britain-on the basis
608	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Winch of one shilling a square foot a year. When I was in Great Britain in 1949 it was my privilege to go into a number of those establishments. As I have said before, I think they are a major step forward. I believe it would be in the interests of Canada if the present government would give consideration to the initiation of a similar plan in this dominion.
There is just one other point to which I wish to refer. I said that I was not going to abuse the privilege which is mine and I shall not do so. I raise this point at this time because I believe it is something upon which the government should take immediate action. I believe that more encouragement should be given to Canadian industry and that greater interest should be taken in seeing to it that Canadian industry gets a greater break in the supply of materials and in contracting for work when there is a mutual Canadian-United States agreement, and particularly when it is a mutual agreement for defence.
I am under no circumstances criticizing or attacking the principle of mutual agreements between the United States and the Dominion of Canada; but, Mr. Speaker, I think that we in Canada are not getting a break in the supply of materials and on tendering for contracts for work which is to be done in the Dominion of Canada. I realize that it would not be fair to generalize in that way so I am going to bring it down to a particular instance. I want to refer to the agreement made between the Dominion of Canada and the United States on what is known as the Haines-Fairbanks pipe line. The Haines-Fairbanks pipe line is under the permanent joint board on defence. It is being financed in the main by the United States government. Therefore it is a United States project. But in this project, a few hundred miles of it have to go through the province of British Columbia on the northern boundary. Not only in Canada a signatory, as she must be, to this project but Canada also has some responsibilities. In the agreement which was filed in this house we find paragraph 1 which is entitled "Right of Way" and which reads as follows:
All land or interest in land required for the right of way of the pipe line and appurtenances including any pumping stations . . . and for access roads, will be acquired by and remain in the title of Canada. Any expense incurred in the acquisition of such land shall be assumed by Canada.
Hence the dominion obviously has a financial as well as a defence interest in the Haines-Fairbanks pipe line. Because this is a mutual defence project, Canada moved very quickly to put through the necessary regulations in order to make it possible for all the equipment and all the supplies


coming into Canada from the government of the United States, from anyone who is contracting with the government of the United States or any Canadian who is contracting with the government of the United States, to come into Canada, as the memorandum says, free of customs duties, sales tax and excise tax. Canada moved very swiftly because, under date of September 18, the memorandum was sent out by the customs and excise division making it clear to all those concerned that Canada was not going to charge any customs duties, excise tax or sales tax on materials coming into British Columbia for this project.
The four or five weeks before I came down to the House of Commons I spent in making a survey of industry in British Columbia for the purpose of trying to be a better member of parliament by knowing the industries, what they are doing, what they can do, and what their potentialities are. In making that survey, Mr. Speaker, time after time I came up against a big industry who said they were interested in being able to tender on this Canadian-United States project but that they did not know what was going to happen on the sales tax and the customs duty position and that they did not know whom to contact. As soon as I came to Ottawa I tried to find out. I found out from the departments here in Ottawa that it is extremely easy to find out what Canada has done-which, as I have already pointed out, has been absolutely fair, absolutely decent-working in a speedy manner. But, Mr. Speaker, it took me five days to find out, or rather for the government departments to find out what the United States has done to give us equal treatment. I finally got the answer right here in Ottawa after five days' search; and the answer was that the United States has not given our people the same rights and the same treatment in tendering for supplies, work or materials in the contiguous sections in the United States. I think it is wrong that we have this kind of agreement, when part of a project goes through the Dominion of Canada, whereby we should say that the United States is exempt on anything that they send in but our people are not exempt from United States taxes if we want to bid on contiguous sections in the United States.


Mr. Lesage:: Who is paying the whole cost?


Harold Edward Winch: The greater part of the cost is being paid by the United States government.


Jean Lesage: The whole cost.


Harold Edward Winch: I cannot answer that. I just read this part of the agreement which was filed in this house and which says that

Canada has to pay for the acquisition of land in British Columbia. I do not know what that means if the United States pays the whole cost. If they are paying the whole cost, that is fine. I will accept that statement, even though it is outside the terms of the agreement. But they are in Canada. Because it is a mutual agreement we agreed to let them come in free of customs duties, sales tax and excise tax. I say that is as it should be. But I also say, sir, that the Canadian industries and Canadian products should have the same right in that contiguous section of the United States. It should be a twoway street, not a one-way street. I sincerely hope the government will take this matter under advisement. I am also certain that the minister, who has just spoken, will say that they are interested in encouraging the use of Canadian materials and that there is actually a section to that effect in the agreement. I want to be honest and fair so I will read it. It is subsection (c) of section 8 and reads as follows:
Canadian materials will be used on the Canadian portion of the line as far as feasible.
But we are in a pretty difficult position, as I have just outlined, because we are completely up against the competition of United States business concerns who want to come into Canada because they are operating on the same basis as Canadian firms, while on the other hand we are in a difficult position if we want to go into the United States unless the secretary of the army says that we do not have to pay these taxes. That is an impossible situation for industry to have to face if they want to tender on contracts for supplies. I said that the government will say they are very interested in this. I want to admit here and now that they have expressed their interest by the appointment of a civil servant to whom they have given the title of special commissioner on the Haines cut-off. He is the liaison officer with the United States officials on this pipe line in British Columbia.
That is as it should be, but here is the point. Before I left Vancouver I spent four or five weeks covering industry in that city, some of which are quite capable of tendering on this kind of job, and they did not know anything about this man who had been appointed. They had not heard of him. I found out as soon as I arrived here, and I want to say that I got the information speedily on my arrival. However, while this man may be the finest in the world, and I do not doubt but what he is, when I asked how industry was to get in touch with him I found that his postal address was Whitehorse, Yukon Territory.
The Address-Mr. Winch


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the
hon. member a question?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is he aware that the contract for the laying of all pipe within Canada went to a Vancouver contractor? Is he also aware that the pipe itself was bought in England, which we in Canada are rather inclined to look upon with favour if we cannot make the pipe in Canada? What more does he want?


Harold Edward Winch: At the time I was there the contracts had not been let, and industry in Vancouver, which I not only think but know is interested, did not know about it. My point is still absolutely valid. If you are going to appoint a liaison officer, and I think it is right that you should, he should be stationed in the centre where he can be of most value. Although I like Whitehorse very much and know the place quite well, I submit he should not be located there but in Victoria, Vancouver or Edmonton, or an industrial centre where you could logically expect to be able to get in touch with such an officer. I am expressing here the views that were expressed to me by industry in the province of British Columbia.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A piece of nonsense.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not think industry in British Columbia considers it nonsense. We have very good industries there and they operate very efficiently. We have men who are on their toes. There is no question about that. That was definitely proven in the last war. If you will look to the industry of British Columbia I think you will find that we can handle any job pretty well. All we are asking is an even break, and I ask for an even break for all Canadian industry. I am not speaking parochially for the province of British Columbia alone because the prosperity of Canada does not depend upon one province or community. It depends upon the prosperity of all Canada. All I am doing is asking that it be made clear that such agreements entail a two-way street irrespective of who is paying the shot, and that in appointing liaison officers such appointments should be well publicized and they should be stationed in a central location. That is all I want to say at this time on the matter of industrial estates, decentralization and these agreements. In addition, I hope that the government has not forgotten the matters I drew to their attention when I spoke last.
Mr. J. W. Nose worthy (York South):	Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken on the



$10 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), I want to take a few moments to dwell on what is to my mind the key sentence in that amendment, that which tells us that the welfare of Canada is dependent upon free competition. I am a little worried lest Liberal members of the house should be carried away completely by their worship of free enterprise and free competition and be induced to vote for this amendment and thereby bring about the defeat of their government. I just want to warn them-
An hon. Member:: Don't worry.


Mr. Noseworthy:: -what is entailed in
voting for that amendment. I can realize the difficult kind of dilemma that confronts them in their support of free competition. I suppose the Leader of the Opposition believes in what he says in the amendment. I presume he believes that the welfare of Canada depends upon free competition, and knowing as he does the extent to which free competition is at present non-existent in Canada he must be terribly worried about the welfare of Canada.
I gather from his speech and from that made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) that the Progressive Conservative party is trying to resuscitate its fortunes by bringing the party back again to good old Tory policies. I suspect that they are getting tired of being out-Toried by the Liberals and are determined that they are going to find a place somewhere to the right of the Liberals if that is possible. From their speeches I would suggest that it is about time that they adopted a new name again for their party, and I would suggest instead of "Progressive Conservative" the name "Retrogressive Conservative party". I think that would express much better than the word "progressive" the line of policy that is being followed by their key speakers.
I do not know how serious the leader of the official opposition is when he implies in his amendment that we must get back to free competition. If he has any idea that we can come back to free competition again in this country I would say that his efforts to bring back free competition will be just as ineffective as were King Canute's efforts to hold back the tides of the ocean. The whole history of industry in modern times indicates that the so-called free enterprise system or private enterprise system or free competition system, all of which of course are sugar coatings for the ugly words "capitalist system", inevitably lead to monopolies, cartels and what is commonly known as big business.
I am sure that the leader of the official opposition and his supporters must have been


a little disappointed at the results of the reports made by the combines investigation commission since this session began. I have noticed that even chambers of commerce are beginning to point out that the commission is making a mistake when it tries to prosecute reliable and reputable business firms just because they form a combination to fix prices or to control sales. They realize that the day of free competition belongs to the time when businesses were small, when an individual owner owned his business and when his own capital was invested in it, not somebody else's capital.
The way in which business is conducted today renders it inevitable that there will be less and less of that free competition. The question which confronts us as a parliament is not whether or not to get back to free competition but who is to control these inevitable combines and cartels and big business associations. Are we going to leave the control entirely in the hands of the chairmen and presidents of these companies or are we going to entrust it, to some extent at least, to the hands of an agency of government that is responsible to the people of this country? I believe that is the question that we must face.
Now, just to indicate how utterly ridiculous is the official opposition's amendment regarding free competition, I am going to put on the record just one example of the kind 'of free competition we have in Canada today. I could, if time permitted, get examples of three or four men who control large sectors of our Canadian economy in which there is very little free competition. The one example I am going to put on the record is the case of one James Y. Murdoch, O.B.E., Q.C. I want to make it quite clear that I am not criticizing this reputable gentleman or his business. I am simply using this as an example of how little free competition there is today.
Mr. Murdoch is a member of the firm known as Holden, Murdoch, Walton, Finlay and Robinson, barristers, Toronto. He is chairman and president of Noranda Mines Limited. Noranda Mines Limited has the following subsidiaries:	Canadian Copper
Refiners, Limited; Canada Wire and Cable Company Limited; Waite Amulet Mines Limited; Amulet Dufault Mines Ltd.; Pamour Porcupine Mines Ltd.; Hallnor Mines Ltd.; Norbeau Mines (Que.) Ltd.; Compania Minera La India (Nicaragua); Empresa Minera de Nicaragua; Noranda Exploration Co. Ltd.; Noranda Hotel Co.; Anglo Porcupine Gold Mines Ltd.; Quebec Smelters Ltd.; Aunor Gold Mines Ltd.; Arbutus Porcupine Mines Ltd.; Noranda Copper and Brass Ltd.; Gaspe

Copper Mines Ltd.; MacDonald Mines Ltd.; National Malartic Gold Mines Ltd.; Omega Gold Mines; Anglo-American Exploration Co. Ltd.; Gridoil Freehold Leases Ltd.; Canadian Williston Minerals Ltd.
In addition to that, my source of information, Moody's directory of directors, indicates that Noranda Mines Limited has also substantial interests in the Mining Corporation of Canada Ltd.; Kerr-Addison Gold Mines Ltd.; Anglo-Huronian Ltd.
Mr. Murdoch, in addition to being chairman and president of Noranda Mines Ltd., is chairman of the Noranda Copper and Brass Ltd. and president of the following companies, most of which are subsidiary of Noranda: Pamour Porcupine Mines Ltd.; Hallnor Mines Ltd.; Norbeau Mines (Quebec) Ltd.; Canadian Copper Refiners Ltd.; Canada Wire and Cable Co. Ltd.; Waite-Amulet Mines Ltd. The Waite-Amulet Mines Ltd. has, as a subsidiary, Amulet Dufault Mines Ltd. and a substantial financial interest in the Mining Corporation of Canada.
Mr. Murdoch is also chairman of Compania Minera La India; Aunor Gold Mines Ltd.; Amulet Dufault Mines Ltd.; Empresa Minera de Nicaragua; Kerr-Addison Gold Mines Ltd.; Midcamp Mines Ltd.; Pacific (Eastern) Gold Mines Ltd. He is a director of Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd. The Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines holds a number of subsidiaries in association with certain United States interests. Those United States interests are: M. A. Hanna Co.; Armco Steel Corporation; National Steel Corporation; Republic Steel Corporation; Wheeling Steel Corporation; Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. These companies are subsidiaries of the Hollinger Company: Iron Ore Co. of Canada; Labrador Mining and Exploration Co. Ltd.; Hollinger Ungava Transport Ltd.; Hollinger North Shore Exploration Co. Ltd.; Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway; Ungava Power Co.; Gulf Power Co.; Hollinger-Hanna Ltd.
Other subsidiaries held not in association with United States interests are: Hollinger Exploration Co. Ltd.; Hollinger (Quebec) Exploration Co.; Kam-Kotia Porcupine Mines Ltd.; Kayorum Gold Mines Ltd. Hollinger Consolidated Mines, of which this gentleman is a director, has also a substantial interest in the following: Barnat Mines Ltd.; Holcorp Gold Mines Ltd.; Jerome Gold Mines Ltd.; Lammermoor Gold Mines Ltd.; Midcamp Mines Ltd.; National Malartic Gold Mines Ltd.; Snow Lake Gold Mines Ltd.; Young-83276-39J
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy Davidson Mines Ltd. He is also a director of Iron Ore Co. of Canada (Del.); the Cariboo Gold Quartz Mining Co. Ltd.; Labrador Mining and Exploration Co. Ltd.; Rhodesian. Asbestos Ltd.
The Mining Corporation of Canada Ltd., inturn, holds the following subsidiaries: Que-mont Mining Corporation Ltd.; Normetal Mining Corporation Ltd.; Torbrit Silver Mines Ltd.; Jerome Gold; Camlaren Mines; Cinch Lake Uranium Mines Ltd.; and has a substantial interest in the Hudson Bay Mining' and Smelting Co. and Kerr-Addison Gold Mines Ltd.
Mr. Murdoch is chairman of the Office Specialty Manufacturing Company; vicepresident and director of Maple Leaf Gardens Limited; Canadian Corporate Management Co. Ltd.; the Bank of Nova Scotia and Wright-Hargreaves Mines Ltd.
He is chairman of the executive committee and a director of the British American Oil Co. Ltd., which in turn has the following subsidiaries: B.A. Shawinigan Co.; the B.A. Oil Producing Co. (U.S.); the Toronto Pipe Line Co. (U.S.); B.A. Petroleums Ltd., Alberta; B.A. Alberta Pipe Line Ltd.; B.A. Saskatchewan Pipe Line Ltd.; B.A. Gas Utilities Ltd., Alberta; Sovereign Royalties Ltd., Alberta; Western Oil Co. Ltd., Saskatchewan; Britamerican Ltd.; Heathdale Agencies Ltd.
Then he is, in addition, a director of the following: Rolland Paper Co. Ltd.; Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Canada; Canada Cement Co. Ltd.
He is a member of the Canadian advisory committee of the Union Insurance Society of Canton Ltd.
In addition, he is provincial government representative on the board of trustees of the Toronto General Hospital.
In addition to those companies and subsidiaries, which total approximately one hundred, and in respect of which this gentleman is president, director or chairman, his law partners-and there are three of them- hold similar positions on an additional 30 companies. So that when one has so much authority and so much influence concentrated in one person, I think we can realize how worried the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) must be about the welfare of Canada under present conditions. I am sure Liberal members in the house will not be carried away by their devotion to free enterprise to the extent that they will vote for this amendment.

The Address-Division


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the main motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On division.
Motion (Mr. Hollingworth) agreed to on division.


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That the said address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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


[Stage Direction]
Righl Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the adjournment of the house.


Mr. Harris:: Tomorrow we shall take up
the three bills I indicated about two weeks ago. The first is to amend the Canada Elections Act; the second, to amend the Pipe Lines Act; and the third, to appoint the auditors for Canadian National Railways.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.50 p.m.

Friday, December 4, 1953