1953-05-05

Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll):
That the second report of the standing committee on industrial relations, presented on Tuesday, April 28, he now concurred in.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before this motion for concurrence in the second report of the standing committee on industrial relations is' carried, I should like to say just a few words. As hon. members are no doubt aware, the second report of this committee was tabled on Tuesday, April 28, and indicated that the committee had endorsed the principle of Bill No. 2 and recommended that the principle of the said bill, together with the submissions included in the printed evidence, be studied by the government in connection with its review and proposed revision of the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
No doubt hon. members are aware that Bill No. 2 is my bill which called for writing the check-off of trade union dues into the federal labour code. I certainly would not take the time of the house now to go into this matter at any length as it has been debated frequently in the house. Some of us would have liked to have seen progress made in the form of a legislative enactment at this session, but we are at least glad that this much progress has been made. After my bill having been defeated on several occasions, its principle has now been endorsed by the committee, and the motion now before us proposes that the house likewise endorse it and recommend to the government that the matter be studied.
I think attention should be drawn to the fact that the request for a study of this matter includes more than just what was in the bill. It asks the government also to study even more advanced ways of providing union security as suggested in some of the submissions included in the evidence that has been laid on the table of the house by the industrial relations committee.
As I say, some of us had hoped that we might get further than this at this session, but at least we are making progress. I trust that the study that will be made of this measure on the recommendation of the committee will result in some form of the checkoff being written into the federal labour code at the earliest possible date.


Mr. Jean Francois Poulioi (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, there was not a unanimous report of the committee in connection with this bill because I dissented and I refused to withdraw that dissent. I cannot understand the advantage of a voluntary revocable check-off because there is a certain contradiction in the term. Besides that, there are enough check-offs. There is a check-off for income tax, there is a check-off for something else, and there is a check-off for something else again. Now it is suggested there be a check-off for union dues which would benefit mostly the union leaders rather than the men.
If my hon. friends are in contact with the union leaders, I am in contact with the men. The men are fed up with these check-offs. They admit that there must be a check-off for income tax, but a check-off for this, a check-off for that, and a check-off to provide huge salaries for union leaders is more than enough. I am strongly opposed to it for the reasons I have mentioned.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) can be allowed to stand as they are. As I understand it, the principle that was adopted by the industrial relations committee and which is now before us in its second report was the principle of a voluntary check-off. As far as this report is concerned, no member of a union will have his union dues taken off his pay cheque without his consent; and if he consents to do that, the next week decides that he does not wish to have it, he will withdraw his consent and there will be no further check-off so far as he is concerned. Things that are not correct should not be put on the record here, so as to stir up animosity between various groups and sections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry INCOME TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister aware that his department has been sending an abbreviated T.R. form to Catholics in this country in order to carry on an inquiry with respect to church donations? If so, would he indicate to the house if this practice is to be continued much longer?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the question contains an incorrect inference when it asks-
Is the minister aware that his department has been sending an abbreviated T. R. form to Catholics in this country in order to carry on an inquiry with respect to church donations?
Forms are being sent out to taxpayers of any and all denominations in order that we may get more correct information on which to base assessments with reference to donations for church purposes.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Resources and Development when I may expect an answer to a question on the order paper, which was passed as an order for return on March 19. I should like to have it, if possible, before the close of the session.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker,
I shall be glad to look into the matter.



WOODFALLE SCHOOL, ROCKCLIFFE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. When may I expect the tabling of correspondence in answer to an order for return passed by the house under my name on January 28, and appearing at page 1402 of Hansard, respecting the teaching of French and religion at the Rockcliffe school?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I shall look into the question as
to whether or not consent has been received in connection with the tabling of the return.


Albany M. Robichaud: May I ask a supplementary question:	Has the minister been

informed that by letter of April 13 the Hon. W. J. Dunlop, minister of education for Ontario, granted the permission the minister has just mentioned?


Brooke Claxton: I have not been informed of it. If that is so, the return will be brought down at once.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Has he received a telegram from the mayor of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, asking for some consideration by way of public works, or for special repair work of naval vessels, which the large machine shops are qualified to handle, and thus avoid a lay-off of hundreds of employees?
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime
Minister): The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Has the minister seen a dispatch in this morning's paper, from Winnipeg, concerning a statement by Mr. A. H. Helm, president of the amalgamated civil servants of Canada, with respect to the reason the five-day week has not been extended to all the civil servants in Canada, wherein he says the reason is that the government is afraid of political reaction. Is that the reason? If not, what is it?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I have not seen the statement, and I have no comment to make upon it.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew.
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer first to the amendment before the house moved by the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and seconded by myself, which reads:
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
whereas the natural resources of Canada are a heritage that should be developed and conserved for the purpose of providing the greatest possible measure of opportunity and security for all Canadians, this house is of the opinion that immediate consideration should be given to a national policy under a system of free enterprise and in close association and collaboration with the provinces that will:
(a)	promote and develop all the country's natural resources for the benefit of the people of every part of Canada;
(b)	protect and conserve our forest, mineral and other resources from undue depletion or exhaustion;
(c)	expand the use of our resources for industrial production in Canada and thus create greater opportunities for the employment, advancement and security of all Canadians.
I think the debate last night was an excellent one, and one in which the issues connected with this very important matter were placed before the house in a clear and definite manner by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in an address that covered the situation, and by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in what, I must say, in its essence represented an outstanding contribution to the meaning and exposition of free enterprise.
Mention was made yesterday by one hon. member that we in Her Majesty's loyal opposition had only recently taken the stand of stating a policy in this connection. So that there will be no mistake in that regard I intend to read from a declaration on this matter by the Progressive Conservative party. Passed at a national convention, it indicates that since 1949, and prior to that date, the stand we have taken on this subject has been identical with that being taken today. I read:
The development of our natural resources upon the basis that they shall be processed in Canada will provide maximum employment and enable us to bring into Canada selected immigrants who will increase and give stability to our domestic market . . .
... in co-operation with the provinces to assist in the conservation and development of our natural resources and as one of the means to that end to establish a national development advisory council.
That is something, Mr. Speaker, that we Have advocated over and over again.
To institute in co-operation with the provinces a vigorous program of water conservation, reforestation, power development, flood control, comprehensive irrigation and drainage schemes for the reclamation of unproductive lands.
To establish a permanent program of maritime marshland reclamation.
To encourage and lend assistance in the production and marketing of maritime and western Canadian coal and the production of electric energy therefrom.
Natural Resources
To accelerate the development of our petroleum and other mineral resources in co-operation with the provinces by effective dominion-wide prospecting programs and by taxation and fiscal policies calculated to encourage the investment of risk capital.
Having said that, sir, I think the question of trade is of immense importance at this time as always. With the Prime Minister about to leave for Washington I feel that the house and the country would want him to know that, as the press says, one of his stands will be supported by Canadians generally-I refer to the question of the St. Lawrence waterway necessary to our national development. Also there is the need for the Prime Minister to make clear to the President of the United States that we in Canada feel that recent actions on the part of the United States government are interfering with trade and are a denial of the principles that were accepted by the United States, Canada and other nations in NATO. Such action is irksome to the Canadian people and is not in keeping with the responsibilities of NATO or of the nations in NATO. I refer particularly in that connection to the findings of the committee set up by President Truman in 1952 to report on a trade and tariff policy in the national interest. That committee made recommendations and those recommendations have been placed before congress by the executive in the manner provided by the American constitution. The recommendations made were as follows:
(1)	That a new simplified tariff act be adopted, providing for a general reduction of duties.
(2)	That tariffs be reduced, and quotas on agricultural products be liberalized to allow freer import of goods that are not produced in the United States in sufficient quantities at world prices.
(3)	That tariffs be reduced and in some cases ultimately eliminated on metals and minerals of which imports are a major part of U.S. supplies.
(4)	That the President be authorized to enter into reciprocal trade agreements without limit of time and with power to reduce tariffs, within specific limits, in return for reduction in tariffs or restrictions by other countries.
The representations made by that committee were in keeping with the general agreement on tariff and trade, and congress was asked to take the necessary steps to enable the United States to join in affording an opportunity, internationally, to promote the objectives of the Geneva agreement. Certainly what is happening today will have a most detrimental effect on Canada in the matter of production of minerals and also of agricultural products. If we in Canada are to take our place and make our contribution in the world today, that situation must be remedied. However much we may hope that the way of peace is present, the press reports of the last two or three days have not been optimistic about the probabilities

Natural Resources
that the U.S.S.R. has made a new move for peace. Rather, the indications are that she has made a detour and will return as in the past to the highways she has followed since 1921.
I feel that the Prime Minister, realizing how our export markets have been hit in the last three months, realizing the danger that Canada faces if the attitude being adopted by the United States of America on mineral imports is implemented, will know when he speaks in Washington that the stand he takes in order to remove these unfairnesses will have the support of the Canadian people generally.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Perhaps the hon. member will allow me to say, in fairness, that I think we should attach some importance to the very strong arguments against these proposals which were put before the committee of congress yesterday by the secretary of state.


John George Diefenbaker: What the Prime Minister says is correct. Yesterday strong representations were made; but representations, having regard to the separation of the executive and the legislative bodies in the United States, are never as effective as they would be if the executive in the person of the President were in the position of the Prime Minister of Canada speaking to parliament.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I rose just because the hon. member was using the word "government" which, of course, can include the overall set-up but might have been understood to refer to the administration.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister has pointed out the distinction between the government in the United States and the government here. If there was any ambiguity in my remarks I am very happy that the Prime Minister cleared it away, because I had no intention of leaving the impression that the President of the United States and the secretary of state held any view different from the views expressed by other members of the NATO nations.
According to reports, what has taken place in congress in the last few days is not in keeping with that spirit of co-operation that one would expect. One congressman, a representative of the majority party in the United States, said:
Let Canada keep her nose out of our affairs.
It is not a question of Canada in any way endeavouring to interfere with the affairs of the United States; it is a question of joint survival in the world today. That cannot be achieved unless in the days of peace, from

the economic standpoint, we have the cooperation which we had in the days of war and in the days since the war. I feel that the trade situation is all part and parcel of the development of our resources. If we have not got trade channels, developed resources are meaningless.
I have here a Canadian Press report of April 29 pointing out that:
Canada's imports soared almost to the billion dollar mark in the first three months of 1953, but her exports dipped sharply, sweeping the foreign trade balance back into the deficit column.
It goes on to point out that Canada today, having regard to trade conditions generally in the world, is in the position that she is relying more and more on the United States market, partly because of her contiguity to the United States and partly as a result of the world situation.
I want to address myself now to a few remarks concerning our resources, and also to some suggestions as to the courses that I believe the government might direct itself towards in order to achieve the maximum development of the productive capacity of all the resources of Canada. We learned during the days of war that the state has a responsibility to foster an expanding economy. At the same time we learned that the commercial activities of the state, the industrial activities of the state, the development of our mines by the state cannot but be more costly than through the medium of free enterprise. I believe that in the world of today, if Canadians could catch a vision of the freedom of security we could enjoy in a real program of national development, Canadians would respond and develop measures to ensure and maintain a program of plenty.
In Saskatchewan we are enjoying today the development of our mineral and petroleum resources to an outstanding degree. We do not lose sight of the fact that these developments came about in the general developments taking place by reason of the demands of defence, and as a result also of the government of Saskatchewan departing from its principle that the state could best develop resources and returning to the encouragement of free enterprise to come into our province. I believe that free men can produce more than men directed by the state, and that our resources will not be developed with the state in the position of dictator or enterpriser. They will be developed in co-operation between the state and the giving of free enterprise and equal opportunity. This has within it the germ of the idea that the state must protect the weak

as against the strong, protect the small enterpriser as against the powerful who would illegally take advantage. The state has a responsibility to provide a national opportunity and the means; the individual must supply the initiative, the capacity, the ability and the foresight and also the realization that in all business there is profit and there is loss.
I have a few suggestions to offer in regard to the situation generally in the western provinces. Last evening the Prime Minister returned once more to the South Saskatchewan river project as a result of a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He returned to that question and dealt with it on the basis of one of those things that might be contemplated in a great national development policy, provided the economics of that transaction were in keeping with the national return. In Saskatchewan today we find ourselves in the position that-this applies to the western provinces generally, whatever the denial may be-we have enjoyed little, proportionately, of the economic advantages that came to other parts of this country in connection with industrial and defence activities or those things incidental to the preparation for defence at this time.
Those of you who have never seen northern Saskatchewan have no conception of the vast potentialities there in uranium. I am not going into that now, as I have done so before. We have at Beaverlodge today a uranium area which is becoming the Mecca of prospectors from every part of the world. We live on the edge of the atomic power age. Chalk River has made possible a vast store of knowledge for commercial purposes. According to the estimates of the scientists, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) joined in those estimates, within five or six years there may be commercial production within this country as a consequence of the atomic development and the fission of the atom. The potentialities are tremendous. The challenge to us to use these potentialities is as great as the potentialities.
Canada has produced cobalt bombs, some six of them up until March 30, which were sold at $50,000 each to hospitals in Canada and the United States. The demand for these bombs is almost inexhaustible, and that indicates the advance that has been made since the beginning of the war. These cobalt bombs would have cost $50 million each had they been produced prior to the war.


Mr. Howe:: A victory for public enterprise.
Natural Resources


John George Diefenbaker: A victory for the
research activities on the part of public enterprise, making available those things and giving an opportunity to private enterprise to expand and develop them. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) mentioned yesterday, the state has a responsibility. When the minister speaks about a victory for public enterprise, I know of no one who, in his own life, represents more the activities of private enterprise and all it means and the benefits that it extends. But public enterprise has a field, as the Leader of the Opposition said last night, in connection with these natural monopolies that could not have been developed by private enterprise and would not have been developed by public enterprise if it had not been for the demands of war and the exigencies of the needs of world defence. We were forced into a position of developing those potentialities. It is one of the few benefits that come out of war. The research activities of the state ultimately become the advantages of the citizens of the state when the danger of war is past or when hostilities end.
In the development of the western provinces, we feel that certain things should be done in order to give us the dynamic and expanding economy, and in order to produce and develop our heritage as that heritage has been developed in other parts of the country. We feel that in the national interest, having regard to the tremendous cost of getting minerals out of the north, the transportation facilities should be made available by the state, and that there should be, in co-operation between the dominion and the provinces, a program to make available to private enterprise that north area which otherwise will not enjoy the development it should. We believe that in cooperation with the province there should be established a national development advisory council, to the end that an opportunity for development would be achieved which otherwise would be denied.
I mention railroads in northern Manitoba. The Canadian National rail link which begins at Sherridon and heads north to Lynn Lake, is one that has made available a new area and has also made possible maximum production by Sherritt-Gordon.
I mentioned uranium in the north, and I am not going to say any more about that matter; but I point out this consideration. Surely we in the prairie provinces have the right

and I again borrow the expression of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)-to have the state render the opportunity for a western industrial development

Natural Resources
that we have not hitherto had. We have on the western plains today five sources of energy; coal, uranium, electric power, petroleum and natural gas. All we require is the development of the vast power resources that are in that province on the Churchill river, at Fort a la Come on the Saskatchewan river and again in connection with the South Saskatchewan river dam and development, in order to permit the industrialization which only power will make possible.
Then in a national development policy I believe we must realize the fact that taxation today is too high and denies to development that encouragement which it should receive. Someone may challenge that statement but, as a matter of fact, only recently Mr. Maxwell W. Mackenzie, who was formerly deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce, spoke on this subject on or about March 10 in British Columbia where he now occupies the position of executive vice-president of one of the great commercial institutions in this country, and he said that taxation must not be allowed to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Then he went on to say that the current level of taxation in Canada is certainly not much encouragement to the risk of large amounts of capital in new resource development. Those are not my words; those are the words of a man who for years was a civil servant of great distinction in the Department of Trade and Commerce and who now, viewing the matter from an objective angle, realizes that in this national development taxation must be maintained at a lower level. To that end-I add these words by way of my own observation-wasteful expenditures should be eliminated, for, without their elimination, there can be no reduction in taxation.
Then in that national development plan I believe that we in the prairie provinces-and I refer particularly to Alberta, Saskatchewan and the western part of Manitoba-have just reason to ask that, in pursuance of our defence activities, the federal government should assist the provinces in the building of defence roads. A road into northern Saskatchewan beyond the area of present settlement would be a defence road. It would make available less costly transportation of the minerals being produced in the north. In the event that war should come, it would also be available as a means of ingress and egress from the north, from those uranium areas which are becoming more and more extensive as the months go by. We feel that this is a matter of national importance. Those roads can be used today in 
order to permit of northern development. The concept is in keeping with the idea that the state gives the opportunity while allowing private enterprise generally to develop where equality of those opportunities shall be assured. At the same time we in the western provinces would harve available to us roads that could be used in defence if and when the need arises. In any event, having regard to the establishment of the camp at Wain-wright and the one at Dundurn, the highways are used in large measure by the heavy transport of the armed forces. I think the belief generally held by the people of our western provinces is that we have a right to ask for federal assistance in these works which, after all, are part and parcel of the defence of Canada.
There were other matters, Mr. Speaker, to which I could have referred but I wanted to place generally before the house some of the views that I believe are held in the western provinces by people of all political faiths. We believe that we in northern Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta stand at the threshold of the greatest and most revolutionary change that has ever taken place in the lifetime of any country. Today the United States of America is a "have-not" country with respect to minerals, petroleum and the like. She still has petroleum but her available resources are only 7i billion barrels more than is our potential in Canada. Her minerals have been spread over Europe and Asia during two world wars.	Our
minerals are in the virgin state of development. They are needed in mobilizing the forces of freedom everywhere. Undeveloped resources being ineffective for defence, we feel that the time has come for a national policy that will render those resources available for Canadians and for the people of every one of the United Nations and which will assure that development which heretofore we have envisioned and of which we are now on the threshold.
I do not believe in a nationalistic policy, Mr. Speaker; but I cannot conceive of Canada, with her vast resources of iron and other minerals, having those resources taken out of the ground in Canada and taken to the United States of America for manufacture. We cannot manufacture or process all of them in Canada. That is something which would be out of the question. But when we ship those exhaustible resources from our country we are in fact exporting employment and are denying to ourselves the development which Canada should achieve. These resources, processed to the maximum in Canada, will be the foundation upon which

development can take place, whereby population may be brought to Canada as by a magnet. I should like to see in this country not the kind of policy that would assure the maximum export of our materials in their raw state-which after all is, I think, a shortsighted policy; for when those resources are exhausted they cannot be replaced-but a policy that would assure that the maximum of development, fabrication and manufacture should be in Canada.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has made his first non-partisan speech of the session. Better late than never. He cannot imagine now much his eloquence is appreciated when he speaks in the vein that he did just now. He quoted to us the Conservative platform about the national development of natural resources. He added "with the co-operation of the provinces".
The Conservative platform has changed a lot since the party met together for the election of its new leader, and the Conservative platforms at the present time are the utterances of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). I did not receive a copy of yesterday's Hansard early enough to use it in these remarks, but I hold in my hand the Canadian Press report which appears in this morning's papers. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday when he read it, and I am glad to have it at hand. I shall read it again. The Leader of the Opposition's motion urged the government:
To consider a national policy under a system of free enterprise and in close association and collaboration with the provinces that will:
(a)	promote and develop all the country's natural resources for the benefit of the people of every part of Canada;
(b)	protect and conserve our forest, mineral and other resources from undue depletion or exhaustion;
(c)	expand the use of our resources for industrial production in Canada and thus create greater opportunities for the employment, advancement and security of all Canadians.
This is most interesting. I cannot understand the meaning of that proposal because it is supposed to act both ways. It advocates private initiative, and at the same time it is a purely socialistic proposal. How can the Leader of the Opposition advocate free enterprise, free initiative, and then suggest that Dttawa should make such commitments with regard to the natural resources of the country? The Leader of the Opposition was not in the house at the time, but I believe the hon. member for Lake Centre was-no, he was not, but he knows about it-when the 68108-302
Natural Resources
dominion government transferred all the natural resources to the provinces. Ottawa no longer has any natural resources. There are national parks and things like that, but the soil of the provinces, with all its natural resources, belongs to the provinces themselves, and my hon. friends of the Conservative party should know that. Well, now, here they are. They want the dominion government, although they do not say so, to infringe upon provincial rights, and if not on provincial rights, on private initiative. They want statism, just as much as it may be practised in the province of Saskatchewan. I do not see any difference between the Leader of the Opposition and the premier of Saskatchewan; they are both advocating the same thing, and it is so much the case that yesterday-


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: The leader of the C.C.F. party does not agree with you.


Jean-François Pouliot: He will agree with me.


Mr. Coldwell:: Oh, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is so much the case that
yesterday one member of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), realized to what extent the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition was illogical, and he suggested that the words "private initiative" be deleted, because the words "private initiative" are all lost in the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition. That is where my hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. party will agree with me. Yesterday he voted for the subamendment of the hon. member for Kootenay West to delete the words "private initiative" from the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Kootenay West was perfectly logical, but I do not agree with his views because personally I am for private initiative. But I cannot be for private initiative and for socialism at the same time, as the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Lake Centre are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They voted the same way
last night.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, that is another illogical move, and it is quite disturbing. In their basket they offer socialism to the socialists; they offer the words "free initiative" to those who believe in free initiative; and they expect to get the votes of all by offering such contradictory proposals. Let them be more serious.
I have great admiration for the Leader of the Opposition. To my way of thinking he has done very well 'during this session, but he has spoiled it by his proposal of yesterday. There is no member of the house who

Natural Resources
has a higher regard for the hon. member for Lake Centre than I have, but why did he speak as he did today? Why did he support the amendment of his leader yesterday? I was stunned when I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that his amendment was seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre. The hon. gentleman was not in his seat, and I was sure that the Leader of the Opposition was playing a little joke on him, and that when he returned he would explain that in his absence the Leader of the Opposition had thought that he would be ready to second the amendment but he had never heard of it, did not agree with him and that he was also the champion of free initiative. Instead of that, he spoke condemning the state policies jf the government of Saskatchewan.
No doubt we have had an advance copy of the speeches that he will make during the next election; but if I were one of the electors of the hon. gentleman I would ask him this question:	What is the difference
between your policy and the policy of the government of Saskatchewan? He could then tell the audience whether he is for socialism or for private initiative. Today we are all mixed up. He has blurred our vision and we do not know where he is leading us.
In the first place he must know that the natural resources of the prairie provinces as well as of all other provinces, with the exception of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, belong to the provinces. He must know that. If he did not know it before, he knows it now because I am reminding him of it. Unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition is not here, so let the hon. member for Lake Centre tell him at lunch time that during the morning sitting he was told that the natural resources were returned to the provinces twenty odd years ago. I am sure that his leader will say to him, "thank you, John, for the information."
I am sure that the hon. member for Lake Centre will be only too glad to give that assistance to his leader and supply him with the correct information, because he himself wants to have ample information. He is never satisfied with the information given to him. But I have put this in a concise way, in a nutshell, so he can give the nut to his leader with the information in it.
We are coming to the end of the session and that is why the hon. gentleman has been exhuming and unearthing one of the planks of the program of the last convention that selected his respected leader. During the next election he will go to his constituents, wherever he chooses to run, and he will tell them:	We have wonderful natural

resources in this country and the dominion government is doing nothing to develop them. I made a non-partisan speech, the best of the session, and the Prime Minister said that they would do what they can with the cooperation of the provinces; but I am all for private initiative and I want, not the provinces-mark you-but the dominion government to develop our resources with the assistance of the provincial governments.
The hon. member started to rise a few moments ago when I said he was infringing upon the rights of the provinces. I know he will say that he is not. Whether the work is done by Ottawa or by the provinces, it is a kind of socialism and it cannot work. Private initiative belongs to the individual, the individual human being or the individual corporation, who is not run by or under the control of any government. That is private initiative.
I am sure we all know people who started at the bottom of the ladder without a penny in their pockets and made successes of their lives by being industrious and working hard. Finally they have become captains of industry and are now known as leading Canadians in the field of business. That is private initiative. Private initiative has done wonderful things for this country. I am strongly opposed to the kind of statism that my hon. friend is advocating.
We have great natural resources in the province of Quebec. The great Ungava ore fields are not being developed by the province. They are supervised to a certain extent by the province which has provided facilities to captains of industry who have decided to spend $300 million in order to build a railroad from the shore to the iron ore fields which are among the richest in the world. That was done by private initiative.
My hon. friend suggested the building of a road to the north in Saskatchewan. That would be very nice. To be built by whom? By the dominion government. In my county between Riviere du Loup and the border of New Brunswick is one of the finest highways in Canada. I went through the state of Maine last year and there was not a better road in that state than that section of highway No. 2 in my county. That was not built by Ottawa, it was built by the province.
If my hon. friend is suggesting that this road be built by Ottawa, is it not with the remote intention of telling his constituents at the next election that the men who work on the provincial roads are appointed by the provincial government, but if they will vote for him and they come to power he will name

all his supporters as road foremen on the dominion highway that is to be built from one section of the province to another? That is a way of cashing in on votes. If such is the case, I submit it is petty politics.
In my opinion it would have been better if the hon. member had told us that he was disagreeing for the first time with his leader who was sponsoring socialism and private initiative at the same time. He should have told us that he was leaving socialism to his leader while he would defend private initiative. Then I would have cheered him to the limit. I would have said that the hon. member was a man of conviction, was a man of principle, was a man who knew where he was going. I would say that he was a man with only one policy, that he was a logical man.
Instead of that he spoke to us about many things that were contradictory. He referred to the marshlands policy. These marshlands have been protected by repairing the dikes. That was advocated a long time ago by prominent Liberals like Mr. Veniot, the former premier of New Brunswick, and many others. That has been accomplished by this government. When we go to the bay of Fundy district in New Brunswick we see that the marshlands are in good condition because of the work that has been done by the Department of Public Works.
Then with regard to coal, the government gives the utmost assistance to the coal producers. With regard to hydroelectric power, why did the hon. member not mention Bill No. 109 which was passed this session to authorize grants in assistance to the provinces for the conservation of water resources? That was a most generous gesture on the part of the dominion government whereby 33 i per cent-


Robert Henry Winters: Thirty-seven and a half per cent.


Jean-François Pouliot: -whereby 37i per cent of the cost is being made available for joint development work.
The hon. member spoke about trade. If he will look at page 4301 of Hansard of April 23 this session he will see that after his former leader, the Right Hon. Lord Bennett, had blasted our trade channels in 1935, the result was that when he left office our exports were $756,600,000; our imports were $522,400,000, making a total of $1,279 million. And in 1948, after thirteen years of Liberal administration, our exports were $3,075,384,000 and our imports were $2,636,945,000 making a total of $5,712,293,000- nearly five times more, after thirteen years.
68108-302J
Natural Resources


William Joseph Browne: If we export five times more, then do not other countries import five times more?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is too bad the hon. member did not understand what I have said. I mentioned imports and exports.


William Joseph Browne: But is it
not a fact that since 1935 all countries in the world have increased their imports and exports-in other words, increased their foreign trade-in about the same proportions as Canada?


Jean-François Pouliot: And that is because in all countries of the world there were better governments than that of Lord Bennett.


William Joseph Browne: Nonsense; ridiculous!


Jean-François Pouliot: And in 1952, after the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had been acting as such for four years only, Canadian exports were valued at $4,400 million and our imports were $4,050 million, indicating that, despite the tremendous figures involved, the difference between imports and exports was quite small. In other words the total trade in 1952 was valued at $8,450 million, and the difference between imports and exports in that year amounted to only $350 million.
I am astounded! I wish to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the excellent work he has done since he has been in charge of that department. At this time I shall not repeat what I said on April 23 as reported at pages 4301 and 4302 of Hansard.
The hon. member for Lake Centre said that taxation should be at a lower level. Then he proceeds to suggest more expenditures. Does he have any idea of what his proposal will cost? No, none at all. He says, "We should do this" or "We should do that", in line with the obsolete Tory program adopted at the last convention of the Progressive Conservative party.
I will ask him this question: Can he submit some figures showing how much it will cost, now that the matter has 'been explained to him? Will he still advocate at one and the same time both private initiative and socialistic measures? And if he talks about tax reductions, what tax reductions does he advocate? That is another pertinent question. What does he want us to do away with? That is another interesting question.
Then he made reference to defence roads.


John George Diefenbaker: When does my hon. friend go to the Senate? That is one question I would ask.

Natural Resources


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell my hon. friend that I do not know anything about it.


John George Diefenbaker: He has qualified himself for it today.


Jean-François Pouliot: Probably I shall go there at
the same time as I go to the Supreme Court- since my hon. friend has been kind enough to give his recommendation for it.


Mr. Brooks:: This speech ohght to accelerate it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know how I could
do that; but I would be in the same position as he is when he states his policies. I would need the gift of ubiquity to be in different places at the same time-the Supreme Court and the Senate. My hon. friend is socialistic, and also for private enterprise:	I would be
at the Senate and the Supreme Court.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member say
the Senate is socialistic?


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall not continue with that discussion, because I wish to conclude my remarks as soon as possible.
The hon. member for Lake Centre has made some very poor arguments. He cannot answer anything I have said-or he tries to answer by making a little joke.


Mr. Sinnoti:: A red herring.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, a red herring, a little
joke, by a most insignificant question. If he had something serious to say he would rise in protest and say, "The hon. member for Temiscouata is falsifying my statements, and I am anxious to correct him. I want the record to be clear." But instead of that he sits there and reads his newspaper, and he thinks of all I have said, and he looks sorry. Yes, he looks sorry because he did not realize earlier the mess in which he put himself and his leader yesterday.
What will the big subscribers to the Conservative party fund say when they read the speech made last night by the Leader of the Opposition? What will they say when they read the speech made just now by the hon. member for Lake Centre? They will say to them, "You have betrayed us. It is true that you spoke about private initiative but on the other hand you advocated socialistic measures. Our industries, our trade, will be taken over by the state if you ever attain power. We are afraid of you. We will not subscribe a cent to your fund because of what you and your leader have said."
Where are the old policies of the Conservative party in the days when it was not calling itself Progressive. Ah!-too bad!
I have only two further comments to make. The first is that I want this country to
IMr. Diefenbaker.]
prosper. Our natural resources are the great gift of the Almighty, and I agree that all Canadians should benefit directly or indirectly from them. But in virtue of our constitution and of the great differences in jurisdiction existing between federal and provincial rights in this country, each kind of undertaking should be done respectively either by Ottawa or by the provinces, or by private individuals who may enjoy the protection of all governments, including municipal and others.
We must respect our constitution. How many times have I heard leaders of the Conservative party speak about provincial rights? That is a good action-natural resources expanded through regular channels in virtue of the constitution, with the assistance that Ottawa may give to the provinces provided the provinces request it.
I see here my old friend and my dear friend the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Little) who practised private initiative to a rare degree by being a prospector in the north country. I salute him; I have high regard for him-and he is a typical example of private initiative in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I can name many others who have done their share and who have taken a risk to do something that was different from what others did. They had the courage and the perseverance to make a success of their undertakings. My hon. friend, and others who are in the same class, deserve a particular tribute because they have shown outstanding qualities of good Canadian citizenship.
There is in this country a lack of certain categories of technicians and it is unfortunate that in virtue of the constitution it is impossible for Ottawa to intervene in matters of education. I cannot understand why there is not a propaganda campaign to have more engineers in this country. We need engineers very badly and we need geologists. We need men of technical experience who can help the dominion government, the provincial governments, private firms or individuals to develop this country. Not long ago I wrote to one of the cabinet ministers asking that some work of importance should be done at the earliest possible date. What was his answer? It was that we have not enough engineers. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) told me that.
I am in correspondence with officials of the Department of Public Works and they too complain that there are not enough

engineers. We have too many bores who come along with degrees in social science and economics; but there are not enough who graduate in civil engineering. A practical suggestion is that although education belongs to the provinces in virtue of the constitution no member of parliament, including the hon. member for Lake Centre and the Leader of the Opposition, should miss an occasion to tell the people at large-and they have occasion to address large meetings-that we are in great need of engineers and geologists and men of real science. There is a fine future for them and not only will they prosper through graduating in such sciences but they will act as good Canadians and they will contribute to the progress of the country.
As a conclusion, I thank the hon. gentleman for what he said about the Prime Minister's meeting with the President of the United States. When he spoke there his remarks were apt and to the point. He said that in promoting trade with the United States, the government would have the support of all Canadians. That was very well said and it was highly appreciated when the hon. gentleman spoke that way.
The Prime Minister is a born diplomat and a man who is conciliatory. I am sure that his talks with the President of the United States will be of benefit to this country and that the hon. member for Lake Centre will have no regret whatever for having spoken as he did.
My final word, sir, is to say godspeed, a safe and happy return of the Prime Minister from his trip to Washington. I am sure that when he returns to Ottawa he will have good news to offer all. I also wish godspeed and safe return to all my colleagues from the journey they will undertake during the summer.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) always makes a very interesting speech. He usually states a case and then proves it to his own satisfaction even if it is not to the satisfaction of the rest of us in this house.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


Major James William Coldwell: I want to join with him and with the hon. member for Lake Centre in saying to the Prime Minister that we wish him the very best of success in his journey to Washington. This is not a debate on trade and commerce, but since it has been mentioned may I say I believe that the future welfare of all the countries of the world, in every field, depends primarily on the
Natural Resources
policies of trade and commerce pursued by the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: If the United States continues to keep up barriers so that nations overseas cannot earn dollars that are necessary, then we are going to find ourselves and the other nations with us in very difficult circumstances.
Like others, I have been alarmed at some of the representations that have been made at Washington by American interests. I hope that when the Prime Minister goes there he will be quite explicit in what he has to say regarding the barriers that have been placed against trade and the violations of the agreements that have been made. I hope that he will come back with a report that will encourage all of us.
The hon. member for Temiscouata devoted a good deal of attention this morning to my friend from Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the allegation that the Conservative party at the present time is trying to ride two horses-the socialist horse and the free enterprise horse. The reason I rose before the hon. member was to say that I was going to vote against the amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. The ground I was going to use and that I am going to use is that this resolution, this amendment, is restrictive. It says very clearly:
-that immediate consideration should be given to a national policy under a system of free enterprise and in close association and collaboration with the provinces that will:
And so on. In other words, my objection to this amendment is that it restricts the development of our resources to free enterprise and to free enterprise alone. What the other connotations of the amendment may be I do not know, but I know there is the explicit statement in this amendment that it will be under a system of free enterprise. My hon. friend implied, as others imply, that we in this party-because we believe in certain forms of social ownership, because we believe in the direction of social enterprise for the social good-believe that all enterprise should be run under some public organization or some state organization. That simply is not true, because I have always stated, and our movement has stated, that while we believe that the evolution is in the direction of greater social control and the development of our resources and of our instruments of protection, that development will be evolutionary and not revolutionary. It will come about when the people of the country decide that it shall come about, and not before.

Natural Resources
I remember very well a very prominent Conservative in this house-the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) will remember as well-the late C. H. Cahan, when a matter of this sort was under discussion before, rising in his place and stating that very thing. He said that he did not know when the party of his hon. friend, who was then Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, would occupy the treasury benches, but he said he would have no fear when that day came because it would be the time when the Canadian people wanted such measures of socialization. They will decide that through the democratic processes, and it will not come about before. I should like to say this, too. While we hear a great deal of discussion about free enterprise, about socialization and so on, when I look across the way at the hon. members who are sitting with the hon. member for Temiscouata, I can say that I do not know of a government which, over a period of years, has done more to bring under social control quite a large number of enterprises.
During the speech by the hon. member for Lake Centre, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) interjected that the cobalt bomb was the result of public enterprise. I agree that that is so. The cobalt was sensitized in the Chalk River publicly-constructed, publicly-developed, publicly-owned and publicly-operated atomic reactor. The design for the so-called bomb was made in a cancer clinic in the city of Saskatoon, and was first used in the city of Saskatoon because it was designed there in a socially directed and free clinic for the treatment of cancer. The Minister of Trade and Commerce could tell us also of the very fine outcome of the manufacture of rubber, the Polymer plant at Sarnia. Again this is public enterprise.
When I look at my Conservative friends on my right, who have moved this motion trying to restrict all our efforts to so-called free enterprise, I would say that one of the greatest public enterprises on this continent, one of the most successful enterprises on this continent, is the great Ontario hydroelectric system. A Conservative government introduced that years and years ago. One might go on and point out that, step by step, we are approaching more and more a society in which, instead of selfish interests, selfish motives, giving the only impetus to economic and social development, we are having the social impetus and social conscience replace what is, after all, selfishness in the final analysis.
In saying that, I am not belittling what many people have done in the past in the realm of private enterprise and the exercise

of initiative. We do owe many of these people a great debt for what they have done in the promotion of the progress of the human race. But let me point out that very often it has been done at great social expense, great social suffering and so on. I want to say that, in common with every member of this house, I am sure we have great faith in Canada's future, great faith that if our resources are developed in the right way and in the right direction future generations of Canadians will benefit greatly from those resources which Providence has placed in this great land. Then, future generations will enjoy those resources to the extent that we conserve them now. When I say "conserve them", who is going to conserve them? More and more governments had to interfere because of the wasteful exploitation of the resources, in an attempt to conserve those resources for future generations. We have to direct, to some extent, the development of those resources. I prefer the word "develop" to exploitation.
I think that means an advisory council, but an advisory council that is rather more comprehensive than the one named in this amendment. I think the time has come when, in co-operation with the provinces, we should endeavour to set up a board that would assist in the planning of the use of these resources so that it would not be such a hit-or-miss idea as it is at the moment. If that were done we could both develop and conserve at the same time; that is the principle upon which our ideas are founded. We believe that there is a place for private enterprise in the development of our resources and the operation of our industry. We believe there is a place in national government policies, in the development of our resources by public enterprise, and that has been done as I have already indicated in the instance of the Polymer plant, the development of atomic energy and a number of other things that one could name.
There is a place for provincial ownership, provincial control and provincial operation of some of our resources. The first one that comes to mind is the production of power. Nearly all the provinces in Canada today are producing power under public enterprise. We find that is the best way. There are other activities which the provinces no doubt will find can best be done under public enterprise in the days to come. Then, there is municipal enterprise. In a good many instances the municipalities have undertaken quite wide services, and undertaken quite wide operations in the economic field. Then there is something that is not always looked upon as social ownership and social control, and

that is the co-operative enterprise. The people democratically get together in their organizations and decide that they are going to do something for themselves. Since I have been in this house I have seen a number of bills passed to make that sort of enterprise possible and to encourage that kind of enterprise, which is social enterprise. In many countries such as Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom the co-operative organizations, particularly in the United Kingdom, are part of the Labour party or part of the socialist party in those countries. They believe that social ownership, through the co-operatives, is one means of promoting the cause of democratic socialism.
I wanted to say some of these things, and I admit quite readily to the hon. member for Temiscouata that the resources are in the hands of the provinces and that the resources must be developed under the control of the provinces. I think that there is nothing to prevent this parliament from assisting in every way possible the development of those resources in the provinces. I do not think there is anything that will prevent that action. I think that every encouragement should be given by this parliament and by the federal government to the provinces. The hon. gentleman says that the roads in northern Saskatchewan or northern Alberta are provincial responsibilities. That is true; and the provinces are putting roads into those remote areas as I myself know, because I have travelled over them. But what my hon. friend was saying was that if we are setting up all kinds of defence measures in the country and you have the Northwest Territories subject to attack as some think- although apparently Lord Montgomery does not share the view-or vulnerable and likely to be invaded in the event of war, then of course roads for military purposes instead of development purposes-although they might serve that purpose-are a matter for this house and for this government if they are part of a defence project. But if they are parts of a purely provincial highway system, it is a provincial matter and I would not argue in any other way. But I think that the government can make grants for the building of highways on certain considerations such as defence and national development of uranium and strategic materials.
I do not want to prolong this discussion, Mr. Speaker; it has already been rather long. I merely want to say that we hope the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will be able to do something at Washington to open the channels of trade. I want to say that we are not voting for this amendment, because we
Natural Resources
believe that the amendment is restrictive; it restricts the development of our resources to a system of free enterprise whereas we believe that enterprise must be undertaken co-operatively. Let us have free enterprise, yes, where free enterprise can serve the public of this country; let us have free enterprise in that respect. Some things can be done by the dominion through this parliament. Some things can be done by the provinces. Some things must be done by the municipalities. We believe that much enterprise must be undertaken by the best form of social ownership through co-operative endeavour. Those are the points I wanted to make. As I say, as this amendment is a restrictive one, because it excludes everything but free enterprise, we are going to vote against it.
I was not here to hear the debate last night but when the hon. member was speaking I recalled that the way he was explaining the amendment was exactly the way that exactly the same amendment was explained by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) last year. As reported at page 3287 of Hansard of June 16, 1952, he said:
It was for that very reason that this motion sought to make it clear in advocating the further processing, as *Well as the conservation of these resources, we believe it is under the free enterprise system that this work will best be carried on and the highest measure of employment will be created.
That language was fairly explicit; and of course the amendment is even more explicit because it limits the development of our natural resources, the conservation of our forest, mineral and other resources and the expansion of industrial production-using the words of the amendment itself-to a system of free enterprise and none other.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word about this motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). Last night the discussion largely took place on whether the expansion and development for Canadians of our natural resources should be by private enterprise or by a socialist system. We Social Crediters are ardent advocates of private enterprise. We find that some people use the term "free enterprise" in much the same way as we use "private enterprise" and to mean the same thing. But opponents of freedom of enterprise have a different view of the term. They interpret free enterprise to mean licence, oppression, special privilege and many other ugly things which formerly were associated with the abuses of free enterprise rather than with a properly and fairly functioning free enterprise system.

Natural Resources
Last night we voted for the C.C.F. subamendment in order to make our position clear, namely that we do not advocate the kind of free enterprise that has associated with it special privilege, licence and oppression. With the C.C.F. amendment, the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition is a perfectly acceptable one upon which we can put our own interpretation as to the method by which development and conservation of our resources shall be carried on. In his speech yesterday my leader made it clear that we Social Crediters favour resources development by private enterprise under intelligent government policy such as has been the pattern in the province of Alberta.


Mr. Blackmore:: In respect of what?


Ernest George Hansell: In respect of the development and conservation of our natural resources.


John Horne Blackmore: Particularly our oil.


Ernest George Hansell: My friend the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) mentions particularly the development of oil; but as a policy I think that could apply to whatever development might take place in Alberta of our natural resources. We are prepared to support the Conservative amendment which includes the use of the term "free enterprise system" because we have made clear how we interpret that term. It seems that our interpretation is not much if at all different from that revealed by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in their speeches yesterday. Let me read without that phrase in it the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and let us see how it reads:
Whereas the natural resources of Canada are a heritage that should be developed and conserved for the purpose of providing the greatest possible measure of opportunity and security for all Canadians, this house is of the opinion that immediate consideration should be given to a national policy in close association and collaboration with the provinces that will:
And so on. Then follow paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), but I do not need to read them. To us, Mr. Speaker, that is a perfectly acceptable amendment and we voted for it last night. In reality, we see no reason why that should not have been a fairly acceptable motion for the entire house. We do not want to be accused of believing in socialism simply because we voted for an amendment which deleted the term "free enterprise".


Mr. Noseworthy:: You just want socialist votes.


John Horne Blackmore: We just want common sense ones; we do not want the others.


Mr. Low:: I did not think there were any earmarked votes in this country.


Ernest George Hansell: I may tell my hon. friend who has just interrupted so vigorously that we are not interested in socialist votes. As far as this party is concerned, and particularly we who come from Alberta, we do not expect any socialist votes, and as a matter of fact it would not make much difference because there are not many socialist votes out in our part of the country anyway.


An hon. Member:: There are only two left.


Mr. Wylie:: You will not get them.


Ernest George Hansell: With this explanation that I have made in respect to our belief in private enterprise it will be quite obvious that there is no inconsistency whatsoever in voting for both amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Voting both ways.


Ernest George Hansell: No, we are not voting both ways.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Both sides of the fence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You voted last night for striking it out and now you are voting to keep it in.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend now says we voted to strike it out. We did not vote merely to strike it out; we voted for the amendment without that being in. He now says that we are voting to have it put in. We are not voting to have it put in; we are voting for it with it in, and there is no inconsistency about that at all.


Solon Earl Low: They know it.


Ernest George Hansell: And they know it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are voting both ways, and you can't get out of it.


William Joseph Browne: should like to make a few observations on this matter. I did not expect to speak on it and would not have spoken at all if it had not been for the observations made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) last night when he made reference to the developments that are taking place in Newfoundland. He said that he had been listening to a radio address by the premier of Newfoundland.


Mr. Gillis:: I said a press interview.


William Joseph Browne: A press interview, and he was speaking over the radio. The hon. member is quoted at page 4763 of Hansard as having said:
A commission of government from Great Britain had to take over the administration of its affairs. Newfoundland is now part of Canada, but all during the time its development was unrestricted by government there was not very much development.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that our development was not as great as that of Canada's;

but our country is not as large as Canada. If a comparison is made between the area of Canada and the area of Newfoundland I think that our development will be seen to be just as great as that of Canada's. The area of Newfoundland is only 40,000 square miles. The area of Canada runs into millions of square miles. Our population is only one-fortieth of that of Canada, and therefore I think the comparison is odious. But, sir, as a matter of fact, when you come to consider that we did not have the great resources that Canada possesses in her prairie provinces, and that we are situated in an area where the fisheries naturally had predominance, and when you consider the policy that was adopted by the government of Great Britain for centuries of preventing settlement in Newfoundland, then our slow growth is understandable. But apart from these features, Newfoundland did have some industrial development before the era of the present government there.
There was a time when Newfoundland was the greatest exporter of copper ore in the world. It is some time since that mine was exhausted at Betts Cove and Tilt Cove. Then we had the greatest iron ore mine on Bell island which is still in operation. Then, under the government of Sir Robert Bond, a paper plant was built back in 1904 at Grand Falls, and that today is a very profitable private enterprise that is still working.
At Corner Brook we have the largest paper mill in the world. It was started in 1925. Here I can give an illustration of the sort of collaboration and co-operation that exists between governments and private enterprise, because in order to get that plant on its feet the government of Great Britain and the government of Newfoundland each guaranteed $10 million worth of bonds. Neither one of them ever had to pay a cent under the undertaking. Nevertheless, the industry went ahead and is today very successfully operated under the management of Bowater's Limited of England.
The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has referred to the great Ungava iron ore development on the boundary between Quebec and Labrador. The huge sum of $300 million is being put up by private enterprise to build the railway, and that amount will be spent before one ton of ore will be brought to tidal water.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South said further:
I only heard a little of what Mr. Smallwood had to say, but he pointed out that his government did undertake the responsibility and developed three small industries, which they operated for a time. Later on they sold them.
Well, that is news to me. The three industries which he started were, one-
Natural Resources


Clarence Gillis: Everything is news to you, apparently, that is going on in Newfoundland.


William Joseph Browne: I thought I knew something more than the hon. member.


Clarence Gillis: You are not showing it.


William Joseph Browne: Well, I think I do know a little more than the hon. member. When I asked a question whether they were paying he was not in a position to say. Nobody knows except the government because they will not publish any balance sheet, and they will give no information. If that is an example of what government enterprise can do, then I do not think it is worth emulation.


Clarence Gillis: You will have to answer to Joey for that.


William Joseph Browne: With reference to the three industries, one was the hardwoods plant situated about six or seven miles outside of St. John's. The amount of $1,600,000 was put up as capital, and $900,000 was supplied as working capital. The last report given by the manager, when the workingmen were looking for wages comparable to those in similar plants in Canada, was this: they were told to wait until the industry got out of the red before looking for higher wages. I have every desire to see that industry pay, because Newfoundland money is invested in it. Nevertheless it must be borne in mind that it was a very rash venture on the part of the government to go into a competitive industry of that kind without proper examination of what the conditions of the industry required and what the obstacles they had to overcome would be.
Another industry started on the west coast near Corner Brook was a cement plant built by Latvians with German machinery, which has broken down several times since it was started, and which has recently been sold to the German firm that built the machinery plant at Octagon at the formal opening of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was present. That company has paid for it with what? With a note, and not a cent has been transferred, according to the information received.


Clarence Gillis: That is private enterprise.


William Joseph Browne: He has
agreed-


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I was referring to the statements which the hon. member for Cape

Natural Resources
Breton South (Mr. Gillis) had made about the transfer to private control of certain industries in Newfoundland which had been started by the government. I am very glad to see that take place. I hope they are going to be successful. I think the premier of Newfoundland has found from experience that the running of industrial enterprises by the government is not as simple as he thought, neither is it as simple as some members of the C.C.F. party have tried to persuade us that it is.
There are certain enterprises of a monopolistic nature, such as telephones, railroads, telegraphs, the supply of water and sewage facilities and so on in municipal areas, which are ideally suited for public ownership, but it seems to me that ordinary industries confined to the production of a single article are not generally suitable for operation by a government. I think it is a good thing that the premier of Newfoundland has decided to sell these to private industry.
I think it is only fair to give him credit for the best of intentions. As I heard him express his position, when we came into confederation he realized suddenly that unless there were some large enterprises in Newfoundland people would migrate to the mainland or go to the United States. It was with that in mind that he decided to use the large surplus of $50 million, which was quite a large sum for a small country like Newfoundland to have saved, and put a certain amount of it into the construction of these three projects, the hardwood plant, the cement plant and the gypsum plant. I did not know that the gypsum plant had also been sold to private enterprise.
The next part of his program was quite different and I think much sounder. In that part he decided to advance fifty per cent of the capital required to establish certain industries. He induced German industrialists to come to Newfoundland to establish several industries in that way. I hope that they will be successful also. However, I feel sure that the general principle of the government operating private industrial ventures is an unsound one and this was not originally realized very fully by the premier and government of Newfoundland.
Third, the government of Newfoundland set up a government-controlled corporation, the Newfoundland-Labrador development company, and passed over to them a large section of Newfoundland and Labrador for the development of natural resources contained therein. Since then the premier has made what I think is a better move by inducing a private group of industrialists

headed by the famous Rothschild banking house of London to come and establish a new corporation, which is popularly called BRINCO, which is short, I think, for British Investment Company.
This year and for several years to come they will conduct an examination of a large tract of territory, containing I think about 20,000 square miles. At the end of each five years a certain amount of that territory is to be passed back to the government. I think the premier of Newfoundland as he gets more experience is showing better judgment in the sort of venture in which he is investing Newfoundland capital or to which he is assigning Newfoundland resources.
It seems to me rather difficult to reconcile some of the statements made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South with those made by the leader of the C.C.F. party. I could not see very much difference between what the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister said and some of what has been said by the members of the Social Credit party, and what the leader of the C.C.F. said. He did not seem to be so much against private enterprise.
However, he did speak of co-operation, and I think it is generally understood by all that there has to be co-operation by the federal government, the provincial governments and industry. That goes without saying. That has been done everywhere. It has always been done, but owing to the two great wars and the extent to which government intervention in industry was necessary, the part played by governments in industry has been much greater than it otherwise would have been if private enterprise had been allowed to keep on going.
As the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said, it is the duty of the government to take a supervisory attitude toward industry and to see that the people who are working in industry are properly looked after. That is why we have laws regulating labour and the other conditions which attach to the workingman in an effort to bring about a better distribution of wealth.
I think we are all agreed that we would like to see as much co-operation as possible in the country, co-operation among the working people, co-operation between industry and labour, co-operation between governments, so that we get the best possible balance between them all. I do not think it is possible for a government to run all the affairs of a country without having communism. I do not think it is possible for a government to run most of the affairs of a country without having conditions which would be akin to those in

communist countries. As I say, there has to be a balance.
It seems to me that I remember one of the leaders of the C.C.F. party in British Columbia saying something which was much stronger than what the leader of the C.C.F. said in this house today. It may be only an echo in my mind, but I think I remember reading that a leader of the C.C.F. party in British Columbia had said that if they had socialism they were going to have it with the army and all that goes with it. It seems to me that that was going very far and certainly it is not desirable.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South made one or two other statements to which I should like to refer. Referring to the credit that should be given to the premier of Newfoundland, the hon. member said, as reported on page 4763 of Hansard of May 4:
It was the initiative, drive and courage of the Newfoundland government that actually got something done. Nothing had been done under the system of free enterprise.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South is a very experienced speaker and I enjoy listening to him. I find that as a rule he has a most sensible approach to the problems of this country. However, I am sure that what he said yesterday was not really what he meant to say. He could not have meant to say that at all. He was carried away by his feeling against private enterprise and his enthusiasm for socialism. He then went on to say:
Whether or not we agree with what the gentleman did, in my estimation he has done more for that part of the country since he formed the government than was done by all the free enterprisers without government interference.
Now, there is an extravagant statement.


Clarence Gillis: Rescued from bankruptcy.


William Joseph Browne: That is not in line with the usual common-sense statements attributed to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, particularly when we come to consider that the fishing industry in Newfoundland is one of the greatest examples of private enterprise, and that for over 400 years it has been carried on at all points around the coast of Newfoundland, where the fishermen have their little homes and have their own capital invested in vessels, boats, traps, nets and other kinds of fishing gear. Each man is a little capitalist on his own.


Clarence Gillis: Always starving to death.


William Joseph Browne: No, not
always starving to death. Conditions were bad at times, as they have been in other industries.


Clarence Gillis: Nothing to eat but turrs and murres.
Natural Resources


William Joseph Browne: I do not
think it becomes my hon. friend to interject an observation of that kind; because I am sure he must realize that when he makes a statement like that I cannot allow it to pass without making some comment about it. I know something about the part of the country from which my hon. friend comes. Many Newfoundlanders have gone there to work in the mines. I know something about the conditions which exist there, in the place to which my hon. friend belongs. I do not think he should make references of that kind concerning the fishermen of Newfoundland.
There have been bad times there, just as there have been bad times in every other industry in the country. Nevertheless, the general principle which he enunciated, that the present provincial government in Newfoundland- had done more than was done by all the free enterprisers, is not worthy of comment, further than to say that it is a very extravagant statement, and not at all in accordance with the facts. The government has now found that it cannot -carry on industry itself, and it is now going to pass over to private enterprise for future operation the businesses which they had started.


Clarence Gillis: They established it.


William Joseph Browne: I have only one other comment to make. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot)-I do not know why-during the course of his speech this morning made reference to the increase in trade between 1935 and 1951, and showed that it had increased many times over. I asked him if, in view of the fact that the exports of Canad-a had increased fivefold, the imports had not been five times as large, too. That is all it amounts to. Imports and exports balance each other. If we export five times as much, than someone else buys five times as much. We are then in a position to import five times as much.
There has been a rapid development of trade in the intervening years between the depression days of 1935 and the present time. During that time the value of money has depreciated. According to the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics, the cost of living has gone up to the extent of nearly 90 per cent. Freight rates have increased by 98 per cent. So that the value of all commodities today, in 1935 money value, is very different. That has an important bearing on the question at issue.
Trade naturally has increased because the population has increased. I do not think the hon. member for Temiscouata really appreciated what he was saying, or that he
4790

Natural Resources *
fully considered all the factors which must be taken into consideration to show the real increase per member of population

and I suggest that would be a safer method of computation.
I have only one further observation to make, and it has reference to the position private enterprise takes in the development of natural resources. It has been stated already by the Leader of the Opposition, by the Prime Minister, and by members of the Social Credit party-and I believe I have made the statement myself-that there should be sensible co-operation between all the various interests concerned. There should be private enterprise, with provincial and federal governments assisting in such ways as they can legitimately, wherever such assistance is desirable.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker-


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fraser Valley may proceed.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall make way very shortly for the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy). I just wish to express my appreciation to the leader of the Social Credit party, and through him to all members in that party, for having confirmed at last what I have known for a long time to be the fact, namely that they do not believe in free enterprise. They do not believe the resources of the country should be developed, unless it is done by some socialistic state. And they demonstrated that fact last night by their votes. I know one province that is particularly interested in having that fact confirmed, and that is the province of British Columbia. The people in that province will be interested to know that the Social Credit party does not believe in free enterprise.


John Horne Blackmore: That is an absolute lie.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Withdraw.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, Mr. Speaker, with an expression like that coming from one who goes around professing to be a member of the cloth, it is beneath my dignity to ask him to withdraw. I should think the hon. member would be familiar enough with both the rules of the house and the rules of common decency to withdraw, without being requested to do so by me.
The fact that they do not believe in free enterprise was exemplified by their votes in the house last night. Fortunately those votes are recorded. I can appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) regrets his vote, and regrets

particularly that it is recorded, and will be set down in the annals of the history of Canada. That vote will show that they can talk one way and vote another.
I was also surprised to know that hon. members of the Social Credit party in the House of Commons agree with the attorney general in British Columbia who, in a letter sent to the board of transport commissioners, indicated that he took no interest and was not concerned in transporting oil by way of the United States for refineries there, rather than in Canada. The leader of the Social Credit party in the House of Commons has confirmed that view by stating that he does not believe in an all-Canadian gas line. He does not believe that the Ontario city of Sudbury, and other cities in that area, should receive the advantage of this product from Alberta. Rather it is his view that it should be sent down, first, to our friends in the United States, before Canadians are served. Then, if any should happen to be left over, it would come back to us.
That is all I have to say. We see members of the Social Credit party confirming in the House of Commons the stand they have taken in British Columbia during the short time it has been our misfortune to have them in control in that province. Fortunately that situation will be changed on June 9, after which there will be no further fear in British Columbia.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us is an interesting one. It is unfortunate however that it could not be discussed without raising the subject of provincial politics. As a matter of fact this happens to be the type of debate that should be possible without having the subject of politics enter at all. Unfortunately, however, so long as we have our party system of government I suppose that is impossible.
The amendment calls for a new national policy. The phrase, coming as it does from the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, has an historic ring. Some hon. members have questioned why the leader of the Progressive Conservative party should introduce a debate at this time on a national policy. To me the reason is quite obvious, though I would be the last person in the house who would want to impute motives to the leader of the Conservative party.
I am sure you will pardon me if I admit that I surmise there is a very close connection between the two sets of facts that confront us-first the introduction of a debate on a new national policy and, second, the fact that we are approaching a federal election. Apart altogether from that, I think

every party in this house agrees that a national policy for the development and conservation of our natural resources, such as is envisaged in the amendment, would be a good thing for Canada. I can quite understand why the Progressive Conservative leader would introduce a debate of that kind at this time. I can also understand why the Prime Minister just cannot accept that amendment. As he indicated, it would be an admission on his part that the government today is not following any such policy.
Of course, those of us on this side of the nouse are inclined to agree that while the government has in the past years taken many forward steps in the development and conservation of our natural resources, nevertheless there has been no general well-planned policy for that purpose. In our opinion, of course, the government has been far too much concerned with the achievement of the objectives set forth in the Conservative amendment to have had much success in that respect. The government has over the years been far too much concerned with the preservation of so-called free enterprise to have succeeded very fast or very far with the development or the conservation of our natural resources.
The amendment is interesting in that it calls for a national policy to develop and conserve our natural resources for all Canadians and, at the same time, it calls for the preservation of the free enterprise system. Apparently one is just as important as the other to the party which introduced this amendment. I presume that the preservation of the free enterprise system and the conservation and development of our natural resources for all the Canadian people are more or less synonymous with the Conservatives. I presume they consider them to mean one and the same thing. That has been Conservative thinking over the years and it would now seem that the leader of the Conservative party wants us to adopt a national policy tied to the free enterprise system which he hopes may achieve for Canada what the earlier national policy adopted by a Conservative statesman did for Canada in past years.
I think I should point out that we have had two periods in our history when Canadian governments and Canadian political leaders have caught the vision of a national policy and the great development of Canada's resources. The first was during the time of the Conservative leader Sir John A. Macdonald, and the other was carried out by a great Liberal statesman, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. One sought to build Canadian industries and the other sought to open up for us the great resources of western Canada. I think we
Natural Resources
should also bear in mind that neither of those policies was carried through strictly as a private enterprise policy. In the building up of Canadian industry under the first Conservative national policy the government had to come to the assistance of private enterprise in the form of tariff regulations. The government had to impose tariffs against importations in order to protect those Canadian industries. It was not by any means a development carried out by private enterprise unassisted by the government. Nor was the opening up of the western prairies a private or free enterprise project. Primarily the government of Canada took the initiative, gave leadership and provided the means whereby the prairie provinces were opened to development. I submit that if we attempt to enter upon a period of great development of our natural resources, under a policy tied to the free enterprise -or capitalist system, we are simply trying to turn back the hands of the clock at least fifty years. I would say that the present Progressive Conservative leader, in attempting to tie his national policy to a free enterprise system, is more conservative than was the great Conservative leader Sir John A. Macdonald in the early days of our history.
Today industry has become revolutionized. Today we have entered upon an era of mass production and there is today no such free enterprise as was known in this country fifty years ago. If you doubt my statement and you have a few dollars, try installing a gasoline pump and undertaking to sell gasoline to motorists-as a private or free enterprise. You will find out about the kind of competition that you will come up against. Fifty years ago, yes, a man with $2 could probably do that. Today conditions have changed and today competition in big business at least is between giants and the small free enterpriser gets squeezed out of existence in the process of trying to compete.
Try developing the resources of this country under a system tied, as this amendment visualizes, to the free enterprise system- and that, I submit, is putting back the hands of the clock. This amendment is more reactionary than I thought the leader of the Conservative party could possibly be at this time.
The opposition of the Social Creditors toward this amendment is a little more confusing, to say the least. They support the amendment with the provision that it be done with free enterprise included, and they support the subamendment to delete the words "free enterprise". They explain to us that what they mean'by "free enterprise" is a sort of free enterprise known only to Social Crediters, a converted free enterprise, a free

Natural Resources
enterprise system that has been changed apparently under the direction and influence of Social Credit. I must admit that I do not know just what that free enterprise system is, that so-called Social Credit free enterprise. There again, while I would not want to impute motives, it seems quite obvious to me that Social Crediters are trying to appeal, on the one hand, to those who consider themselves capitalists, and on the other hand to the mass of the people who have votes and who are not any longer wedded to capitalism.
The situation in the world today indicates that the so-called free enterprise system, which has prevailed for the last one hundred years throughout the world, has pretty well outlived its usefulness. Let it be granted that in the process of that evolution the free enterprise system served its purpose just as did the other economic systems before they were followed by the free enterprise system. But if we take a look at Africa and Asia, where European countries guided by the free enterprise system have been in control for one hundred years, we find that we have a revolt in Africa and Asia against the kind of free enterprise which those countries have imposed upon those people.
Today, in my opinion, the free world in its approach to those countries and those peoples is making the mistake of confusing free enterprise with democracy. Some of the countries that are showing an interest in raising the standard of living in those countries are just as much concerned with the maintenance of free enterprise within their own countries as they are in raising the standard of living of those people. Today, I think we must recognize that we are in a period of evolution which comes very close to being revolution. Today the world is undergoing a process whereby the free enterprise system is giving way more and more to socialism. Whether we like that or whether we do not, we find the world will be moving more gradually towards the adoption of democratic socialism. If we are to save the world from communism, it will never be saved by the free enterprise system. It will be saved only when those who desire to save this world from communism are prepared to accept democratic socialism and develop the resources of this country and all other countries, not primarily for the profit of those who invest capital but primarily for the benefit of the people who live in those countries.
We hear a great deal about the essential need of capital. The member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) has told us what invested capital has meant to the development of

Newfoundland. I could tell him some things to show what invested capital has meant in the development of Newfoundland. I think I could dismiss that subject by telling the member for St. John's West that he and his party opposed the most progressive step that was ever taken by Newfoundland, and that was confederation. If their support of the free enterprise system in Newfoundland or anywhere else is in line with the reactionary point of view they took in connection with that matter, then I think we can pretty well dismiss it. We must lift our sights. We need a new national policy. We need a policy directed by a government which is not wedded so closely to the free enterprise system that it could lose sight of the needs of the people.
What has the free enterprise system done for the natural resources of this country over the years? Go to a place like Rainy River and look at the dump of sawdust and slabs that represents a once prosperous community. This dump was left there by private enterprise after it had despoiled the forest resources of the country and then moved out, leaving the people who had worked for that company for years to go back on municipal relief. Think for a moment of what has happened to the timber resources of this country. What is happening to our minerals? What has happened to other natural resources? It is true that men have found employment, but are men not entitled to employment in this country? You can develop natural resources without private enterprise capital, but you cannot develop natural resources without the brains and brawn of human beings. Let us not forget that. It is much easier for governments, if they are so inclined, to find capital and put that capital to work in the interests of developing our natural resources, but more essential than capital are the brains and brawn of the people who work in that field. If you are going to adopt a national policy, then let us not lose sight of the fact that the people who are to benefit first and foremost through that policy must be the men and women of the country and not the capitalists who invest their capital. Let us not confuse the preservation of the free enterprise system with the development and conservation of our natural resources.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: 
Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a word or two before we take the vote. The statements concerning trade made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), in my judgment, put the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and those who are going to visit United States officials into an extremely difficult position. Those statements are just like the ones the government-bench members use but they are completely unrealistic. I hope that before long we in Canada can get the idea that we do not have to sell in the United States as many goods as we think we do in order to be able to survive as an economy. In order to give our people some idea of the position the United States is in, I feel it is only fitting that I should read a report by the Associated Press on page 8 of the Ottawa Morning Citizen of yesterday.
Washington-Six cabinet officials will testify this week on a single issue packed with political, economic and international implications-tariffs and trade.
The House of Representatives ways and means committee announced Sunday that State Secretary John Foster Dulles and Treasury Secretary George Humphrey will lead off today in a parade of administration witnesses on a bill to extend the reciprocal trade act for one year.
The secretaries of commerce, agriculture, interior and labour, and mutual security administrator Harold Stassen are to give their views Tuesday and Wednesday.
Such a line-up of top officials on a single bill was taken in some circles as indicating the Eisenhower administration will fight a move led by some powerful Republicans in congress to bolster tariff walls against some foreign goods.
Politically, the bill could have important repercussions. The chief sponsor of the bill is Representative Richard Simpson (Rep. Pa), chairman of the congressional campaign committee-the group that will work with Eisenhower to try to hold and strengthen Republican control of the house in the 1954 elections.
Economically, more than two score witnesses told the committee last week, the issue means life or death to scores of American industries allegedly threatened with destruction by growing imports of cheaper foreign goods.
Internationally, relations with free world allies will be affected. Britain, France, Germany, Japan and other nations have argued eagerly that they need to sell more products to the U.S. here to bolster their short supply of dollars.
I ask hon. members this question: When a nation is in the throes of difficulties like that, can we with any appearance of grace at all approach that nation with accusations that

Natural Resources
she is breaking her faith in respect of the international agreement on tariffs and trade and that kind of thing, which we have heard, in my opinion, all too many times in this house from altogether too many men. Surely the United States has the right to govern herself as she sees fit without a lot of whining and badgering from Canada. If we are unable to deal with our international trade situation, let us see if we cannot find a solution with the British commonwealth. We would not have any trouble doing that.


Mr. Croll:: She will not buy our wheat.


John Horne Blackmore: I agree with the hon. member that we would not be able to sell our wheat unless we used the device which Canada's finance minister used in world war I. If the hon. member will take the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada, published in 1933, and will read that report with an open mind, he will be able to see how we can sell our wheat abroad by simply using our national credit. It was done back then. Surely it can be done now by the same device. We have the testimony of Sir Thomas White, who was the finance minister responsible for the eight years in Canada during which the great monetary experiment was made to the effect that the whole operation was not inflationary but was sound.
Let us just stop talking nonsense about selling our goods abroad. There is a way out. That is enough for me to say in that respect.
I wish to say that the Social Crediters are not going to take the position in respect of United States trade that the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar took. There is a ray of hope in trade without hurting anybody. Let us remember that the United States is rapidly approaching a condition of being self-sufficient. She is being aided toward this objective by great machines and improvements of technological skills and additional uses of solar energy. Anyone who is realistic at all will make allowances for the phenomenal influences of these three factors. It is true the United States could buy zinc and some other raw materials which we cannot afford to sell too much of, but I cannot see any means whatsoever whereby the United States in the interests of her own economic security could possibly accommodate us to the extent that we want to be accommodated, and feel we cannot live if we are not so accommodated.
I should like to spend just a minute or two on some of the extravagant things that have been said by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank)-who I think made a real spectacle of himself this afternoon in

the face of the facts-and by some of our C.C.F. friends. We Social Crediters will grant that we are fighting the British Columbia election. We will grant that the Social Credit party is going to do everything in its mortal power to put the C.C.F. out of business in British Columbia, and the C.C.F. are going to try to do the same to Social Credit. But we do not need to say foolish things; we do not need to distort the truth. Let us get the facts just as they are, and on the basis of those facts fight the election. Let us not say exciting and inflammatory things. Social Credit does not intend to do that. If the C.C.F. cannot fight their election without using that kind of method it indicates weakness in their position; that is all. I have nothing to say against the C.C.F. except to say we believe they are all wrong; but we want to get the facts of the situation.
The good member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) has been greatly disturbed about the position the Social Crediters take on enterprise. The finest possible example you can find of the action of private enterprise that Social Credit believes in is the oil industry in Alberta right at the present moment, where an absolutely phenomenal development has taken place; and it has taken place as a result of very wise governmental management of private enterprise. If Alberta had allowed enterprises to be absolutely free, if we had allowed the oil companies to be completely free in Alberta, two or three of them-


An hon. Member:: Will the hon. member-


John Horne Blackmore: Let me put my case, and then you put yours. Then you will get what I have to say and you will not be foolish.


Ernest George Hansell: He does not want to hear.


John Horne Blackmore: He does not want the people to hear the truth. If we had permitted the big concerns like the Imperial Oil, Standard Oil and others to go into Alberta, if we had permitted them to be completely free, two or three of them would have acquired possession of the whole oil industry in Alberta, and they would have been at liberty to develop it or to refuse to develop it in accordance with their own wishes. The Social Credit government made up a set of rules which completely restricted them in respect of monopoly. It was impossible to get a monopoly because of the method we adopted. The government set up a method under which these companies had the least possible chance to lose money as they went hunting Alberta's oil, and the greatest possible chance of having success, of finding and developing oil. All these facts are easily

acquired by anyone, even by the hon. member for York South, if he wants to get the facts. If he does not want to get the facts, well, nobody on earth can get him to get the facts.
But the system, as I said a moment ago, in connection with the Alberta oil industry, is an ideal example of what Social Crediters mean by individual enterprise, not free enterprise going in to destroy the value of the resources, or to monopolize them or to mismanage them in any way, shape or form Nevertheless, with government assistance in the way of providing knowledge concerning the various fields in Alberta, and then the other things, private enterprise was able to do a magnificent job in Alberta. In 1948, if I remember correctly-and I am speaking from memory now-we had sixty companies of all sizes and strengths drilling for oil in Alberta all at once, and the weakest of them completely certain of measures that would protect them against infringement by their big neighbours, and the big fellows completely certain that they were not going to be discriminated against.
I think I have said enough. I wish the hon. member for Fraser Valley were here because I had a word to say to him. I do not intend to say anything against him while he is away. Those few points needed to be clarified just a little. May I say this once more to everybody concerned, Liberals, Conservatives, C.C.F.'ers and all the rest of us. In fighting the British Columbia campaign let us play the game clean and square. Social Crediters are going to do that; and if you do not, shame on you.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: We have been getting a lot of good advice yesterday and today, some of it scientific, some of it liberal and some of it practical, on how the job of the development of our natural resources should be carried on. I think we have heard enough. Let the government get on with the job, supported by the opposition.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.



THE GENERAL ELECTION

Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise briefly, and at a time when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is in the house, a subject that apparently everybody thinks about but nobody talks about in the house.
There is one subject in particular that is in the minds of a great many people but which, as yet, has not been mentioned in the house. And when I name that subject I wish to say at once that, speaking for myself, and I know also speaking for those in this part of the house who are like minded, we are not asking for ourselves any quarter or consideration in this respect. It is the people we are thinking about, the people who are going to the polls.
I refer to the proposed election date.
Mr. Speaker, you are aware that there have been reports in the newspapers from time to time indicating that the Prime Minister is considering calling an election in August.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The report in one of the newspapers of this city yesterday claimed information from some authoritative source when stating that the election date was likely to be either August 10 or August 17.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It won't make any difference to you; you won't be here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of the convenience of members or the length of campaign, or how it affects those members; that is not the concern, or should not be the concern, of members in a matter of this kind. It is not that concern which prompts me to direct these comments to the Prime Minister. But I am concerned about the effect that an August election would have in disfranchising tens of thousands of Canadians.


An hon. Member:: You are not ready.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have said, Mr. Speaker, that none of us in this part of the house asks any quarter from the government in this respect. We are concerned, however, about the disfranchisement-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
[Mr. Mclvor.l


Donald Methuen Fleming: -about the disfranchisement of tens of thousands of Canadians.


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Speaker, are these observations in order? The hon. member says that if we were to have an election in August it would disfranchise electors to the extent of tens of thousands. I should like to have a ruling on that.


Mr. Speaker:: I would not rule that statement out of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hon. members are aware of the fact that to most people in this country holidays come only once in the year, and they try to arrange them a long time in advance. August is probably the height of the holiday season. And if people go away some considerable distance, there are not many of them who can afford to come back for only a day, even on a matter as important as casting a vote. Therefore those who go any distance will in this way be virtually disfranchised.
For the farmers of this country it means that they will be asked to vote at what for them is the busiest time of the whole year. Surely it is in the democratic interests of all of Canada that the election campaign should be-


An hon. Member:: What do you know about farmers?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I know a great deal about farmers; I expect I have done more harvesting than all of the hon. members who have been interrupting put together.


Mr. Ferguson:: They are farming the people; that is what they are doing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We shall make much greater progress if there are not so many interruptions.


An hon. Member:: Fine speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Anyone who has had any
experience of farm life in the summer time, leading to harvest time, knows that the farmers are so busy at that season of the year that they have not time to take the interest they would like to take in an election campaign, through attending meetings and the consideration of issues they, with other citizens, will be called upon to decide at the polls.
Then there is one other matter I wish to mention, because it has appeared in some of the newspaper references to this subject. I think the Prime Minister must be aware of the fact that it has appeared in the press. The report to which I refer is that the Prime Minister has been asked by a number of his supporters in the house-so the newspaper account runs-to call this election in the summer in order that there may be time for a

fall session of parliament this year, with another sessional indemnity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Joseph McCann: You want that.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: That has never been in the press.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a small mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope no hon. member of this house has given that to the Prime Minister as any reason that ought to enter into the selection of any date for an election.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Who is going to select the date?


George Alexander Cruickshank: You are trying to get the opposition leader's salary now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if there is any business remaining to be done in the public interest by parliament this year, then I would suggest that it is our duty to do it and not put the country to the expense of a fall session; and that request ought not to enter into the decision the Prime Minister will be called upon to make in regard to an election date.


An hon. Member:: Who is going to make the selection?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is the matter of the coronation and with the election, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that members of this house -and I believe there are a number from all parties who hope to attend the coronation- will not be free to show that mark of loyalty to our sovereign. That may not be as important a matter in the view of some, but it is a very important matter that the election should be held at a time and under circumstances when Canadians will have the freest opportunity of attending the polls and making their selection of those who will represent them in the next parliament of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there have been hon. members in this house who by their interruptions have sought to put a gloss and misinterpretation on these remarks. I will say again for the instruction of such members that it is not a question of what suits hon. members in any part of the house. For my part or for the part of those who sit on this side of the house there is no question of quarter being asked in what I am saying. It is a question of disfranchisement of literally tens of thousands, of Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister, and no one questions it, to select the election date. Whatever advantages may accrue to the government in choosing an election date that suits the interest of the
The General Election
government under our system may be a matter of fair advantage to the government. The government is entitled to take advantage of the situation, but there is something more important involved here. I ask the Prime Minister for that reason not to call the election at a time when the inevitable effect will be to disfranchise tens of thousands of Canadian citizens. He may call the election when he likes, but I urge him not to do it at a time when so many Canadians will be disfranchised.


James Joseph McCann: Pick your own date.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He wants it on the 31st of February.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a grievance-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) is about to pass to another subject I might just say a word in reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming).
I have not been in politics very long, but long enough to come to the conclusion that anything that was obviously done to favour the government with respect to the date of an election would be apt to have the contrary effect with the reasonably-minded population of Canada. The hon. gentleman can foe assured that is a consideration that I am going to bear in mind. I have purposely refrained from arriving at even a tentative decision about the next general election before the coronation because I thought the coronation was an important enough event in the constitutional set-up of this nation of the commonwealth to stand on its own and not be dimmed or blurred or disturbed by political controversy about general elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I can assure the hon. gentleman that I was not, nor was anyone on my behalf, the authoritative source that a certain journalist pretended to have for the news he published in his paper last night. That was entirely speculative, but there are lots of people who are speculating and the hon. gentleman is only one of the very many who are concerned about the rights of the Canadian electors to exercise their franchise.
When the time comes for a general election it requires more than the willingness to go to the polls on the day appointed for the polling. It requires that persons should be on the voters' lists which are prepared beginning on a Monday, the 49th day before the day set for polling. There are two ways in which one may not have the opportunity to
4798	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proposed Livestock Marketing Board exercise his normal franchise on voting day. One is to toe left off the list, and that is something which anyone who has been left off the list generally resents pretty seriously. The other is the voter's own convenience about whether or not he can get to the polls without too great inconvenience on the day set for polling. That is something which depends in large measure on his own volition. If the voting lists were prepared in our cities and towns during the months of July and August it would be something that would be apt to disfranchise quite a large number. They would not toe apt to be home on the two occasions when the enumerators are required toy law to call, and thereby they would be left off the lists. That would be something quite serious-something which at least I would consider quite serious-because I know that, in the relatively few elections in which I have taken part, there were some people whose names did not happen to be on the list. They were quite resentful of the fact that their names were not there. I think both the hon. member for Eglinton and I would be resentful if we were left off the voters' list in a general election.
The matter must be carefully considered because if we are not to have an enumeration in July and August we could not have one after June that would start earlier than the 14th of September, because it has to start on a Monday and the first Monday in September is Labour day. An enumeration that started on the 14th of September would bring about an election in November. Well, November is an inconvenient time for an election. One has to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of possible dates and that has not yet been done and that will not be done until after the coronation.
The fact that this newspaperman mentioned the 10th of August, and the fact that he also mentioned the 17th of August, is not going to deter me from suggesting that date to my colleagues and His Excellency if for other reasons it seems to be the most appropriate and convenient time to have an election. But the fact that he has mentioned it in his paper is not going to be a reason for making it the selection.


John George Diefenbaker: That fixes it.



PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH LIVESTOCK MARKETING BOARD

["It being five o'clock the house will proceed to consider private and public bills.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported."]
William Scottie Bryce: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a grievance. No consideration has been given to the setting up of a livestock board. I have raised this problem before but I have never been able to get very far with it.

The farm organizations have always asked for a board with producer representation on it. The function of the board would be to administer, under the Department of Agriculture, the Livestock and Livestock Products Act, and the members of the board should be appointed in consultation with organized agriculture.
The Livestock and Livestock Products Act should be amended and consolidated with other legislation in order to place in the board the power to license, regulate and control the facilities for assembling, transporting, yarding, slaughtering, processing and packing, together- with the facilities for grading and selling of all livestock and carcass products designed for human consumption. The board would need also the power to make such levies on the products under its jurisdiction as would be necessary to defray the costs of its operations.
The position with respect to the United States market today is that, while the embargo has been lifted, there is practically no trade at today's prices. It seems more necessary than ever that we should have a board to supervise the marketing of our livestock. It may be necessary for us to have further cold storage facilities to carry the heavy supply over from one season to another. On previous occasions when I have raised this matter in the house, many different arguments have been made against it. One was that the farmers did not want any more control, and on another occasion the minister said it would be difficult to find the money. He thought, too, that there might be some doubts as to the legality of a measure such as this.
Since 1867 there have been great changes, and no doubt it may be necessary to introduce an amendment to the British North America Act because the production of livestock has increased to such an extent since that time. Today there is a pronounced trend towards larger business organizations. In many cases the small businesses have disappeared altogether or have been absorbed by the larger concerns. The meat packing industry as well as other distributing organizations have in general followed this trend, and a larger part of the purchases of western livestock is represented today by the purchases of three or four packing concerns. The concentration of buying in the hands of the relatively few firms creates a condition of imperfect competition, because markets may be unduly affected by the buying operations of one or all of these large buyers.
About thirty years ago the farmer had a lot to say in the selling of his livestock. I can recall that the dealers would be out meeting the farmers to bid for the livestock

they had in their sleigh or wagon. In many cases we drove the cattle into town. Later the trucking of livestock became popular and everything went to the stockyards of the abattoirs by truck. The hogs were left at the packer's, and the packer sent a cheque. If you were dissatisfied you had no appeal, and you still have no appeal. You accepted what you got, and that is the position today. The farmer has lost all his bargaining rights so that it has become more necessary than ever to have this livestock board.
The farmer could have his cattle rail-graded, but the same conditions do not apply as in the case of hogs. The grades are set for hogs, but in so far as beef is concerned you just have the two grades, red and blue. Everyone knows that there are many other grades in connection with cattle. The increased trucking to the packing plants instead of to the public markets'has resulted in the loss of the services of experienced commission salesmen who knew the market from day to day. The elimination of the central, competitive market would probably put the producer at a considerable disadvantage in selling to two or three large buyers. If we are to establish fair economic returns and security for the primary producer, I do not believe we can ever again rely upon the automatic processes of what in the thirties was erroneously termed the "free competitive market."
I always recall what Donald Gordon said in one of his speeches. He said:
Selfish and private interests must be ruled out completely and the competitive system must be replaced with one which is based entirely upon the criterion of maximum production.
Even if that statement was made during the war, it is still true today in so far as the Canadian livestock producer is concerned. The boards which have been set up by the government for different purposes have demonstrated beyond doubt that they can develop a steady market for a product and remove price fluctuations. Fluctuating prices have always been detrimental to the farmer. Prices change not only from season to season but from day to day, and this is detrimental to the farmer.
The production of livestock is a very important branch of agriculture. If the fertility of our soil is to be maintained, something will have to be put back into the soil. It is an established fact that the best way to maintain soil fertility is to raise animals on the farm. I think it is an established fact also that the best way to market some of our crops is to feed them to livestock, and then market the livestock. Ttue commission on price spreads in 1935 dealt with stockyards and public markets. I think one sentence in that
, 1953	4799
Proposed Livestock Marketing Board report deals with what I have been saying. I quote:
When many competing sellers are faced by few buyers who act in concert, or who tacitly agree to follow the lead of larger buyers, exploitation becomes possible.
This statement is just as true today as when the commission wrote that report. I am happy to have this opportunity of bringing this serious problem of the livestock producers before parliament. I hope the government will give serious consideration to the following:
1.	The establishment of a national livestock marketing board upon which the producers from each province will be adequately represented, to be charged with the responsibility of setting and maintaining a fair and adequate floor price for livestock, with fair price spreads for different grades.
2.	The provision of the necessary additional cold storage and processing facilities in western Canada. These are to be made available to the livestock industry on much the same basis as the government terminal elevators are made available for grain, that is as part of a national program for orderly handling and processing much needed foodstuffs in the long-term interests of both the producers and the consumers.
3.	In so far as sale policy is concerned, the products are to be divided into two classes, namely that portion required for consumption in Canada-this being by far the majority of livestock products-and the portion for exports. The board should establish a price based upon a proper and fair relationship to other goods and services within our own Canadian economy. Secondly, the balance of the products over and above our own Canadian requirements should be handled exclusively by the national livestock marketing board and be disposed of in world markets to the best advantage of the producer on a straight sale basis, if possible, or if necessary by a barter arrangement.
In closing, may I say that I hope the government will give consideration to this request so the livestock producer may have some security and stability in the marketing of his livestock.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say a few words in support of the setting up of a national livestock marketing board with producer representation thereon. We in this group have, for a number of years, supported what we call a two-price system, namely a system under which agricultural products in Canada will be sold at a price that bears a fair relationship to the price of other commodities, and our surplus agricultural products should be exported
4800	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proposed Livestock Marketing Board abroad and sold for the best price that can be obtained, preferably through some form of international food agreement similar to the international wheat agreement.
I think there is no question that if a two-price system were to be introduced, the most efficient way by which it could be carried out would be through the establishment of a national livestock marketing board similar to the wheat board. The wheat board has received strong support from the farmers in western Canada. I remember that, before it was set up, many people questioned whether a compulsory board of that kind should be set up; but since it has been in operation it has received the overwhelming support of the farmers of western Canada. I am satisfied that a national livestock marketing board, under good management, could give similar satisfaction.
I realize that if a board of that kind is to be set up, a plebiscite should be taken in the provinces, and that it should be put into operation only provided that a substantial majority of the farmers-we will say a two-thirds majority-supported it. Then of course enabling legislation on the part of the provinces would be required in order to make operative a national marketing board of that kind.
I know there are many people who oppose boards of this kind. They say it is not fair to compel the farmer to deliver his produce to such a board. But I have always noticed that most of the people who raise that point are themselves not farmers at all. They are so lacking in consideration for the welfare of the farmer that they do not want him to have a board of that kind upon which there will be producer representation. But generally speaking we find that the farmers themselves, and the farm organizations, are strongly in support of such a board.
Those people who oppose boards of that kind say there is only one way for farm products to be sold, and that is under the law of supply and demand. In my opinion the law of supply and demand is a joke, and a very bad one at that. The law of supply and demand takes into consideration only the demand represented by the people who have the money with which to buy. It absolutely ignores the great needs of a large percentage of people who have not the money with which to buy; it therefore does not take those people into consideration at all. Consequently, when the farmers expand their production to the point where they could satisfy the needs of the starving millions in the world, in view of the fact that we have no method by which those goods can be made available to those people who have not the money with which to buy them, the goods become surplus and

prices fall. As a result, under the so-called system of the law of supply and demand farmers are discouraged from expanding their production because they know that if they expand their production the prices of agricultural products will fall.
Speaking at the annual convention in Victoria, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) recognized that fact. He recognized the fact that by expanding our production of livestock and creating a surplus-not a surplus in so far as the actual needs of the people of the world are concerned, but a surplus in so far as we have an actual paying market for them-we would be faced with this difficulty. He therefore recommended to the farmers at that convention that they should reduce their production of livestock.
I am not criticizing him for doing that. He was doing it with a realization of the present situation, and a realization that if they expand their production with such a situation existing, prices will be forced down and farmers may well get less for their increased production than they were getting for their smaller production.
On the other hand, if you had a livestock marketing board operating on the two-price system, the farmers would at least be guaranteed in the home market a price that bears a fair relation to the prices of other commodities. That price might be on a basis similar to that under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, or it might be on a basis similar to that in the United States, namely 90 per cent of parity which is based upon the years 1909 to 1914.
When we consider the fact that there are in the world today, according to the food and agriculture organization, millions of people on the verge of starvation, no great producing country has the moral right to tolerate a situation where farmers are encouraged to reduce their production. I believe that a national marketing board is a sound way by which there can be built up a policy which will encourage farmers to produce at the maximum level, with the guarantee of fair prices for their products.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of what in other circumstances would have been a resolution by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), had there been the opportunity to move a further resolution.
I think what occurred when the foot-and-mouth disease broke out in Canada should be an object lesson to the government, to indicate that there is some need for regulation. When the foot-and-mouth disease broke out we found that there was confusion between the provinces and the dominion as

to where jurisdiction lay. Agriculture comes jointly under the jurisdiction of both the provinces and the dominion. Until in the livestock industry we have some board set up making regulations and working out a system of co-operation between the dominion and the provinces, we are always going to find ourselves in the position we are in today.
Agriculture finds itself in this position, especially the livestock producers. Small surpluses may completely upset the market. Our home market can and does absorb by far the greatest portion of our production, but a small surplus of 10 or 15 per cent in meat products, in beef or in pork, may completely upset our market because either the government must take it off the market, as they have done to a certain extent now under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, or it must be sold in the markets overseas; and the 10 or 15 per cent that goes into the overseas market sets the price for the whole domestic market here in Canada. That is the consideration which alarms our agricultural producers. They do not want that to happen. It has happened in the past and no doubt it will happen again.
There is need for certain investigation into the spread between what the consumer pays for livestock products and what the producer receives. Last fall, I believe it was on October 7, an order in council was passed here in Ottawa supporting the prices of certain low grades of beef; I refer to canners, cutters, and so on; the three or four lowest grades. Under that order in council the government purchased beef from the packers at from 33 to 37 cents a pound; I believe it was 33J cents in Saskatchewan and 37 cents in Ontario and Quebec. Under that order in council I believe they purchased over $5,600,000 worth of those low grades of beef. During the time they were purchasing that beef of those particular low grades, the live animals were being sold by producers on the market at from 6 to 8 cents a pound. Yet the government were purchasing this beef from the packing plants at from 33 to 37 cents a pound. Of course, when the packing plants were selling beef to the consumers of this country they based their prices on the prices the government were buying at, not on the prices they were paying the farmers for that beef. The result was, as I see it at least, that it did good neither to the consumer nor to the producer, but it did give a guarantee to the packer.
We should have a board of livestock commissioners to regulate and to get co-operation between the provinces and the dominion in the regulating and selling of our meat products. The Canadian Federation of Agri-
Proposed Livestock Marketing Board culture, the farmers' union and practically every farm organization are asking for this, and I think it is time that the government gave some serious consideration to it.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The proposal which has been made is not new. It has been made at least once a year for more than 25 years at some gatherings which I have attended. I have never yet attended a meeting of any kind where the question was discussed to a final conclusion and the resolution was agreed to. I have had resolutions come in from a great many gatherings that I did not have the privilege of attending; but I have heard it discussed at Liberal political meetings, at farmers' meetings, at organized meetings of different kinds, and the result has usually been the withdrawal of the resolution, no matter what was the nature of the meeting.
I should like to state some of the reasons for that in a few minutes but I do not want to get into a long drawn-out argument because we have already been through my estimates, and that was the proper place to discuss it if it was to have been discussed at this session.


William Scottie Bryce: I would have been ruled out of order if I had raised it, and the minister knows it.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, you would not. You have discussed it every other year on my estimates; why not this year?


William Scottie Bryce: If the minister looks up Hansard he will find that I have not discussed it on the estimates in former years.


James Garfield Gardiner: One of the reasons it is very difficult to operate such a board was demonstrated just a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). When the government gets into business or activities of that kind it is most difficult to have a discussion on the question at all without having matters misrepresented.
Last year we were buying beef and pork because of foot-and-mouth disease. We had to do it whether we liked it or not. Now I am told that cattle were selling at 6 and 8 cents a pound at a time when I presume the hon. gentleman intended us to believe that beef from the same cattle was bought by the government from the packers for 37 and 38 cents a pound. The hon. gentleman knows, or at least he ought to know because he has been told many times, that the government did not buy any meat last year with the exception of meat that came off animals that were purchased at the price which bore the proper relationship to the floor price of

Proposed Livestock Marketing Board live cattle. The floor price of live cattle was set, and when any packer attempted to sell beef to the government he had to be able to demonstrate that that beef came off animals for which farmers had received at least the floor price. There was not any time at which that price would have been related to the prices that were stated here a few moments ago.
But the chief reason it would be difficult to have a board of the kind that has been described in connection with meat is the great difference that exists between the marketing of cattle and hogs and the way in which they are processed after they are marketed, as compared with what happens to wheat. I noticed that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) kept pretty much away from any suggestion that the board should be like the wheat board; but the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) repeated several times that it was largely because of the great success that has been achieved in the marketing of wheat through the wheat board that he suggests the same thing might be done in connection with livestock.
The wheat board is set up with its headquarters at Winnipeg, and practically all of the grain that is marketed through the wheat board passes through Winnipeg. A very small percentage of it does not, but nearly all of it does, and any person can have his grades checked. After the wheat reaches the market anywhere west of Winnipeg, where the grain has been taken in by the producer, if he is not satisfied with his grade he can allow the wheat to go on down to Winnipeg and have it rechecked there before or after the car arrives there. Thus there is complete control over the situation all the time, and the farmer is able to have his product completely checked two or three times before it actually gets to the market, if he wishes. That does not happen in connection with the marketing of livestock.
I suppose there are tens of thousands of butcher shops and packing houses all over the country, and most of the cattle that are taken in are slaughtered at some point or other a long distance away from where there could be any control whatsoever. It is impossible to have someone out to control the grades at all the points, just as it would be with grain if you had small mills everywhere. But the supervision of the controls is all at one point. There is no one point at which you could supervise the control of livestock grades; and since there is not, you cannot carry it out in the same way it is carried out in connection with the marketing of wheat under the wheat board.

There is of course the possibility of doing something about it by having more than one board, by having a number of boards. If one were to handle it in that way, as suggested by the hon. member for Selkirk, it would require to be a provincial set-up, and you might require ten boards if you wanted to handle it right across Canada. There is a possibility of doing that, but a board established here to do that would run into so many difficulties and so much trouble that it would be almost impossible to operate.
I know I will be asked what I was asked last night and did not reply to, because the answer is obvious. If it is legal to do it in connection with wheat, why can it not be done in connection with livestock? The obvious answer is that one is a product which everyone knows ought to be handled in the way in which wheat is handled. It is a product only about 20 per cent of which is consumed in this country, and a large percentage of it is not consumed where it is grown. It is consumed at a distance away, and the wheat all has to pass through Winnipeg. Therefore everybody agrees what is the practical way of doing it. But there are not 10 per cent of the livestock producers in this country who will agree that you could do that with cattle and hogs.
No one has ever tested whether it is intra vires to do the thing we are doing in connection with wheat. No one has taken a chance on testing it. It has been discussed in this house scores of times since I came here as to whether the method we are following in marketing wheat is constitutionally sound. Nobody has ever undertaken to take it to the courts to find out.


William Scottie Bryce: It is good legislation.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has resulted in good. But I venture to say that if you attempted to have a national board to handle the marketing of cattle and hogs you would soon have someone taking it to court to see if we had not exceeded our constitutional rights in connection with it.


Solon Earl Low: As they did in connection with coarse grains.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not so sure that coarse grains were handled in the same way. I am afraid that would be the case with livestock.


William Scottie Bryce: The grain was not handled that way until you found a better way to handle it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Grain has always been
handled through a centre where grading could be done by an organized staff.


William Scottie Bryce: Not always.


James Garfield Gardiner: For a long time before the hon. member knew anything about the handling of grain in this country.


William Scottie Bryce: I admit that, but I can read.


James Garfield Gardiner: Grain has been handled through a central market at Winnipeg ever since any quantity of grain was grown in western Canada, and nobody has ever questioned it. On one occasion they undertook in the province of Manitoba to close the grain exchange-


William Scottie Bryce: And they might do it yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Roblin government
ordered it closed, but it has never been closed. They were simply told that they did not need legislation in order to keep it open, and they have kept it open. Generally if you carry a matter to the courts you get into more difficulty than if you keep it away. The people in western Canada who have been interested in producing and marketing wheat have no desire to take the question to the courts. So far as I know the people who have been buying wheat have also had no desire to do that. Because the people on either side have had no desire or have felt no necessity for taking it to the courts, it has been left alone and we all assume that we are within our rights in doing what we are doing.
Again I say that I doubt very much if those who produce livestock and those who buy livestock would take the same position if we attempted to set up one board in this country to handle it all. I should like to ask you where you would have your one board. The great percentage of cattle does not go through any one point, and the same is true with regard to hogs. Hogs and cattle produced in Alberta usually find a market westward into Vancouver or down into Seattle or somewhere in the western part of the United States. They are finding their best market down there right now. At other times they find a market by coming eastward toward Winnipeg and then down into the United States. There is not one way in which it is always done. There is not one settled market that you can pick out. You could not pick out twenty markets in Canada and establish a board at each of them which would make it possible for you to do the same thing that is now done with wheat.
When the hon. member .for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) was speaking he said that at some time or other I had said we would not be able to find the money. I do not know that I said that.


William Scottie Bryce: I can show you in Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member is not talking about what I am talking about. What
Proposed Livestock Marketing Board I said and what I have always said is that you do not have to find the money in connection with wheat because the farmer is charged so much on every bushel that he puts through the system. There is no way of doing that in connection with livestock.


William Scottie Bryce: You do it in connection with condemnation insurance.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and that is why I say this should have been discussed when my estimates were before the committee. We provide in our estimates for everything we do and if this were done under a board the farmer would have to pay for it directly. Whatever work is done now in connection with grading and everything of that kind is covered by the estimates that go through the house and which make it possible for my department to operate. But if you had a board of the kind that is being spoken of then we would have to find some way of collecting money from each animal sold on the market. How could that be done in separate butcher shops? That is what we would have to do if we were going to handle it as we handle wheat, and my experience has always been that when you go to farm meetings and discuss these matters fully and explain all these things to them they say, "Well, we did not fully understand it but now that we do, we do not want it."
I repeat what I said the other night, that I find resolutions to be wrong just as often as I find them to be right, or perhaps more often. People go to a meeting and some fellow gets up and moves something and often there is never anything said either for or against before they pass it. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), who I think was at the meeting, made a remark a few minutes ago with regard to what I had said in Victoria. I did not say what he said I had said. A man got up and said I had said that, but I proved to his satisfaction right after that I had not.
My hon. friend said I advised them at that meeting that they ought to keep down their production in order to get higher prices. That is not what happened at all. It is all down in black and white because I read it, so there is no reason for not being able to show what I said. I told them that we had had conferences here every December attended by representatives of all the farm organizations, and the provincial and federal governments. Those representatives sat down and discussed the whole situation. As a result of having discussed it, the farmers went home and decided not to produce so much of this thing and to produce more of something else. They themselves determined what they were going to do without being
4S04	HOUSE OF
Proposed Livestock Marketing Board told by anybody, including me. Then I went on to say that I thought they had shown good sense in what they did. But I did not go so far as to tell them what they ought to do next year or the year after in connection with any matter. The results they obtained were results obtained by doing what they thought was wise.
I repeat that when the government gets into many of these things, or even gets talking about them, there are a lot of people who do not understand them nearly as well as they do when they are doing business with somebody else. I went down into Nova Scotia last year and began talking about having boards to do some of these things. The group of people to whom I was talking at the time said to me, "You have forgotten we are Scots; we thought you were a Scot."
I told them I was. They said, "You must have forgotten that a good Scotsman likes to discuss with the fellow he is selling his animal to what its value is." I am quite sure the hon. member for Selkirk is in that class also. I imagine he enjoys going into Winnipeg with animals and talking to whoever he is going to sell them to and try to drive a good bargain.
There are a lot of people who like to do that. I am not going to suggest that we could set up a board that could successfully market all the livestock produced in Canada and do the job which the farmer wants done.
I do not think it can be done that way, and for that reason I am not in favour of what has been suggested.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker,
I am not at all surprised at the stand taken by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). We knew when we raised this matter that very likely the government would again oppose a system of orderly marketing for livestock and livestock products. The minister has raised one excuse after another, and I think they are excuses only. The system we believe in, involving a board of livestock commissioners, if put into effect would work in the interests of the producers as well as of the consumers.
It has taken the grain producers of Canada 50 years of fighting, year in and year out, to get the degree of stability in grain marketing that we have today. Fifty years ago grain marketing in Canada was just as haphazard as is the marketing of livestock today. The speculative market was open; dockage was excessive; farmers did not in those days have the right to order a box car to deliver their grain. They were at the mercy of the elevator companies.
The position of the grain producers 50 years ago was exactly the position of the livestock


producers today. In connection with livestock today there is no stability and there are no regulations. Prices fluctuate day in and day out, year after year. The minister says the livestock producers in Canada would not favour a livestock marketing board. I am sure they would. They want a livestock marketing board, and for the precise reason that in the last 18 months livestock prices have fallen by 40 per cent.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, no.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Hog prices are higher.


Hazen Robert Argue: A year ago last fall beef was up to 33 cents a pound. Today choice beef in western Canada is 20 cents a pound.


James Garfield Gardiner: You said livestock.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister refers to livestock. Oh, yes; hogs have gone up a little but only after the government allowed the prices to go so low that many of the hog producers had to go out of business. The few who remain in the hog business are getting a higher price now, in May, when few hogs are going on the market. But the proof of whether hog producers are going to get a better price will not be known until the hogs reach the market in good supply this fall.
In this group we believe livestock producers want stability in the marketing of their products. We feel that the constitutional question, the matter of taking it to the courts, is just another excuse for delay. We have heard that same story many times in connection with wheat. Since I came to the House of Commons we have heard the same suggestion concerning oats and barley; that you cannot have orderly marketing of oats and barley because nearly all of it is consumed in Canada, but that you can have orderly marketing for wheat, the great proportion of which is exported.
Finally, after pressure was put upon the government, and after the farm organizations had made representations, an act was passed which would bring oats and barley under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, if complementary legislation was passed by the three provincial legislatures. That was the method used in that instance. The legislatures passed the complementary legislation, with the result that today oats and barley are being handled in an orderly fashion.
The minister says, "You cannot control the marketing of livestock because there are thousands of butcher shops". I do not know whether he meant retail butcher shops or slaughterhouses.


James Garfield Gardiner: I said tens of thousands.


Hazen Robert Argue: Tens of thousands of retail butcher shops. Well, there are thousands of elevators, all of whom buy grain; and it is all controlled by a three-man board.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend surely does not want to say that an elevator that takes in grain is the same thing as a slaughterhouse that slaughters cattle and turns it into beef. If he were making a comparison he would say there are tens of thousands of small mills throughout the country which mill wheat into flour. If he said that I might agree that he was drawing a fair comparison, but not by simply saying that there are elevators as opposed to slaughterhouses.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought the minister meant what he said.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did mean what I said, and I said what I meant.


Hazen Robert Argue: But the livestock industry today is in much the same position as the grain industry was some time ago. Today in the livestock industry a few of the major packing companies are buying the vast percentage of livestock that goes on the market. And if the minister says that with tens of thousands of butcher shops they cannot be controlled, then in effect what he is saying is that Canadians are not law-abiding citizens. And I do not believe that suggestion at all. I believe if regulations were laid down, and if a law were brought in setting forth the various grade standards and various prices to be paid for livestock, that in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand those prices and regulations would be followed in every respect.
We in this group do not believe we are going to have that kind of stability in the livestock industry at an early date. It will be a long, hard pull, a long, hard fight. But some day we will have in connection with the marketing of livestock products a measure of stability in the same way as we now have it in wheat marketing.
Yes, the minister can raise one problem after another. There are problems; but we do not think those problems are insurmountable. We feel that it is an injustice to the livestock producers to have a condition wherein they must accept, as they now must, prices that fluctuate to such an extent as we have seen in connection with beef, where the price fell by 40 per cent in a period of 18 months.
The minister says, "Well, we never were successful in closing the grain exchange." That was a standard excuse for a long time, that the grain exchange was under provincial
Supply-External Affairs jurisdiction. We do not need formally to close the Winnipeg grain exchange in order to have it closed in a practical sense. All we have to do is to make sure that all the grain being sold is handled through the marketing board, and that none of it is allowed to go on the grain exchange. Of course if the boys want to sit around in the grain exchange and play penny ante and have fun among themselves, that is their business. The board will be operating, and the exchange will not be dealing in grain futures.
I would like the government to bring in a measure which would provide stabilized marketing for livestock products. If it did that, and asked for the co-operation and support of farm organizations it would receive that support one hundred per cent. If it were to ask for the co-operation and support of provincial governments, before long that support too would be forthcoming. If this were done we would obtain for the livestock producers some degree of stability in the marketing of their products.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
85. Departmental administration (including expenses of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States permanent joint board on defence), $2,853,958.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is customary when the first item is called to make a brief statement concerning the work of the department. I assure hon. members that mine will be brief, because I made a fairly exhaustive review of the international situation when I last spoke in the house, and I feel there is not much I can add at this time to the review I then made.
However there are one or two observations I should make before we begin the consideration of the estimates themselves. First I should like to pay my tribute to the work of the standing committee on external affairs, whose report is before us. The report, as hon. members know, shows that the committee, after careful and conscientious consideration, approves the main estimates of this department. It does make certain recommendations to the government. Some of these recommendations are in connection with general international matters which are not exclusively within the competence of this government; but our policy in regard to them does, I think, fall in line with the recommendations. There are some special recommendations dealing with a number of problems within the competence of this government.

Supply-External Affairs and it is recommended that those matters should be kept under review. I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Chairman, that those recommendations are useful and constructive, and it will be the policy of the government to do its best to give effect to them.
I would just like to say a word now, Mr. Chairman, about the United Nations general assembly session which has just recessed, and also a word about the North Atlantic council meeting which concluded in Paris about a week ago.
So far as the United Nations general assembly is concerned, it completed a very long and arduous session about ten days ago, the latter part of which I confess was conducted in a friendlier atmosphere than that to which we have become accustomed at United Nations general assembly meetings. The assembly is not adjourned, it has merely recessed; and by resolution of the assembly the president is instructed to call it together if the talks now going on at Panmunjom should lead to an armistice, or on a request of a majority of the members. Whether or not the talks will result in an armistice is still a matter for speculation. The United States negotiators there are showing the patience and perseverance which they have shown in the past, and if there is good will and any reasonable desire on the part of the communists for an armistice it should be possible to achieve one. I say this because the latest proposal of the Chinese communists and the North Korean government which was submitted to the president of the general assembly on the question of prisoners of war does to a very considerable degree bridge the gulf which previously existed between the two sides on that vital issue.
It is too early to say whether those talks will result in an armistice, but I would hope that they will not be broken off by those who are negotiating on behalf of the United Nations without consultation in advance with all the governments which have forces operating in Korea. I feel sure that this will not be done, and I would certainly hope that it will not be done.
It is of interest to note that, if an armistice should be signed, and I underline the word "if", one section of the present draft agreement provides for the calling of a political conference. If we get an armistice and if the fighting comes to an end in Korea-and we must all hope for that-then we will be faced with the problem of a political conference dealing with questions concerning Korea and, indeed, possibly covering other Far Eastern questions related to Korea. The relationship of the United Nations to that conference will be something that must be

worked out, and it will not be an easy problem. The United Nations general assembly itself, consisting of 60 member governments, might not be the best mechanism for working out a political settlement in Korea in the first instance.
That, Mr. Chairman, is all that I think I have to say at this time about the United Nations. There is a good deal more that I could say, and I have no doubt that questions concerning the United Nations' activities may come up in the course of consideration of the estimates. If so I will, of course, do my best to deal with them.
Before I sit down I think I should say a word or two about the North Atlantic council meeting which ended in Paris a week ago last Saturday and which was attended by my colleagues the ministers of finance and national defence as well as myself. It was a useful and I think a constructive meeting- although it was not spectacular and was not meant to be so. One of the reasons we finished our work in such a short time was that the permanent council is now meeting regularly in Paris, and all the preparatory work had been done before we arrived there.
It was not only a useful meeting; it was a very timely meeting, because it occurred at a time when all the governments of all the peoples represented were intensely interested in the meaning of the recent Soviet moves and gestures which seemed to many to presage an easing of tension, and therefore might mean a move toward peace. We had indeed an interesting exchange of views on that subject.
I might mention the results of the work of the council under the following headings. First we discussed the annual review procedure by which we take stock of our defence preparations and plan for the future. In that stocktaking much emphasis was laid on the relationship between economics and defence. That emphasis was recognized by all delegations and especially, if you like, by the delegation from the United States, as being very important at this time. At Paris we agreed on both firm short-term defence programs and longer-term provisional plans.
In the communique which we issued at the end of the meeting, and which no doubt hon. members have read, it will be noticed that we merely spoke about decisions which had been taken and which it was hoped would result in a notable increase in our defence strength over the Lisbon figures for the year 1953. No figures were given in the matter. We departed from the precedent of Lisbon where a figure of 50 divisions in appropriate stages of combat'readiness was mentioned, and about

which we had some interesting discussions at the last session. This time we merely talked about a "notable increase."
The omission of figures was deliberate and was agreed upon unanimously. It was felt that as we were getting stronger and building up our forces and defensive strength there was no real purpose to be served by officially communicating figures of that growing strength to those who would like very much to have them and who are not particularly friendly to us. It is one thing to have those figures appear in the press as a speculation or as someone's guess, intelligent or otherwise, but it is quite another thing to have those figures officially confirmed by the NATO organization. Therefore we did not do so.
There was another reason why numbers were omitted. It was that we felt that concentration on quantity in a defensive buildup tended to take our minds off qualitative build-up. At this North Atlantic council meeting a great deal of emphasis was placed on increasing the quality of our defence forces as well as increasing their quantity.
As it is five o'clock, Mr. Chairman, if it is agreeable I shall resume after the conclusion of private members' hour.


The Deputy Chairman:: It being five o'clock the house will proceed to consider private and public bills.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



DEFENCE EXPENDITURE


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Speaker, may I have the permission of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of presenting a committee report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Arnold Croll: I have the honour to table the second and final report of the special committee on defence expenditure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the report which has just been tabled represents the view of the majority of the committee, but the Progressive Conservative members strongly dissented from it.


Brooke Claxton: That is quite out of order; there is only one report of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The report is not before the house for discussion.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of bills on the order paper which are to be considered in committee of the whole. There is Bill No.
Private Bills
364, an act to incorporate Canadian Co-operative Credit Society Limited, and certain divorce bills, Nos. 317 to 328; 342 to 359 and No. 361. Does it meet with the pleasure of the house that I should leave the chair for the house to consider these bills in committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 364, to incorporate Canadian Co-operative Credit Society Limited-Mr. Bater-Mr. Robinson in the chair.
William Alfred Robinson: I might say that this bill has been considered by the committee on' banking and commerce and has been reported without amendment.
Sections 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Joyce Elizabeth Purves Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Marjorie Euretta Adams Mattinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Myrtle Norma Epps Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Joseph Alexandre Hyppolit McLish.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No., 321, for the relief of Taschereau Pierre Charles Joseph Rodier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Berniece Gertrude Doran.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Florence Mildred Fine Crelinsten.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Gerard Richer. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Thomas John Rivet.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Dorina Perelroizen Wallerstein, otherwise known as Dorina Perlraizen Wallerstein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 327, for the relief of Gabriele Laure Josephine Girard Steinbach.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 328, for the relief of Reine Cesarine Berthe Leborgne Deyglun.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Hanus Braun, otherwise known as John Browne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Hazel Loisette Robinson Darby.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Pearle Elizabeth McLeod Martin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Susan Klamka Migicovsky.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Bill No. 346, for the relief of Olive Margaret Searle Pfeffer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Alfred Roger Holder.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Joseph Willie Brais.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Gladys Ola Taylor McLellan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Freda Smolar Brown.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Marguerita Downie Couture.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 352, for the relief of Howard Douglas Wardle.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Rose Brown-stien Lazarus.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 354, for the relief of Rebecca Bowman LeFloch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of John Stewart Hannah.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Harold Speevak.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 357, for the relief of Rita Rabino-vitch Abrams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Marcel Roland Veilleux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Mary Gordon Wilson LaForest.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of Mildred Hannah Earle.-Mr. Winkler.


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 365, to amend the Regulation? Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the Regulations Act, which was passed by this house in 1950. The purpose of the bill is to repeal the provision in the Regulations Act which gives the governor in council the power to pass a regulation exempting from publication any order in council which, in the view of the government, should be kept secret. The purpose of my bill is to abolish that right to pass secret orders in council.
I should point out that the right to keep orders in council secret is not written into the Emergency Powers Act; rather it is in-


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am informed that this bill has not been printed for distribution to the members. I was looking for a copy to see if we had any objection to it, but I am at a loss to know exactly what I should do. If the bill has not been printed perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow it to stand until we have copies of the bill.


Mr. Graydon:: There has been a great reversal of form somewhere.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Alphonse Fournier: I know, but this is a subject which seems to be quite important. I should not like to discuss it in the dark or have one of my colleagues do so, although I could listen attentively to the hon. gentleman. If we have in the past studied bills without having had them distributed, I would ask if, in this instance, the hon. gentleman would not mind holding up the matter until the next hour for private or public bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of course it is not my fault if the bill has not been printed, but under the circumstances I would be glad to move the adjournment of the debate, and I hope the bill will be printed before the next hour for private and public bills.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: The business reserved for the hour for public and private bills having been exhausted, we shall resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
85. Departmental administration (including expenses of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States permanent joint board on defence), $2,853,958.
Lester Bowles Pearson: 
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, as one who had the privilege of serving on the standing committee on external affairs this year and of taking some humble part in its discussions, before I launch on any general comment with respect to our present external position I should like to have a word to say in connection with the deliberations of the committee and its report.
While the committee did approve the estimates, there were some things in them that caused the raising of some eyebrows among committee members, and I think perhaps properly so. One must recognize the fact that when the word "approved" is used by a committee such as that, it means approval by the majority of the committee, of course. Although in this case we did not try to make any division within the committee itself, having in mind our attempts always to keep our foreign affairs policy as free as possible of political divisions, one of the things that we in the opposition have always concerned ourselves with in following a multiple-party policy in connection with foreign affairs is the fact that some of the details of the methods of handling foreign affairs, if great vigilance is not exercised, could perhaps become almost uncriticized estimates or uncriticized policy, something which would not be good for parliament, for the government or for the people.
One or two matters particularly came up for consideration in these discussions which I think perhaps ought to be mentioned. One is the question of the cost of embassies which are proposed to be built in certain countries. One of those embassies which caused the most difficulty in the committee, so far as criticism was concerned, was an embassy that it was proposed should be built at a cost of something like three-quarters of a million dollars. I think the committee's discussions had a fruitful result with respect to that matter, because I am satisfied that the department will stop, look and listen with respect to that expenditure. Although it may be argued that the money comes from blocked currency in that particular country, nevertheless it is actually Canadian money that is being expended; and I think it is necessary that we should watch carefully expenditures on that kind of work.

Supply-External Affairs
The other matter I wanted to raise is the question of the C.B.C. international service. I do not intend to elaborate upon the matter at this time, but it caused some concern to the members of the committee who reached the point of having the director, Mr. Jean Desy, brought before the committee to give evidence. Of course the international service is or should be in close liaison with our external affairs policy, largely because of the fact that Canadian foreign policy is embodied in every broadcast that is beamed to other countries. One of the things that has concerned me most is that, even after the evidence was given by Mr. Desy in the committee, it seemed to me that still closer liaison ought to be brought about because the policies he pursues in Montreal are not under the Secretary of State for External Affairs but under the Minister of National Revenue with whom he works.
That divorce between the two departments might conceivably lead to some difficulties later on that we ought to try to avoid. One of the problems is, what are we beaming to other countries? It is only fair to say that we were given some samples of what is being beamed to these countries behind the iron curtain and elsewhere. But it is pretty difficult for a committtee to have anything more than a peep through the window as to what is going on, and we had that peep. I do think there ought to be very close and continuing supervision by the Department of External Affairs with respect to each one of those broadcasts.
For instance, I think it was a bit of a shook to the committee to learn of one broadcast that had been arranged to Brazil. I have nothing against a good musical broadcast being made to Brazil, but it does seem to me that when we get into such astronomical figures for a broadcast for an hour, or however long it was, of the order of $24,000 odd- perhaps it can be justified-it should not be repeated, shall I say, without some careful and close scrutiny and attention being given to it, because it is so easy to overstep the mark, in connection with some of these expenditures. It is only fair that I bring this to the attention of the committee today as one of the things that did concern us in connection with the committee's hearings.
In addition there was the age-old problem of the issuance of passports, with which the minister is thoroughly familiar and which came up again in the committee. Some of the members of the committee, including myself, have been concerned with the issuance of passports to people who go roaming around behind the iron curtain to no good purpose so far as the Canadian people
fMr. Graydon.I
are concerned. I know there are a lot of difficulties in connection with that, and the minister has pointed them out to me, and so has the department. But it does seem to me that we might have gone a step further in our recommendation, although I know certain members of the committee did not want to go any further at this time. We could have gone further and called for some kind of conference between the two departments of citizenship and immigration and external affairs for the purpose of seeing to it that our red-tinged Canadian citizens, or so-called Canadian citizens, who go behind the iron curtain with such impunity have some sort of bridle put on them to prevent them from disgracing this country over there or when they come back here at will.
These are things that occurred to me as being rather important that came out of the committee itself.
Added to that was the matter of the St. Lawrence seaway. I am one who would have liked to see the committee go further in the report with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway, because it seems to me we ought to make ourselves pretty clear in this country with respect to the attitude of the United States congress to that question. I have been wondering whether we have not been perhaps a little hesitant about taking the gloves off with the United States congress in respect to this matter. I noticed that the Minister of Trade and Commerce did go a considerable distance in New York not very long ago in connection with that particular point, but I do feel very keenly that the United States congress ought to be told very plainly by this parliament that its delay and hold-up in connection with the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway are not looked upon with favour by the majority of the Canadian people.
In addition, it seems to me that in connection with that matter we have not been told by the government at all times just what delays can be expected in a legal and constitutional way. I have been greatly concerned about that. On a number of occasions I have asked the Minister of Transport some questions; I asked General McNaughton some questions when he was before the committee, and I am not at all satisfied yet that we have come to the end of all the legal delays and red tape that the United States congress and others in the United States can put in the way of the completion of this great project, which is of such importance to the people, particularly in my part of the province of Ontario, and of Canada. We ought to be told very clearly exactly what we might expect in that connection, because sometimes we

have glossed over the difficulties and the obstacles that are likely to arise in the hope that the rising sun of the great St. Lawrence seaway, which has so far been delayed, may soon be seen. These delays have not come about by reason of anything Canada has done, but by things that have been done unnecessarily and improperly by the congress of the United States and by some of those who have been lobbying for their own purposes in connection with other means of transportation in that very important part of the international boundary.
Then the question of the charter revision was a matter for the report. It was a matter that I raised in the house, as the minister knows, in the early part of the session, before the committee was set up. I am glad the committee decided to do that, because I would like to see Canada in the very forefront of the amendment to the charter of the United Nations. We cannot start too soon. The next session of the house ought to see the standing committee on external affairs dealing with that, because it is going to take more than one session. It may take two sessions, and by that time 1955 will have rolled around and the revision of the charter will come up for decision in the general assembly.
We had a great part in setting up this charter at San Francisco, and certain provisions of the San Francisco charter contain more words put there by Canadian representatives than were put there by the representatives of any other single country. We can be proud of that, and I should like to see that developed and carried forward into the next revision, because Canada cannot afford to be behind. We have always been in front, and I should like to see us stay there.
These are some of the matters I thought I might deal with in a very brief way with respect to the committee's report. When the minister makes his reply, or during some period of the discussion, I should like him to deal with another matter which was not raised in the committee itself, and which should have been. It has to do with the military attaches who are attached to some of the embassies all over the world which are manned and operated by Canadians. Military attaches, I am told-and when the minister replies he will be able to amend what I say in accordance with the facts-are attached to all embassies. These also include the embassies we Rave in NATO countries. That would seem to me to be unnecessary because, in addition to that, we have military attaches at the seat of the NATO organization itself.
I am told that there is good reason for not having that duplication. I can understand 68108-304
Supply-External Affairs why military attaches ought to be in countries that are not members attached to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but it does seem to me it is a duplication of effort and of good minds of the navy, army and air force to have them spread over and duplicating services, if they are in fact duplicating. I would ask the minister to comment on that later on.
I suppose one of the most important things that has happened since the last time we met and discussed foreign affairs in any broad way is the death of the premier of Russia and the advent of the new administration, or whatever one likes to call it over there. That of course has caused great changes in the thinking and speculation throughout the world, as to whether or not it means an approach to peace or is only the old policy done up in a new package.
I was quite interested in one comment made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South not so long ago, not on a debate on external affairs. When the hon. member talks common sense I always listen to him, and I think this was common sense. Just at the moment I cannot think of many times when he has not talked common sense, but we will not go into that. One thing he said I think was like him, because not many people in the house have had perhaps as close association in trying to fight the reds in Canada as has the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I give him full marks for that. One of the things he said was that the moves of the government in Russia were more a change in tactics than a change in policy.
That being the case I think it is only natural that the people on this side of the iron curtain would look that gift horse, if you want to call it a gift horse, in the mouth. We have had a lot of experience with the Soviet union in the past and to expect that they are likely to turn into angelic forms overnight is perhaps testing the credulity and common sense of the people a little too much.
As the minister says, I think one ought to test everything that is being done. If these people are in earnest, if they are genuine and if this offers a road to peace, then we want to go along that road with them. I think that is what the Canadian people want. But on the other hand we must watch that we are not being faced with a situation such as we used to describe down on the farm as follows: Do not let them buy us at one end of the market and sell us at the other. That is the one thing that bothers me in connection with the whole Russian approach.
It is much easier for a dictatorship to change its policy overnight than it would be for this government or the government of the

Supply-External Affairs United States, of Great Britain or of any NATO country which would have to carry along a great democratic body of opinion with them. You cannot take a curve and change overnight when you have a load of public opinion behind you. They can turn and twist as they like and as they did in 1939, just before the war broke out, after berating the Germans for years. We all have memories of the cooing doves of the Kremlin towards Hitler which would almost turn the stomach of anyone who was interested at that time in seeing that international justice was being done.
I am concerned about whether this change is genuine. I believe we know enough to watch. I think the policy that we could very well follow would be one of care, courtesy and common sense. It would be too bad if we found that we had been the victim of some diabolical plan intended to bring down our guard and weaken our defences so they could turn upon us when we were weak.
That is what we have to watch for. I am stating this in Warn and direct language, perhaps not in very diplomatic terms, but I think they indicate pretty well what the average Canadian is thinking. I think we have to be pretty careful, and I believe the government realize that because they have not let down in their NATO obligations or plans. I am not so sure that we are not seeing the fruits of the NATO plan being realized now. I am not so sure that the fact that there has been a leading through strength in our diplomatic channels for some years has not had a great deal to do with the strengthening of our position and the change of mind and heart, if it is a change of heart, in Moscow. I have always said and I still maintain that up to the present time they have understood only the language of force and strength and might. Unfortunately, whether we liked it or not, we had to speak that language in order to make them understand. Now that we are speaking that language perhaps they are understanding to some extent just what we mean, and that we mean business in our international affairs in connection with peace.
I should like to make one other observation in connection with our general United Nations policy. Some years ago I made a statement in the house, and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) put it in a different form during this session. I subscribe heartily to what he said. I am not criticizing Canada in this regard because I do not think Canada can be criticized, but I think a lot of other countries are open to criticism in that in the past even some of the big powers have made a plaything of the United Nations general assembly.
	,
To my knowledge there has never been a general assembly meeting at which the heads of all the states were present at the same time. It is one thing to say that the cornerstone of the foreign policy of a nation is the United Nations, but it is another thing to do something about it. We have sent two prime ministers to the United Nations general assembly, but there are a number of heads of states who have never been at the general assembly in any capacity. Those countries send their permanent representatives to Washington or New York, their second-string men, if you want to call them that.
It seems to me that if the United Nations is going to succeed there must be some reasonable approach made by the heads of states and an attempt made to attend. One of the troubles we have with the people behind the iron curtain and on this side of the iron curtain is that the heads of states never meet at all. The place for them to meet is not at a special meeting; they should sit down at the United Nations general assembly and tu' their feet under the :ommon table in an effort to thresh things out and try to arrive at some peaceful settlement of the world's problems.
Surely that is not asking too much of the heads of states if they really believe that the United Nations is the powerful instrument it was intended to be, that is for the protection, preservation and maintenance of peace and security throughout the world. I do not think it is too late for that sort of thing to be carried out as it should be.
I should like to mention one other matter. When we were dealing with the matter of foreign affairs previously a great deal of anxiety was expressed by many hon. members of the house over the new Eisenhower program, particularly as it related to the Far East. Well, I never felt that way and I so expressed myself in public.
A number of people expressed concern about it, and you would almost think that the peace of the world was being shaken by what President Eisenhower had said about the neutralization of the strait of Formosa. Whether it is because of what he said, strangely enough instead of having been a threat to peace the world seems to be moving toward lessened tension. More than that, I think most people realize now that to have criticized that policy was going pretty far. I felt that the new United States policy held at least a fair chance of success. I do not think anyone is apt to make the same statement he made two or three months ago, particularly when he realizes what significance attaches to the Eisenhower policy put forward only two or three weeks ago, when the United States indicated what they were

prepared to do in the interests of disarmament and world peace. I think that proposal of the United States government was about as sane and sensible as anyone could expect from any democratic nation in the world.
The thing that struck me most forcibly and I suppose struck the humanitarian heart of everybody was when President Eisenhower said that, after all, if we could only disarm progressively and properly throughout the world, we would have that much more money to spend upon the needy and underprivileged and underdeveloped all over the world. I think they deserve credit for having put forward such a sane and sensible policy, and I hope that will not be subject to unnecessary criticism as time goes on.
One thing does seem indicated, as we change from one era to the other, in the matter of soviet diplomacy. Up to the present time we have been faced with aggression on the military side of the picture; and that aggression on the military side has caused us no end of trouble and no end of concern. It has been a kind of cold war aggression; but it has always been there. There has been extensive pressure, when no one on this side of the iron curtain seemed to be quite happy or satisfied that we were not likely to run into trouble almost any day.
That has not been a very healthful climate for our people, or indeed for the peoples in any part of the world. Today, perhaps because our military preparations, through NATO and in other ways, have become more developed, we are now moving into a new era; and it looks to me as though we may be faced now with aggression in the field of world trade.
That is a concern shared, I believe, by all hon. members in parliament. We recall that it was not long ago, shortly before the death of the Russian premier, that a question was raised from the Kremlin indicating that there was a move afoot to divide the free nations. And in the light of bilateral agreements made by Russia which have been disclosed from time to time, I do not mind telling hon. members I am greatly concerned that even right now we may be in an era when the soviets are content to soft-pedal military aggression, and in the alternative are whooping up aggression on the international trade front.
If that is so, then I think this government, in company with the governments of other free countries, had better watch its step. Because it seems to me that in the days that lie ahead our prosperity, and all those things for which we stand, could easily be endangered if in some fashion or another our trade were undermined by this new policy of soviet 68108-304J
Supply-External Affairs aggression. If they lay emphasis on that phase of their activities, then we must meet the challenge. It seems to me that whatever is required, all free countries-and particularly the United States, which has a big stake in the matter-had better watch very carefully the position they take. Because today, when trade is so greatly sought after, and at a time when the soviets may be angling for all kinds of bilateral agreements with people who need trade, they may dig deeply into the trade position of many of the free nations.
While I have not given up the idea of the urgency of our military requirements, and the priority that must be given to them, it would seem, if one may judge from reports, that the urgency of military priority might be a little less than it was before. I do suggest it has reached the point where we can back up. It would seem that we have met some of the urgent necessities connected with that military problem. I believe, however, that we have now reached a time when, without in any way sacrificing our military position, it is essential, in our position in-NATO, that we pay some attention to article 2 of NATO to which the minister referred a moment ago. I know there are some difficulties in connection with freeing the channels of trade. Nevertheless, when they have to, people find ways of doing things. However, they are not prone to follow that course if they do not have to, or if they do not want to.
It does seem to me that if in NATO we are going to meet both the military and economic aggression, we must see to it that a careful review is made of our channels of trade, as applied to all countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to see to it that, having met military aggression up to a point, we shall not neglect the aggression on the other front and leave our back door wide open so as to invite trouble from that quarter.
I realize that my remarks have been rambling because, rather than prepare a speech, I have spoken extemporaneously. I do hope, however, that when we meet again to discuss foreign policy in this great chamber of parliament, we may be immeasurably closer in a genuine and honest way to those days when sunshine and peace will shine permanently throughout the world. Because, after all, I suppose there is no single thing about which members of this parliament dream and for which they long more than the days when the threat of war, with all it implies, shall have been removed from the face of the globe, and people are allowed to live in decency, peace, harmony and Christianity.

Supply-External Affairs


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, when the debate on external affairs took place two months ago I was not able to be in my seat. Consequently I should like to participate in this debate and make some observations regarding the general situation that I think has changed since the earlier debate took place.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said he had made a statement at that time, and that perhaps what he said then would, in a sense, suffice for the general statement that might otherwise have been given. It seems to me, however, that in the immediate past there have been some quite phenomenal changes in the international picture. Undoubtedly there has been an immense change in Russian statements-whatever the deeds may be-since Marshal Stalin's death a comparatively short time ago. And of course it is fashionable to say

we all say it- that what we should look for are deeds, not words, as evidence of good faith on the part of the Russians in the peace gestures they have been making.
But I think it is well to remember that in a propaganda battle, in the cold war, words sometimes, in themselves, become deeds. Russian propaganda both at home and abroad has been sharply changed lately. Soviet newspapers, for example, are suddenly discovering the importance of personal freedom lor Soviet citizens. That is something new. The whole Soviet system of extorted confessions has been dramatically exposed. Suspicions many of us entertained about inexplicable confessions have been confirmed .by the Soviet union itself.
Then there has been an entirely new attitude displayed in foreign affairs. The west, for example, is no longer the butt of column after column of vicious, hysterical attacks in the Russian papers, particularly in Pravda and Izvestya. This sudden change in Russian propaganda would be significant itself; but followed by some of the events which have actually taken place, let us hope that it really is indicative of some change in Russian policy. Nothing comparable has occurred throughout the whole of the Stalin era; not even the purge trials of the thirties were accompanied by such changes in what appears to be Russian policy.
I should like to look at just a few of these changes, as a background for what I am saying. First of all they have been instrumental in releasing British civilians in North Korea, civilians who had been imprisoned since the outbreak of hostilities in the summer of 1950. Then they granted amnesty to two million prisoners in the Soviet union; at

least we are told they have. Of course we have no proof of it; but that is what they say. One of the most extraordinary announcements of all, I think, is that they have acquitted the nine Jewish doctors who had been condemned and sentenced for alleged misdeeds against certain prominent members of the soviet ruling class-indeed, conspiracy to murder those leading citizens. What seems to me to be more extraordinary is that they have subsequently proceeded to punish those who had used the power of the police state in securing the conviction of the accused doctors, and it is admitted that the confessions had actually been extorted by what they themselves called vile means; and they have condemned the use of such methods.
They have indicated a willingness to exchange sick and wounded prisoners of war in Korea as a prelude to truce talks; and, as we all know, an exchange of sick and wounded prisoners has since been carried out. The communists have indicated a willingness to resume the peace talks in Korea that were disrupted last October. Those peace talks, whatever comes out of them, have at least been revived and are now in progress.
I think we can take note of this, too. In the middle of a very tense situation which had arisen over the shooting down of allied planes by the Russians in the Berlin air corridor, the Russians came forward with specific proposals for a system of air travel to Berlin which might help avoid these incidents in the future. Those are all gains. Then, too, we have the fact that an informer, a woman previously lauded to the skies for what was afterwards admitted to be a piece of patriotic perjury, is deprived of the Order of Lenin. Not so long ago a- soviet captain was punished for allowing the sailors of his ship to go ashore and fraternize with the residents of the country they visited. However, three weeks ago soviet sailors were permitted to visit Paris and, indeed, even to express the view that it was an agreeable city at least to look at. For the first time in years a group of United States newspapermen, paying their own way of course, were given an opportunity to visit Moscow and move about freely, it is said, and even to take some pictures.
Then, of course, we have something which concerns us in the United Nations, in the matter of the appointment of the new secretary general of the United Nations. That broke a deadlock which had existed for several years.
What does all this mean? Any one of these incidents might not in themselves appear to be significant, but taken together they

surely must be regarded as indicating a hopeful change in the Russian attitude or the attitude of the new administration in regard to Russian policy. All of us hope- I see that an hon. member shakes his head. I did not say it was a change in policy; I said let us hope that it is a change in policy.


Mr. Slick:: I do not agree.


Major James William Coldwell: Surely the hon. member can agree with that hope.


Leonard T. Stick: I can agree with the hope.


Major James William Coldwell: That is all right. I say all of us sincerely hope that these adjustments may at least pave the way for ending the cold war and building a secure peace. That is what we have to hope, even if at the moment-and no doubt this is in the minds of members when I am saying this-we have to maintain our defences and let none of them down. Let us hope and welcome any move which will seem to indicate a change of attitude and change in policy, or the opportunity to end the cold war.
Now all of us are guessing; there are lots of guesses as to the reasons for these developments. Perhaps some people think they result from a struggle for power in the Soviet union. Perhaps they are felt necessary by the new Russian administration to strengthen their hold upon the Russian people. Perhaps they are indicative of a different political outlook by the new Russian leaders. So far we can only speculate on the reasons for the changes.
I think one thing we should bear in mind is that it would be quite unrealistic for us to expect a complete reversal of the whole Russian position in the world. Such expectations and hopes might lead us to make prerequisite demands on the soviet leaders which, from their point of view, would be extremely difficult if not impossible to meet. I think we have to keep in mind that it would be foolish for us to expect, for example, that the new soviet leadership could convert Russia or her satellites into democracies overnight. I wish we could hope for that, but it would be unrealistic to hope for such a thing.
It would be equally foolish of us to expect, as President Eisenhower appeared to do in his speech of April 16, that the Russians will suddenly agree to free their satellites and withdraw beyond the Oder-Neisse line. Certainly they will not do that until after a long period of pressure and negotiation. To base our policy on such expectations and demands, is quite unrealistic. Indeed to make some demands, such as President Eisenhower did, as conditions prerequisite for the reopening
Supply-External Affairs of negotiations with the communists on outstanding issues, is to place unnecessary obstacles in the way of peaceful settlement.
The present situation provides us with certain magnificent opportunities which I do not think should be lost. There has been far too much emphasis on caution since these gestures were made, too much of what might be termed "go slow, watch and see". There is a place for caution, and I want to say something about it in a moment. I want to say to our diplomatic and political friends at the present time the danger is that if anything there will be a little too much caution. Hesitation, delay and undue cautiousness may cause us to lose valuable opportunities for building peace.
May I leave off there, Mr. Chairman, and call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess..


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Major James William Coldwell: At six o'clock I was remarking that while we should exercise every caution, we should beware lest our policy is too slow, too cautious. I think perhaps that is one criticism that might be made of the-president's otherwise excellent speech, that he seemed to expect the initiative to come' from the other side. I think we should do-everything we possibly can to seize and retain the initiative ourselves as far as possible. There should be no reason why we should wait for all the steps to be taken by the communists.
We know, of course, how disappointing previous negotiations and efforts to reach satisfactory settlements of particular issues have been through the years. Let me give an example. I believe there have been some 257 meetings in an effort to conclude an Austrian peace treaty. This, of course, indicates the difficulty. I think that, though our negotiators may be weary, we should not miss any opportunities if there seem to be any prospects for a settlement. I hope there are more prospects for a settlement today than there were.
I want to say something about the specific steps that might be taken. First of all, of course, there is the necessity of concluding a Korean armistice. May I say that at noon today the radio carried reports appearing in the British press. They, like many of us, are frankly disturbed by what appears to be the rather truculent attitude of the United States military negotiators. We in this group have repeatedly urged that these negotiations be carried on by civilian representatives of the
4816	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs United Nations countries involved in that dispute rather than by the military. The demand for such a change is now being made by many others, including such well-informed and responsible newspapers as the Manchester Guardian. The principles of a Korean truce have now been agreed upon by both sides, including the difficult question of the repatriation of prisoners of war.
While that may be very slow, I think every effort should be made to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion. We must not allow the talks to break down on questions of detail concerning the mechanics we should use in giving effect to the principles that might be decided upon. I have been a bit disturbed lately by some articles and statements that have been appearing in the United States press. I think it is particularly important that the question of an armistice in Korea should not be tied up with the situation in Indo-China. There have been suggestions by some leaders in the United States that a settlement in Korea should be conditional upon a settlement in Indo-China.
I believe it would be the height of folly to tie these two problems together at the present time, because they are not similar situations.
In Korea there was an act of aggression by one separately constituted government against another government, and the government that was the subject of the aggression was a government which we recognized and was recognized internationally. It was clearly a threat to international security. I believe the United Nations had no option but to take the action that was taken at that time. However, that was not the case with regard to Indo-China. Indo-China is a colonial area and the primary issue is whether French colonialism is going to be strengthened in its attempt to maintain its control over the natives of Indo-China. For some time now I have held the view that this whole issue should be settled by the United Nations, and settled in a manner that would give as much independence as possible to the area and would undertake to assist the people in economic rehabilitation.
In an editorial just three days ago the Christian Science Monitor wisely sums up the situation so far as the United States is concerned by pointing out that the United States must recognize, and I quote:
-that unless American aid is used to promote Indo-Chinese independence rather than to defend French prerogatives, it might as well be stopped tomorrow.
I think that is a consensus which is very widely held. As I have said, the first step in building peace must be the conclusion of a Korean armistice, a very difficult thing to


do. I think every attempt should be made to bring about that armistice.
In the second place, I believe the western leaders should offer in good faith to negotiate a settlement of other outstanding issues in the Far East. This will involve the removal of nationalist China from the United Nations and the recognition of the new regime in China. If a Korean armistice is agreed upon in the negotiations leading up to such a peace, the very fact that the new government of China was one of the negotiating nations would involve a degree of recognition. I believe that Formosa should be taken over as a United Nations trusteeship, and not given back to the Chinese communists or placed under the control of Chiang Kai-shek. It should be taken over by the United Nations trusteeship council until such time as the wishes of the Formosan people as to their future status can be properly determined.
Thirdly, I would urge our government to make every effort toward the reopening of negotiations on the unification of Germany. This is probably the most important issue in the world, including the Far Eastern questions I have been discussing. Every effort should be made to obtain Russia's agreement. The primary consideration, of course, must be free elections-and completely free 

as the first step towards unification and the taking of further steps towards the independence of that country. Divided as she is at the present time, Germany is a festering sore in the heart of Europe and one which, as we all know from long and very bitter experience, can be extremely dangerous to the peace of the whole world. It is vital to both Russia and the west that an agreed solution be found for this extremely grave German problem.
Then in the fourth place we should offer to sit down again with the Russians in the hope of negotiating, as I have already said, an Austrian peace treaty. Even though we have had 257 meetings, we should be ready now to hold the 258th, particularly since there is now some hope that the truculence of the Soviet union which previously stood in the way of agreement may be perhaps a bit softened.
Fifth, we should ask for a reopening of discussions on arms limitation and the control of atomic energy. I think we are all interested in that particular phase. One of the references in President Eisenhower's speech of April 16, to which I have already referred several times, which evoked the best response all over the world, both in the western world and in Russia, was this statement:
-this government is ready to ask its people to join with all nations in devoting a substantial percentage of the savings achieved by disarmament to a fund for world aid and reconstruction ... to help

other peoples to develop the underdeveloped areas of the world . . .
That was one of the most statesmanlike statements the President of the United States has yet made. There could be no more humane alternative to the present state of affairs which causes natural resources and human brains and energy to be harnessed to the production of weapons of war and destruction.
The president dwelt on the stupendous costs of armaments and revealed what equivalent sums of money could do in the way of producing the essentials of life. Those of us who heard the speech, I think, were struck with the numerous examples he gave. Nothing illuminates more clearly the inhumane and inhuman direction of world affairs than when we reflect on the fact that the cost of one heavy bomber is robbing the world of more than 30 modern schools; or two electric power plants, each plant to serve a city of 60,000 people; or two hospitals; or fifty miles of concrete pavement. I think that was one of the most striking illustrations the president gave, although he gave others; namely that the cost of one heavy bomber is eating up what might otherwise be used to bring health, education, sanitation, transportation and so on to the peoples of the world.
So it is that I say: Let us follow up President Eisenhower's lead in this respect at least and try, if we possibly can, to reopen negotiations on these questions; and if possible, let our side seize the initiative. I think we should make every endeavour to try to secure Russian and Chinese co-operation in a general diversion of the money now spent on arms to the rehabilitation as well as to the constructive development of countries and areas around the world without distinction as to political control or colour. Indeed that would be the only way, I think, that such a plan could be placed in operation.
Furthermore we might propose a general conference to explore the possibility of expanding trade between east and west. I agree entirely with what my friend the hon. member for Peel said this afternoon when he was discussing this problem. There is nothing of more vital concern to the democratic countries than the reopening of the channels of trade. If we fail to do that our economies may become undermined and the tactics of the Soviet union with regard to trade and commerce may prove to be far more effective than any propaganda in the cold war and indeed the use of arms in a hot war. I would therefore urge that we ourselves as Canadians, through our Department of External Affairs, our Minister of Trade and Commerce and others, make every effort to
Supply-External Affairs unblock the channels of trade and give the world an opportunity to build an economic structure that will withstand any blows that may come from any direction.
Finally, it may be worth while to try to stop the kind of political warfare we have had over the past few years. Those of us who have been at the United Nations and have heard the speeches there realize how intense this political warfare has been. I think little has been gained by the bitter criticisms that have been made by both sides; and when I say this, I am not in any way forgetting that the bitter speeches were initiated by the Soviet union and the satellite countries under its control. There is no way of knowing at this point whether progress towards peace can be secured along all or even along any of the lines I have been suggesting. I am merely discussing this matter in order to set us thinking about some of these problems. Like others, I am not sure that we would be successful but let us, if we can, seize the initiative. Then we may have an opportunity of bringing some light into the present darkness. But the point I want to emphasize as strongly as I can is that no opportunity should be lost for want of trying.
I also want to say quite clearly and distinctly, as I did at the outset of my remarks this afternoon, that we do not for one moment suggest that we should let down our guard. The soviets may not be sincere. This may not be a change in policy at all but merely a change in tactics. We do not know. Consequently we must not let down our guard. This whole peace offensive may be deliberately designed to induce the west to slow down its military rearmament. We must not do that. We must not abandon the principle of collective security. We must safeguard our own defences and the defences of those with whom we are co-operating in NATO. We must maintain our armed strength until there is provision for general disarmament through the United Nations; world-wide collective security, with all the necessary safeguards of inspection and control; and an international police force operating under the direction of the United Nations and in accordance with international law. This will take time. But until that is done, we must not be induced by any stratagem or trick into lowering our military defences.
But as I have already stressed, on the diplomatic and political fronts, as distinct from the military front, there is not the same necessity for this kind of slow, cautious approach. A new opportunity is opening before us, I believe. We should act upon it with boldness, imagination and sincerity in the hope that if successful agreements with the communists can be reached, the deadly

Supply-External Affairs horror of mankind marshalled into two armed camps and marching to atomic catastrophe will be lifted from the world.
I wanted to place. these views before the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Chairman, because I know they are quite widely shared. While we must not in any sense weaken our side, nevertheless we should endeavour to seize the initiative as far as negotiations are concerned and try to bring about understandings at least that will give the world a breathing space from this sort of nightmare that hangs over us at the present time.
After all, Canada is sometimes said to be among the smaller nations; but again, those of us who have been at the United Nations know that Canada is very generally respected and trusted by other countries. Our country, because it is influential, could perform a very useful function in speaking out when it is necessary to speak out and urging the great powers on our side to get the initiative in their hands and endeavour to bring about at least a period of armistice and of peace.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope some of the matters will be considered and that some good may come from Canada's efforts along lines similar to those I have suggested.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I must weary my fellow members of the house almost unbearably because I continually insist on emphasizing technique. What is the use of talking about what ought to be when you do not show how to bring it into being? We have heard speeches in this debate telling us things we already know. For example, "we shall have to remove the blocks to trade". Well, every 14 year old child in Canada knows that, but the thing he does not know is how on earth to do it. It seems to me that is the thing hon. members should be busying themselves talking about; how to do it.
While the talks were going on in 1944 and 1945, while we were arguing Dumbarton Oaks, the Bretton Woods agreement and the San Francisco conference proposals, I think I said over and over again there was no use in trying to remove wars until you first remove the cause of war. The fundamental cause of war is adverse trade balances, or the fear of adverse trade balances. If we will go to work to remove the danger of adverse trade balances and will discover how to accomplish that end, we shall not need any United Nations or Bretton Woods or ITO or any of the other alphabetical monstrosities with which we have been afflicted now for ten years.
The big question is, how can we accomplish all of this? First, I should say the problem is
[Mr. Coldwell-I
one of distribution. I know a great many people can glibly say: Our problem is one of distribution; we have solved the problem of production. True; and that is one of the main causes of our embarrassment of the present moment and our intense peril at the present moment, that we have learned how to produce more than we know what to do with, but we have not learned how to distribute it. Therefore I would urge upon the minister in the first place that from now on he devote his full attention to trying to find out how to solve the problem of maldistribution. Then, I believe all the other things will take care of themselves.
I am going to ask the minister several rather pointed questions to find out for the country just what he does at the United Nations, not only out in the front, but back in the corridors behind the curtains when he talks with people, what he tells people ought to be done to make right the wrongs of this world. I would like to ask the minister several questions and make a few comments, and I should like him to answer these questions before he concludes this debate, because I believe the country has a right to his answers. The first question is: Has the minister urged upon the United Nations the vital importance of increasing the production of food all over the world, including Canada and the United States and offshore territories including Cuba?


Hazen Robert Argue: Ask the Minister of Agriculture.


John Horne Blackmore: I think probably I know something about whom to talk to. What is the use of the Minister of Agriculture increasing the production of food when he cannot sell it, and the increased production results in a fall in the price of food to the producers? That is a rather superficial comment, I think.
According to the figures which I have, and which the minister will check with me, the world's food production, since world war II concluded, has increased only 9 per cent, while the world's population has increased 13 per cent. Is that in accordance with the minister's information also? This information came from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of March 26, 1953, by Gove Hambidge, who I understand is a prominent figure in the United Nations organization. If those figures are correct, and I am pretty sure they are, then obviously this matter of increasing food production is of the most serious concern; yet the nations which are increasing food production are finding themselves embarrassed in the extreme because they are unable to sell profitably. It is estimated that 1,400 million people in the world go to bed hungry every

night. The minister will check with me as to whether that is an extravagant statement. It is correct as far as I have been able to ascertain.
The next question I wish to ask the minister is: Has he urged upon the United Nations the compelling necessity of devising a means of getting North American surpluses into the hands of the starving millions in less favoured lands? For if these surpluses are not put into the hands of the people who need them, we are creating the makings of disaster both among the less favoured peoples and among our own people where we are increasing food production. Therefore I ask the minister, has he urged upon the United Nations this vital matter, so that instead of spending too much time arguing with the Russians at Panmunjon and elsewhere, they might urge something practicable to relieve, if not end, the strains in the world? I have a quotation from the Rlberta wheat pool budget of April 10, 1953, which I believe will help to emphasize the importance of what I have just said:
Problems of parity
With billions of dollars tied up in farm commodities under the current parity price support program, the United States administration is now in a serious dilemma. Lack of export demand is piling up surpluses. Acreage reduction may be put into effect in 1954 if this year's crop turns out to be a big one. About $1,650 million is involved in stocks of wheat, corn and cotton now in government hands. Another $100 million is in dairy products.
Wheat farmers could place their wheat under government loan. The loan price was around $2,20 basis the farm until January 31. Some 455,800,000 bushels from the 1952 crop is so impounded, with an investment of government money of about $1,000 million. The year-end carryover, estimated at 550 million bushels, may be all in government custody.
About $300 million is invested in cotton and $350 million in corn under the same conditions.
That must impress upon the minister, if he needs to have it impressed upon him, the urgent necessity of devising means whereby these surpluses can be put into the hands of the 1,400 million starving people.
Too many people think such distribution can be accomplished by trade; but if Britain, France, Germany, Japan and other nations , are unable to trade with the United States because they cannot get United States dollars, how in the name of common sense can you expect less favoured peoples in these unhappy lands to get United States dollars? If they are unable to get United States dollars how can they possibly procure the surpluses available in the United States which are simply crying to be used?
I asked first whether the minister had urged upon the United Nations the need for 68108-305
Supply-External Affairs increasing food production. Let me bring to the attention of the committee and of the minister, whose mind undoubtedly has been occupied with other matters to the exclusion of things like this, what has been happening to people in the world who have sought to increase the production of food. In 1952 Cuba increased her production of sugar from 5,000,000 tons to 8,000,000 tons. Inasmuch as she was contributing toward increasing the food supplies of the world, Cuba must have been performing a service of the first magnitude to the unhappy peoples of the world. But what happened to Cuba? She found that the price of sugar fell from around 8 cents per pound to around 4 cents per pound. That was the reward Cuba received for her virtuous act in contributing to the supply of food available to nourish the 1,400 million starving people.
Surely it must be obvious to the minister and every member of this committee and every person in the country that if we reward virtue in increasing production in a manner such as that, we are not going to get increased production. In the article which I read concerning the United States situation in respect of food surpluses, we find the suggestion that in all probability next year the United States will take land out of production, which will be directly decreasing the amount of food and will constitute a disservice to the whole world, including the less favoured peoples who are going to bed hungry every night. I think the minister will now see what is behind that question.
The next question I wish to ask the minister is this. What specific suggestions as to techniques has the minister made to the members of the United Nations? By this I mean techniques for transmitting surpluses from the surplus-producing lands to the needy people in the less favoured lands. Has he made any suggestions at all? If he has not made any suggestions, what contribution to the solution of this problem has been made? Is that all his being present at the United Nations means?
I dare venture to suggest that the major single problem confronting the world today is this problem of getting surpluses from some countries into the hands of needy people. If we do not take care of the needy people we run the risk of communism spreading like prairie fire all over the world. If we fail to get the surpluses from the people who produce too much we run the risk of depression in those countries and again spreading communism far and wide, even right in our own country. So I ask, has the minister offered any techniques? To be more specific,

Supply-External Affairs
where has he proposed the money is to come from to go to FAO so that FAO will be able to take the surpluses and distribute them, as it was originally designed to do when it was first set up?
The next question I wish to ask categorically is: Has the minister noticed how gravely inadequate as a means of distribution ordinary international trade is becoming? I have stood completely astonished during my 17 years in this house at the nonchalant manner in which members of the house assume that everything can be settled by international trade. That was implied in both the major speeches we had this afternoon. "Just free the trade blocks!" "It is simple as ABC." "Nothing to it." And everything will follow. That is a most immature approach to the problem. I am tempted to call it irresponsible, except that I know the hon. gentlemen and know that they are just two of many who are like themselves.
Let me now indicate some of the inadequacies which are developing in international trade and becoming more dangerous every year because of the rapid development of machines, technological skills and the use of solar energy which is characteristic of our day.
In the first place, we find that some nations are tending to become almost self-sufficient, as the United States has done. That is the reason United States dollars are so hard to obtain. It is not the result of any perversity on the part of the United States people; it results from the fact that they desire to produce their own. That is something which they have a perfect right to do.
Canada is developing rapidly in the same direction, and there are other units that probably are capable of doing a similar thing. Every nation that becomes self-sufficient practically eliminates itself from the possibilities of trade because it is unable to accept goods into its economy and therefore it is unable in accordance with the principles of orthodox trade to send goods out. The United States is seeking to solve the problem in her own case by burdening herself almost unbearably with mutual aid, foreign spending, foreign credits and so on, all of which result in putting the recipient nations in debt to the United States, putting them under obligations to the United States and generally contributing to the complexity of the whole situation.
This is the first movement or trend which is tending to decrease the possible efficiency of international trade as a means of international distribution.

The next factor-it is not exactly a trend- is the fact that there are many economies which are weak. Take Cuba as an example. Cuba is relatively speaking a one-crop country. She has to protect her economy with utmost rigour; otherwise there would come pouring into her markets goods which would utterly destroy her economy and throw her into an adverse trade balance such as she would never survive. There are many nations in a more or less similar position. As we all know, even Canada is not free from that sort of difficulty..
The third consideration is that, for one reason or another, many nations are unwise in their trade negotiations. The result is that they incur serious adverse trade balances. Our own Canada is an example of that, as we all know. We have an over-all favourable balance of trade, but we have an adverse balance of trade with the United States that is an ever-present danger to us, while we have a favourable balance of trade with Great Britain and other countries, and we find it difficult to use the credits derived therefrom.
With the consent of the committee I should like to place on the record a table which appears on the editorial page of the Globe and Mail for May 4, 1953. It is headed "Canada's Balance of Trade". If I have the permission of the house I should like to put this on the record without reading it, and thus save hon. members the burden of hearing it read. Do I have that permission?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, where does the table originate? I do not think we should clutter the record of Hansard with tables or figures unless we are quite satisfied as to the authenticity and value of the material.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the hon. member suppose the Globe and Mail would publish something which is not authentic?


Angus MacInnis: The Globe and Mail publishes every day lots of things that are not authentic; and most other papers do, too. I am not objecting to it because it comes from the Globe and Mail. I object to it because the source of the material has not been identified, so that we may know something about it.


John Horne Blackmore: I knew the hon. member would object, so I shall proceed to read it. It is as follows:

(The plus unfavourable
Supply-External Affairs
Canada's Balance of Trade
signs in the following table signify favourable balances of trade; the minus signs signify
balances. See editorial, "Our Trade Insecure", on this page today.)
All Countries
1945		
1946		
1947		
1948		
1949		
1950		
1951		
1952		
Net surpluses for period Net deficits for period ...
1945		
1946		
1947		
1948		
1949		
1950		
1951		
1952		
Aggregate surpluses Net surpluses	
plus	$1,681,649,000	plusplus	411,886,445	minusplus	237,846,285	minusplus	473,083,316	minusplus	261,245,593	minusminus	17,200,000	minusminus	121,500,000	minusplus	325,500,000 $3,253,710,639	minus
United Kingdom
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
plus
ulus

849.763.000
457.458.000 564,000,000
389.195.000
401.811.000 68,323,000
214.736.000
391.300.000


[Stage Direction]
Other Commonwealth Countries
plus plus plus plus minus minus Not available
[Stage Direction]
I know it has been unpleasant for hon. members to have to listen to the reading of this document, but it was the only way I could get the information on the record.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Globe and Mail say where they got the figures?


John Horne Blackmore: The Globe and Mail takes the responsibility for that, and I pass it on. I imagine it is correct; in fact, I am told it is absolutely correct, by a man who is an authority on these matters. Now, the Globe and Mail, in the same issue and on the same page, has two important comments to make about this table. These comments are found in an editorial headed "Our Trade Insecure." The first of these comments is as follows:
Yet in the years 1945 to 1952 inclusive we have saddled-
That is, Canada.
"Britain and other commonwealth countries with an aggregate of three billion, seven hundred and forty-seven dollars of trade deficits in their dealings with us, as shown in the table in an adjoining column.
And the next comment:
Within the same period we have accumulated for ourselves an aggregate of three billion, two hundred and sixty-seven dollars in trade deficits with the United States. Here is what this amounts to: We have used surplus dollars accumulated by us in trade with the commonwealth to finance our trade deficits with the United States.
I do not know, really, how we could have more completely mismanaged our trade in respect of the well-being not only of the United States but of the British commonwealth, than to have done it thus by unwise purchases and neglected to make wise sales.
68108-305J
This illustrates another difficulty which stands in the way of international trade. When full wisdom dawns in the minds of those who manage Canada and the Canadian people, they will not do things like this; although, I grant they will complicate the trade situation for the United States very much, because many markets which she relies upon in Canada will be cut off from her. But Canada will be trading with the British commonwealth, which will be advantageous to them and to us, also, because we will have obtained goods, and we will not have had an adverse trade balance with the United States.
A situation similar to this that we find in Canada has developed in the economies of a great many nations of the world, and is causing them no small amount of concern.
The fourth trend which is cause for much alarm is that the United States, through her tremendous productive potential, is penetrating and monopolizing world markets. This she is doing, first, by competition, because she has such tremendous productive capacity, with such an enormous market in her own home country, that she is able to produce enough of given commodities to enable her producers to pay their way and make a profit, so they can market their remaining goods in the economies of other nations at competitive levels sufficient to enable the United States to drive out other goods in those other economies. That is not imaginary. It actually happens. The United States is doing this.
Then she is making a tremendous number of advances to other nations. When she is making these advances, in large measure she is making them in the form of her Point Four

Supply-External Affairs program advances. This means, for example, that in country ABC the United States will place United States tractors. She will lend money with which to buy the tractors, making advances to country ABC. Then that country, because it has purchased United States-type tractors, will be under the necessity of buying her repairs from the United States. This means that the country has become tied to, and obligated to, the United States in a way which more or less gives the United States a monopoly on that country's trade.
This matter is of tremendous seriousness at the present time, dangerous not only to Canada but to many other nations in the world including Great Britain, Germany, France, and other nations who would like to trade with countries whose markets the United States is more or less binding to herself by her foreign aid grants. Just to show how great these advances by the United States are I have an excellent statement here which I can vouch for. It is a consolidated statement of foreign aid by the United States government in the fiscal years June 30, 1945, to June 30, 1952, a matter of seven years. I will place this document on the record and vouch for its accuracy. It is prepared by one of the finest statisticians on this continent. If I have permission of the house I will put the document on the record now.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member has not identified that paper. Who is the statistician? We have only the hon. member's word for it that he is one of the greatest statisticians on the American continent. This is not what our official record is being made for.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Crestohl):: Unless the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the committee he cannot file the document.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, the hon. member wants it read.


Angus MacInnis: No-


John Horne Blackmore: -and if I were to tell him who the author was he would not accept it either. He would want something more.


Angus MacInnis: I object to that, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has not identified anything that he has tried to put on the record. If he is going to put the table on the record he might as well put on, too, the comment that was made by the Globe and Mail. In other words he might as well have the fMr. Blackmore.]
Globe and Mail make his speech for him. That is not what should be done in this house, and it is not the practice of the house.


Mr. Johnston:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, since I have been in this house, some 18 years, I have never objected to any member putting a statement on the record. However, I am going to say that if the hon. member for Vancouver East is going to continue to object to the hon. member for Lethbridge putting such things on the record, then I will object when any member of the C.C.F. attempts to put on the record articles from the press. It has been common practice to put these things on the record with the consent of the house. If we are going to have objections continually now, then the rest of us are going to object in future.


Leon David Crestohl: The hon. member will appreciate that the rules of the house must be followed. Unless there is unanimous consent the hon. member cannot put the statement on the record.


John Horne Blackmore: I am considerate of the house. I can read this; it doesn't bother me at all.


An hon. Member:: You have not time.


John Horne Blackmore: There is plenty of time. We are in committee and I can occupy enough time to put on the record anything I want.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I raise another point of order. Is it in order for the hon. member to read a document the source of which he is not prepared to disclose? We are quite prepared to have him table it without reading if he can satisfy us as to the authenticity of its source. But can he even read it if he does not take the house into his confidence and tell us its source?


John Horne Blackmore: I am putting this on the record on my own responsibility, Mr. Chairman. I think no hon. member can be called a liar when he says a thing is correct. I say this is right and I will vouch for the man who prepared it. I will just read it into the record. There is no question about its accuracy, and I will read it because there is no time to waste arguing with a lot of men who wish to obstruct.
We are discussing foreign aid by the United States government during the fiscal years from June 30, 1945, to June 30, 1952, a matter of extreme importance.

Supply-External Affairs CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
Foreign Aid by the United States Government
Fiscal Years from June 30, 1945 through June 30, 1952 (Seven Years)
Gross foreign aid	Per capita	Returns	Per- centage of	Net foreign aid	Per- centage of	Net grants	Per- centage of	Net credits	Per- centage of(Millions of Dollars)	(Dollars and cents)	(Millions of dollars)	gross foreign aid	(Millions of dollars)	gross foreign aid	(Millions of dollars)	gross foreign aid	(Millions of dollars)	gross foreign? aidSeven Fiscal Years...$38,212	*241.85	$3,086	8-08%	$35,126	91-92%	$25,505	66-75%	$9,621	25-17%$	$ cts.	*	%	$	%	$	%	*	%1946	
4,999	31.65	268	5-36	4,731	94-64	2,481	49-63	2,250	45-011947	
6,222	39.39	431	6-92	5,791	93-08	2,046	32-89	3,745	60-1911948 	
5,465	34.54	419	7-67	5,046	92-33	2,734	50-03	2,312	42-301949 	
6,545	41.43	491	7-50	6,054	92-50	5,362	81-93	692	10-571950	
5,109	32.34	579	11-33	4,530	88-67	4,390	85-93	140	2-741951	
4,866	30.81	395	8-12	4,471	91-88	4,314	88-66	157	3-221952	
5,006	31.69	503	10-05	4,503	89-95	4,178	83-46	325	6-49Total... 38,212	241.85	3,086	8-08	35,126	91-92	25,505	66-75	9,621	25-17Per Capita	$241.85	$19.54	8-08%	$222.31	91-92%	$161.43	66-75%	$60.88	25-17%,


Jean-François Pouliot: That is most interesting.


John Horne Blackmore: It is too bad I had to inflict that on the house, but when you read the record tomorrow you will be glad it is there.


An hon. Member:: Why?


John Horne Blackmore: What I have discussed up to now has a bearing on the inadequacy that is rapidly developing in the foreign trade mechanism as a means of distributing goods. There are members in this house who have presented the statement that the efficiency of the foreign trade mechanism is increasing, whereas it is actually decreasing in the world at an alarming rate.
I would like now to ask the minister another question. Who are the ministers who directly participate in external affairs? I wonder if the minister himself determines policy completely in respect of external affairs. I am finding some difficulty at the present time in determining to whom to give the credit or the blame for any given policy.
Let us take, for example, our mechanism called GATT. Was the Minister of Trade and Commerce the originator of GATT? Was the Minister of Finance the originator of GATT? Was it the minister of external affairs, the Minister of National Defence or
the Prime Minister? Were all of them together responsible? If they were working together, who is the co-ordinating chairman? This house and this country need to. know these answers in intimate detail, else-how can we hold any given member of this, house responsible?


Jean-François Pouliot: Your figures explain it all.


John Horne Blackmore: That is right, they surely-do. They explain quite a lot.


Jean-François Pouliot: Provided that one understands them.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, I think the hon-member will understand them. He is a mam of unusual ability.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, sir, but I do not.


John Horne Blackmore: I want to know who are the ministers who directly participate in external affairs. Are they the ministers of finance, trade and commerce, defence; or does the cabinet work as a whole? Is the minister a lone agent in determining the external policy of Canada? Let us give him time to answer those questions. They are important things for us to know.
Who is what might be called the co-ordinating chairman of the committee composed of

Supply-External Affairs
these ministers, if a number of the ministers do work together? Is the minister of external affairs the co-ordinating chairman? What I am seeking is who determines Canadian policy in respect of trade and commerce? One hon. member near me jokingly suggests that it is the House of Commons. No, the House of Commons has to follow the trade policy as fixed and brought in here by the government. The house accepts what the government dictates. It cannot do anything about it. The members of the vastly too powerful Liberal party are unable to object to any item because they are members of the party, and what all the others say does not amount to any more than the bleating of a lamb in a blizzard. This vast machine we call the Liberal party runs roughshod over all the desires of the rest of parliament and the country, and fixes its will on the country. It is important that we know who does draft the policy.
The next question is, what steps has the minister's department taken in the direction of strengthening Britain and the British commonwealth? Twenty years ago practically everyone in Canada recognized that the greatest assurance of safety we had was the British commonwealth. It is becoming exceedingly unpopular now to mention the British commonwealth. This is an astonishing thing. To merit such treatment all the British commonwealth has done is to fight Tor our defence two terrible wars that wasted her substance, wasted her youth, destroyed her competitive capacity in the world, .deprived her of markets; that is all she has done. Now we hardly ever hear any man on the government side say a kindly world about the British commonwealth. However, we hear volumes of praise for anything called NATO or ITO or FAO-


Mr. Sluder:: Or I.Q.


John Horne Blackmore: -or any one of those international organizations. Is it not about time that the members of this house and the people of this country began to awaken?


Some hon. Members:: Time.


John Horne Blackmore: Do you want me to have someone get up for a minute and say a word so that I can speak for 40 minutes more? Just remember that we are in committee.


The Chairman:: The hon. member is quite right. He may speak as often as he wishes, but he has been speaking now for over forty minutes. If hon. members do not wish him to continue at this time, I think he will realize that he might let other hon. members take the floor and then perhaps he could continue at a later time.


John Horne Blackmore: I have only a few minutes more before I conclude. The hon. member

for Vancouver East interrupted me long enough to permit me to make two 40-minute speeches.


Angus MacInnis: I object to that. I did not interrupt for more than a minute and a half at the most. If all the rest of the material the hon. member has is as valuable as the last statement, this house can put its own value on it.


John Horne Blackmore: I am quite prepared to be judged by history. We will let the people who read these pages 20 years from now be the judges. I do not think the hon. member will in those days stand out as being particularly intelligent or well informed as regards these matters.
I have one more question to ask. Will the minister give the house a detailed statement showing how much Canadian aid has been given to other countries since the close of world war II, and showing how much aid we have extended to Britain?
Now, I have asked the minister some exacting questions. I think I have the right to ask him exacting questions, because he is the external affairs minister for the Dominion of Canada in one of the most dangerous periods in this world's history. He should be able to answer us and give us the facts we need.
There is an excerpt I am going to quote on the minister's behalf. I am not sure this is authentic, but I believe it is because it is a quotation given by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities. This is what it says:
These times are too dangerous. We must guard against the temptation to avoid the effort to use our own minds and to take our opinions on political and social matters ready-made off the hook, as it were, and handed to us without even a fitting.
Are those the minister's words?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I seem to recall having said something like that.


John Horne Blackmore: I think the minister will now agree with me when I say that I have a right to expect great things of him, and not the mere attendance at the United Nations to parrot certain common sayings. This quotation also is given by the same source:
If the problems which confront us today are to be solved, we will all have to try to depend less on slogans and headlines, often the sorry substitutes for thought, and more on a clear understanding of existing situations and on straight and honest thinking about them.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have sought of the minister tonight, just those very things. When the minister gives us the answers that I have sought, we will say more about this matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, before the minister answers, I have something to add to the questions of the hon. gentleman. It is a translation of an article which was published in "Carteles" of Havana, April 19, 1953. It is an appropriate article because it is entitled "Mentes agiles in accion", which means "Alert minds in action". What I have in my hand is a French translation, and I shall do my best to translate it into English.
In a certain Spanish-American country they were having economic difficulties. The revenues were decreasing and it was impossible to balance the budget. The cabinet met in session to find some way of fixing up the public finances.
Suddenly the minister of labour rose and gave a bang on the table. He said, "I have found out what to do. We will declare war on the United States". "On the United States?" said the president, who was extremely worried when being told of such an absurd proposal. "If you repeat it, I will have you shot." "No, my dear president; you have not understood", said the minister of labour. "Let us examine recent history. Germany declared war on North America and lost. Then what happened? The United States has given Germany machines, food and money. What happened in the case of Italy? Italy declared war on North America, and we know what happened. Today Italian industry is prosperous. Thousands of Yankee tourists travel in Italy, and there is a great deal of United States money over there. What happened with regard to Japan? Japan took the United States by surprise, lost the war, and now they have good markets, good friends and a balanced budget with Uncle Sam's dollars. I am not crazy. If we declare war on the United States we will become a prosperous country."
This argument made a great impression and convinced the other ministers. Everybody spoke at the same time and the enthusiasm was delirious. "Gentlemen", said the president, "shall I declare war? I will." "Well, Mr. President", said the minister of finance who had been silent until then, "We will declare war; but before doing so, I should like someone to answer this simple question. What will happen if, instead of losing the war, we win it?"


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, when the
minister spoke this afternoon he did not deal with the situation across the Pacific except to refer briefly to the truce negotiations which have been taking place at Pan-munjom. When he replies this evening I hope he will give us a report on the situation in that part of the world. I was quite
Supply-External Affairs impressed this evening by the statement made by my good friend the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. He spoke at some length of the truce negotiations which have been taking place, and I am afraid he spoke with far more optimism than the situation warrants.


Major James William Coldwell: I hope I did not.


Howard Charles Green: He says he hopes he did not; but Canadians are realistic people; and we must be realistic about external affairs, of all problems.
I have here the two Ottawa evening papers. The heading in one is "R.C.R. in Fierce Fighting" and the other "Canadians Suffer Losses Beating off Wild Attack". That fighting took place within about 12 miles of Panmunjom. While these Chinese communists have been talking truce, they have launched this attack on the Canadian troops. While they sent back a few wounded prisoners a few days ago, it is now perfectly clear that they kept many seriously wounded prisoners and that some at least of the British troops whom they repatriated were troops who were not wounded at all but who had been indoctrinated in the communist theories. We therefore must be realistic as Canadians in this House of Commons.
The hon. member said another thing which I think should be questioned. He said that we could treat Korea and Indo-China as two separate problems. He did not want to have them connected at all. I believe that is an extremely dangerous approach to the difficulties we face across the Pacific ocean at the present time. In tonight's papers I read that the Chinese communists are now identified as taking part in the drive into Laos. Here we have the same nation conducting a war in Korea and starting a new war against another country. I do not believe it is possible for Canada or any other nation to treat those as two different problems. They are just part of one picture, and they must be faced as such.
In the morning paper we find a headline which reads, "Siam Prepares to Defend Borders as Viet Minh Drive Wheels South". Those of us who are interested in what is happening across the Pacific have been greatly disturbed over the news which has been published about that area during the last three or four weeks. It now seems perfectly obvious that this new drive into Laos is part of a plan to set up in that part of southeast Asia a communist puppet republic which would probably include parts of Burma, Thailand, Laos and Viet Nam. Apparently just a short time ago the red

Supply-External Affairs
Chinese government formed in southeast Asia a puppet regime which they have called the "autonomous government of the Thai nationalities of Yunnan". Reports indicate that the capital of this new state is to be Cheli, in China's Yunnan province only about 50 miles from where China's borders meet the frontiers of Burma and Laos.
It is now evident that if such a puppet state is set up, it would be based on the one common language. Apparently this language, which is known as the Thai language, is common to the people in the border areas of all those states which I have mentioned and this would appear to be a plan to establish in southeast Asia a new country from which attacks could be made on the other nations in that area which are now on our side, either by way of direct armed intervention or by propaganda. It is also evident that there are fifth columnists in all of those free nations. The situation is therefore extremely serious.
So serious is it that 1 week ago in the United States statements were made to the effect that foreign aid which was meant for Europe might be diverted to Indo-China. I have here a dispatch from Washington of April 28, and we find Secretary of State Dulles quoted as follows:
Secretary of State Dulles told the Senate foreign relations committee that communist aggression now centred against Laos had "created a serious new problem which disturbs all peace-loving peoples".
Tim chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, Senator Wiley of Wisconsin, had this to say:
Senator Wiley said Dulles had taken the gravest view of the position in Indo-China and had described that area as presently "the world's most dangerous spot".
I believe that to be an accurate summing up of the situation. I would ask the minister to tell us what the opinion of the government is with regard to this particular situation. On December 30 of last year the Canadian government recognized Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia as associated states of Indo-China within the French union in accordance with the terms of agreement between France and the respective states. I am reading from the report of the minister's department. I believe that Canada could do something to help this situation. Take, for example, the possibility of Canada helping with transport planes. Apparently the United States is doing that. Is Canada prepared to render any assistance?
Is Canada prepared further to take any steps to bring order into the relations of the freedom-loving nations in the Pacific area?
I was much impressed by a statement made by Field Marshal Montgomery before the

national press club in the United States just a few weeks ago. He was invited there by the leading United States reporters, and one of them asked him about the situation in the Pacific. This was his reply:
If you want to boil me down to one point, which I suppose you do, I would say the real thing that's necessary is political guidance from the politicians.
He was referring to the Pacific. He went on:
That's what is wanted. And there isn't any. There isn't any. If you gentlemen can tell me what is the agreed political aim in the Far East, I'll be very glad to know it. I can't tell you the answer to that and you can't tell me-there isn't one. And it's absolute nonsense. What's the good of going on in this damn silly way? Let's get political guidance from the politicians. Is that clear?
I believe that Canada could help to give some political guidance in affairs across the Pacific. As the minister knows, I have urged upon him at different times that Canada should take part in the treaties affecting the Pacific. I have asked him time and again vhy Canada Is rot a part" to the treaty Detween Australia, new Zealand and the United States, which is known as the ANZUS treaty. On each occasion I have been given what might accurately be termed the brush-off. Just a few days ago the New Zealand minister of external affairs explained why Canada is not a party to that treaty. I have been told here in the house on each occasion, I think, that Canada had not been invited. Then I would ask: well, if she is invited what will she do, will she accept or will she decline? To that I have always had the answer: We shall have to decide that when we are invited. But the minister of external affairs of New Zealand gave the show away the other day. He was being badgered in the house by one of the opposition members about why Canada was not a party to this ANZUS treaty, and finally he said:
Canada didn't want to be In, that's the explanation.
I am quoting from a press dispatch of April 21, 1953.
At some time there has to be an organization set up to co-ordinate the actions of the different freedom-loving nations in the Pacific area. We have such an organization in the Atlantic; but in the Pacific, as Field Marshal Montgomery says, nobody knows what the politicians want. Every nation is going in a different direction. I do hope that our Secretary of State for External Affairs will be more favourable tonight to the suggestion that Canada should not only ask to become a party to this ANZUS treaty, but should throw her weight behind the idea of setting up some kind of an organization in the Pacific which will be able to hold the communist

threat, as we are doing successfully in the Atlantic area.
Here we have this move into Laos, which is part of the large picture. No one knows what the next move will be. If they do succeed in starting trouble in Thailand and in Burma, it will probably also work down into Malaya and all our chances of straightening out the situation in that very dangerous area may well be gone. I would hope that the Canadian government would be willing now to take some steps to help bring about an organization in the Pacific area which could meet this situation.


Mr. Larson:: I was just wondering whether the hon. member who has just taken his seat would be prepared to support a measure of taxation in Canada to take on the responsibility emanating from his suggestion.


Howard Charles Green: That question is really not a very sensible one. Actually, if we had an organization in the Pacific such as we have in the Atlantic, in the long run it would save this country not only millions of dollars but the lives of a great many young Canadians.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, though I was a little discouraged a few minutes ago by the remark of the hon. member for Lethbridge when he said in his speech that anything said outside government ranks was about as effective as the bleating of a lamb in a blizzard-I hope he was exaggerating-at any rate, I am going to bleat for a few minutes.
I noted that the hon. member for Peel, followed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, referred to the question of trade; and that carried my mind back to something that occurred in this house a few days ago on the agriculture estimates when the question of sales abroad was discussed, and the Minister of Agriculture said that actually when it came to this question it was more a matter for the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I thought that was a very fair statement for the Minister of Agriculture to make. I was hoping that the minister of external affairs might have had something more to say about it today. It is true that he made a short speech and mentioned other things verging on the question of trade, but I do not think he really addressed his mind to trade at all.
There was a remark made in this house the other day by the hon. member for Lake Centre which I thought was most significant and I wish to deal with it, along with the ideas which emanated from it, because it seems to me that we have a situation of the very greatest gravity. Although
Supply-External Affairs we as Canadians must not take ourselves too seriously, nevertheless we should take ourselves seriously enough.
The point made was that just as in wartime economic and military efficiency were regarded as two sides of the same shield, so should that be the case today. I should like to refer the committee briefly to the Hyde Park agreement of 1941 and read just a sentence from the words of the prime minister at that time. I quote:
At Hyde Park on April 20, 1941, the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States agreed "as a general principle that in mobilizing the resources of this continent, each country should provide the other with the defence articles which it is best able to produce, and above all, produce quickly,-''
What seems more significant than that to me was the exchange of notes which took place in 1945 at the end of the period of actual fighting. This was an exchange of notes between Ray Atherton and the acting secretary of state for external affairs, the present Minister of National Defence, and I quote:
In view of the high degree of economic interdependence of the Canadian and American economies, the government of the United States desires to assure the government of Canada that it will consider and deal with the problem of the transition from war to peace in the spirit of the Hyde Park declaration which gave rise to such successful co-operation for war purposes.
Although it is hard for us to realize it, I suggest that we are in a position today where this co-operation is almost if not quite as important as it was four or five years ago. The importance may be concealed. We may be apt to forget, although we should not in the light of what has been said here today and the light, I am sure, of what the minister said and will say as to the grim possibilities of the situation and the duties which lie on all of us.
Trade is so much harder than aid. Aid appeals to the generosity of people and their kinder instincts. Other things are brought in which we have seen operate in a big way. But when it comes to trade, that is infinitely harder. Then you have people's self-interest entering into the thing. I should like to read two short extracts which I believe point out what I consider to be an acute and important situation at the moment. Those of us who rejoiced at the election of President Eisenhower but who knew that the traditional Republican attitude might make it difficult for him when it came to trade, unfortunately now have a great deal of reason to fear that he may be frustrated in certain ways. If it is still respectable to do so I should like to read briefly from the Globe and Mail. This is the Globe and Mail itself, and not a quotation of somebody else. This is from the

Supply-External Affairs column by Wellington Jeffers who was reporting on a talk he had had with a man in Washington. The name is not given. This is what that man said to him:
There never was so much imagination, know-how about the large movement of trade and practical ability at the top as now. I tremble because, at the same time, there never were more hidebound members at the lower levels of politics insisting on all sorts of duties and regulations whose results would be, if followed, to sew up the world trade worse than it was sewed up in the early 30's.
That was a statement by a very serious man. Now I should like to read just a sentence or two from the New York Times of May 3. This is entitled "Gloomy Outlook Seen for Exports". I quote:
The big debate in Washington was centred primarily on legislation to expand the reciprocal trade agreements act due to expire on June 12. The house ways and means committee devoted its first week of hearings to witnesses favouring a considerable tightening of the law to avert supposedly "disastrous" effects of a rise in imports.
That underlines what was said a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Lethbridge as to the terrible difficulties and the great danger of world trade not merely not improving but worsening. It is comforting to read the next paragraph from this same New York Times as follows:
The United States chamber of commerce, on the other hand, at its convention in the national capital adopted a resolution strongly favouring "trade, not aid" and called for the reduction of import barriers so that foreign nations could earn needed dollars.
I need not do more than remind the committee of the disastrous effect that could have on the gallant and I hope successful attempts being made by the British under the leadership of Mr. Butler, chancellor of the exchequer, to break loose from restrictions and try to step back into a far greater measure of freedom. I should like to read just a few words from the Economist of April 18, page 131, where they refer to the budget proposals in the following words:
Whatever criticisms may be made of their details, they have the great recommendation that they mark a determination to "step out from the confines of restriction to the almost forgotten but beckoning prospects of freer endeavour and greater reward for effort."
We all remember that in spite of all the difficulties they are facing in Britain, the adoption of a courageous attitude a year ago has improved things. They are moving forward, but nevertheless the attitude of the United States, as we all know, is going to be absolutely vital. We must hope, and I think we are entitled to hope, that results will flow from the visit made a month or so ago by Butler and Eden; but the fact is that when they got back to England they were very cautious in anything they were able to say.

The people in England had the feeling that not very much that was definite had been accomplished.
I should like to refer briefly to an article in Foreign Affairs of April, 1953 by a writer who has a high standing in the United States. This man has been in official positions and is chairman of the General American Investors Company, and vice-president and secretary of the council on foreign relations. He evidently represents a good combination of a businessman and an international expert. What he refers to in this article was mentioned earlier in the committee, that there is a great possibility that this new look on the part of the Russians may be for the purpose of lulling us into a sense of security and prompting the breaking down of our own economic organizations.
He quotes from an article written by Stalin some time ago in which the Russian dictator spoke most confidently about what he called "the disintegration of the single all-embracing world market". Stalin then went on to make the most gloomy predictions about what was going to happen to the free world, or, as he called it, the capitalist system. I am not going to read this at length, but I do suggest that we face clearly the realities of the situation, which I think are that if in fact the free world is not going to find a way to co-operate, then the gloomy predictions of Stalin as to our future may very well become true.
What mode of co-operation would be possible among the countries of the world? I suggest that the mode of co-operation is that which would develop the means of trading with each other. I do not take the gloomy view taken by the hon. member for Lethbridge that it is not possible that we can develop freer channels of trade, but it would be a very foolish and blind man who would deny that at the present time there are a great many very disquieting circumstances indeed.
That leads me to one further comment I wish to make, and that is that if it is correct to say-and I believe it is-that it is vital to the welfare of all of us that the United States shall be able to take a co-operative attitude-if we agree that that is vital, I say, then it is incumbent upon us not merely to bring to bear on her all the influence we have, but also to do what we can do ourselves. We are not the United States; nevertheless we have a very substantial trade of our own, and we can play an important part.
When we look back 13 years to 1940 we realize that, partly by virtue of our geographical position, and also for other reasons, we can say that we played an almost decisive

part. I hope the minister will say something about this, because I believe it is our duty to take ourselves very seriously in this matter again at the present time.
First of all we have to believe, in my view, that this is a matter of vital importance. We have to believe that the United States mutatis mutandis must be prepared to get back into the state of mind it was in seven years ago when the letter from which I read was written, at which time, in 1945, they were ready to co-operate.
And of course if they can be convinced of the seriousness of the situation we may have every reason to believe that they will meet it. On the other hand, if it is allowed to drift, if the attempts the British are making now should fail, there is only one thing that will happen, and that is that the free countries will be thrown back upon a devastating suicidal every man for himself attitude such as prevailed in the thirties, when everyone was pulling himself up by his own boot straps, and when we had trade restrictions at every turn.
It is fashionable now to pretend that that was because of the stupidity of this or that government, or this or that country. But the truth of the matter, as any serious student of the situation in that period must know, is that we had then drifted into a situation following the first world war where it was a case of the devil take the hindmost and where each nation believed in the pursuit of the immediate objective.
That is a situation which, I suggest, we should not believe is infinitely remote at this time; and anything that can be done by the government to prevent it, is important and urgent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I think I owe it to the committee to try in a few words to deal with some of the points which have been raised during the course of the debate. I shall have a word to say first about the statements of the hon. member for Peel, who put to me some concrete questions on specific subjects.
He brought up, for instance, arising out of the report of the standing committee, the question as to the need for economy in the management of our foreign service, and in the construction of foreign service buildings abroad. I agree of course with everything he said on that matter. And the example which he quoted to show the need for this caution was an item in the estimates for the construction of an embassy building in Rome. This item, as he put it, was for the sum of three-quarters of a million dollars, including the price of the land.
Supply-External Affairs
On that all I wish to say, by way of explanation, is that this amount comes out of blocked funds which we got as the result of an agreement we made with the government of Italy. But in the use of those funds we should employ the same methods of economy and good business as we would use in the case of our own dollars. We try to adopt exactly the same principles of control. But it is also true that it is normally more economical and also better business in the management of a foreign service to own property abroad than to rent it; because when renting we lose the advantage of immunity from taxation, rates, and things of that kind, that we get by owning the property. And so when we got this blocked lira in Italy we looked around for land in which to invest it; because in a period of rising prices and threatening inflation, land is a better investment for your money than bank notes.
Thus we bought land, and have placed in the estimates a sum of money for the possible construction during this year of a Canadian building in Rome, which would include not only the embassy residence but the chancellery and office accommodation for all Canadian activities there. But I can assure the committee that that building will not be constructed during this year or during any year in which I happen to be responsible for the Department of External Affairs, unless it is good business so to do. I put this amount in the estimates this year, but it does not by any means indicate that the building will necessarily be constructed during this financial year. It was to provide for the possibility of making a good deal during the year that this amount of blocked funds was put in the estimates.
The hon. member also spoke about the necessity for close liaison with the C.B.C. international service. Of course we agree with that and, as he knows, we have taken steps in the last two or three months to make that liaison closer and more useful to all departments concerned.
He brought up the question of passports. I believe the hon. member knows very well the position of the government in that matter. Normally we do not interfere with the right of a Canadian citizen to possess a passport. However, if the activities of that Canadian abroad constitute an immediate danger to the security of the state, we have the right not only to refuse a passport, but to ask for the return of one that that person might have in his possession. We have done that in the past, and we will not hesitate to do it again in the future. But unless these activities do constitute an immediate danger to security, I suggest that we would do well to follow the

Supply-External Affairs practice they have followed in the United Kingdom for so many years, under which normally they do not interfere with a person's right to hold a certificate of identity of this kind.
This brings to mind the tolerant attitude that was so graphically expounded by Mr. Churchill in the House of Commons in London in connection with the activities of the Dean of Canterbury. That attitude I think was a wise one, and normally we follow it in so far as the possession of passports by Canadians is concerned. There is nothing these Canadians who do so much mischief abroad would like more than to be martyred or publicized. And I think when they do not constitute an immediate danger to the state, if we just leave them to themselves, they will soon discredit themselves, and all that Canadians will feel for them will be the contempt they deserve.
The hon. member for Peel made a special point of the usefulness of military attaches in NATO countries. I think I know what he had in mind. He felt probably that in the NATO group of countries, when we have NATO military missions in Paris, and when in those missions we exchange military information, the intelligence functions of military attaches to NATO countries would be duplicated by that exchange of information in Paris.
To some extent that is true. But the intelligence work of an attache-military, naval or air-is only a part of his work. Indeed, in certain NATO countries the work of attaches has increased because of the NATO organization-exchange of troops, negotiations for mutual aid and facilities, and all that sort of thing. So there is no duplication in work, although in some offices abroad in NATO countries it may be that we can reduce some of the military attache work which is taken over by the office in Paris.
Then the hon. member brought up the question of the meaning of recent soviet moves, a subject with which almost every hon. member who has participated in this debate has dealt. The hon. member made reference in this connection to the question of trade. This was mentioned also by the hon. member for Greenwood, who has just taken his seat. In analysing the present position the hon. member for Peel drew our attention, and quite properly, to the danger inherent in an economic situation, by which soviet policy may be directed into trade channels which may be difficult for us to meet. On the face of it these trade approaches may seem to be friendly. They may, however, constitute a problem more difficult than some

of the attacks we have had from that quarter in the past, when we knew where we were and how we could defend ourselves. These trade approaches are now being made, and they are very tempting indeed to countries who have to rely on trade not only for their prosperity but at times for their very existence.
Mention of this possible danger leads me to the other aspect of this trade question. There seems to be now some change from the feeling of a few months ago following the United Kingdom mission to Washington, which in its turn followed the commonwealth conference in London. There was then a feeling of optimism over trade prospects; that we were going to make real progress in the removal of obstacles and limitations, and that we were going to move toward what we call convertibility. Some of that optimism certainly has tended to disappear in recent weeks. There is a relationship between these two aspects of the question. As we of the western world begin to worry more about trade among ourselves, overtures from the other side of the iron curtain become the more tempting, especially to European countries.
It is almost as important at the present time to strengthen rather than weaken our economic co-operation as it is to strengthen our political co-operation. In this connection I do not think I am being unfair to our neighbours to the south when I say that the United States, the most powerful economic and trading nation in the world, the most persistent creditor nation of the world, has a special responsibility in this connection. She has been active in GATT in the past, and no country has benefited more from that activity than Canada.
The United States has shown great generosity in aiding less fortunate countries but, as the hon. member for Greenwood said a few moments ago, we are now entering a period when trade may be more difficult than aid. Trade may be, indeed, a greater test of cooperation within our group of free states than aid itself. Aid has a certain emotional context which makes it possibly easier than is the case with trade. Aid is also spread over the whole taxpaying community; but trade, the removal of limitations on importations, the lowering of barriers and so on, often affects certain groups which have special facilities for making their views known. We may therefore find that while trade and not aid has become the popular slogan at the present time-and it is a good one-it may be one that is very difficult to carry into effect. However, if it is not carried into effect it surely is apparent to all of us that within the

NATO partnership it will be difficult to reconcile political co-operation and economic conflict.
I do not think I am betraying any secret when I say that when the Prime Minister goes to Washington on Thursday this will be one of the subjects, possibly it may be the most important subject, that he will discuss with the President of the United States and his advisers. I have no doubt that we will be able to exchange views on this matter with our friends to the south in the usual frank and friendly way. I hope that as a result of this visit some of our apprehensions-and we all have apprehensions at the present time about the trend of economic events within the NATO community-may be removed.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in his very interesting and characteristically thoughtful statement analysed for our benefit -I tried to do it in fewer words, and not as effectively as he-what he called the phenomenal change that had taken place at least in some aspects of soviet policy in recent weeks. He cited certain measures, certain words and certain moves to justify the statement that phenomenal changes had taken place. He thought that if we had made a mistake at all in our reaction to these changes, which have certainly taken place, it had been that we were too cautious.
I am not inclined to that view myself. I think while we must be sympathetic and receptive, and not brusque or belligerent, at the same time we should be very cautious indeed. When we were discussing this matter in Paris-possibly I should have gone into this in a little more detail in the beginning- I made a short statement. As it was a more carefully considered statement than the one I gave this afternoon possibly I may be pardoned for reading from it now. I can vouch for the author. I said at that time, and I was almost the last of the speakers:
It seems from the speeches that have been made that we are in unanimous agreement-
I was talking about the NATO council.
-at least on this point; that we do not know whether we are faced with a threat or a promise in recent soviet moves; that while we should exploit anything which may seem to be promising, we certainly should not do this in a way which would leave us weaker if the move turned out to be a threat. There certainly has been no clear pattern in what has recently taken place. We can only make our own interpretations and we should be pretty careful, we all agree, in doing so.
It had been-
. . . pointed out a little while ago-
[DOT]-by one of the earlier NATO speakers-
-that the ultimate objective of soviet policies must be considered as remaining unchanged:	world
domination through communist regimes dependent on Moscow. I am sure we are all agreed that we
Supply-External Affairs
should neither forget that fact, nor be obsessed by it. While the objective may not have changed, tactics, of course, and this is good communist doctrine, have undoubtedly changed. We are not sure of the nature of the change or indeed of its ultimate significance, but we do know that it has taken place, and we are all, of course, asking ourselves 'why'.
After trying to answer some of the questions myself as to why these changes may have taken place, and I shall not repeat that now, I ended with these words:
I think we are all agreed that we should try to bring about as early as possible a recognition of soviet intentions by putting them to a real test. That is being done, I hope, at present in Korea and there are other places in which it might be done. Then there is the necessity of taking every possible action to remove the danger that our public opinions may be mystified and confused and misled by these moves. We should do our best, and possibly NATO can help here, to give the widest possible circulation to the vital distinction between our readiness to negotiate outstanding issues, which we must always emphasize, and our refusal to be deceived by moves which may have been made merely to deceive us. When we say, as we always do say, and quite correctly, I think, that we will meet the Soviet union half-way in these matters or sometimes even more than halfway, it is, I am sure we all agree, wise to keep the initiative in selecting the ground on which we will meet them and to try to discover before we meet them where they are going . . .
This is going to be a difficult problem because the very desire of our peoples for peace is going to make it easier for the soviet at times to raise false hopes. It is not going to be easy to follow the policy of keeping dry an increasing amount of powder, and at the same time, remaining reasonable, unprovocative, pacific in word and in deed.
I am sure that is a policy which commends itself to all sections of the house, because it has been made pretty clear in discussion already that that is the case.
If I had the indulgence of the committee I could finish in about five minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra would not wish me to sit down without giving him what he is accustomed now to describe as the normal brush-off in respect of a Pacific pact. I have never admitted in the past that that has been our attitude in this important question, and of course I do not admit it now. So I shall once again try to explain to him the policy of the government.
As he pointed out, it is becoming increasingly clear from the events in Indo-China that there is a strategic connection between communist aggression in one part of the world and communist aggression in another. I admit that. It is also a little depressing to compare the peaceful words from Moscow and the aggressive actions in Indo-China. Both-we do not know for sure-may be

Supply

External Affairs directed from the same source. Nevertheless I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar when he says that, though there is a strategic connection between these things which require world military planning, there is a political distinction between the two areas of Korea and Indo-China. We have very definite United Nations obligations in Korea, and I know that our men are fulfilling them there. Especially in the last few days they have been fulfilling them with the kind of courage we expect from Canadian troops. While we are fulfilling our obligations in that way in Korea, we have not the same kind of obligation in Indo-China. I do not think we should be asked to accept that kind of obligation until Indo-China becomes a United Nations matter.
It is open to the French government at any time, or to one of the French union states, to bring this matter to the United Nations if they so desire. As a result of the United Nations action we might find ourselves confronted with exactly the same kind of obligation as Korea, though we might not discharge it in the same way. Until that happens however there is a distinction politically between Indo-China and Korea. I do not say that to minimize the importance of what is going on there, because it would be unwise to do so. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra pointed out certain far-reaching developments which may be taking place in southeastern Asia-the establishment of a new communist satellite state. I am not suggesting, therefore, that this matter may not be important. I am suggesting that there may be a difference between it and Korea.
The hon. member asked quite categorically what we would be willing to do to assist in Indo-China. We will fulfil our obligations as a member of the community of nations, and as a friend of France. I think the French government would be the first to admit that the assistance we have given to France as a member of the NATO association may have helped her recently in the discharge of some of her obligations in Indo-China. But we have not been asked to assist directly in Indo-China, and I have no reason to believe that, until this becomes either a United Nations or a NATO matter in a way which it is not now, we would be asked to do so.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked me also quite categorically whether we would take the initiative in joining ANZUS, and if not why not. He has brought this up in every debate on foreign affairs within the last two or three years. I certainly do not criticize him for that, because collective

security in the Pacific is as important as collective security in the Atlantic. But that does not necessarily mean it should be worked out in the same way. He also asks me, as minister for external affairs, whether I would be willing now to take the initiative as the representative of the government in working out a collective security arrangement in the Pacific, as he put it, along the same lines as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I can only reply that I think that would be an unwise initiative to take at this time. It seems to me the reason for that is obvious.
It has been made abundantly clear by the United States of America, which has taken the lead in this matter, that in its opinion it would be premature and unwise even to attempt any such arrangement now. If the United States takes that view, and I think under the present circumstances it is the right view, I do not think it would be wise for us to go further and try to take the initiative ourselves. I must deduce from his remarks that he feels-I do not know whether or not he is speaking for his party-that the time is ripe for a Pacific pact with Canada as a member, and that we should accept all the obligations we have accepted under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. These obligations have resulted in a Canadian brigade being in Europe and twelve squadrons of aircraft as well as many naval ships being added to NATO. But why have we not joined the ANZUS pact? It is not necessarily the kind of special security arrangement in the Pacific to which the hon. member was referring. The ANZUS arrangement is more limited. It includes only Australia, New Zealand and the United States.
Since it does not include any other country, that is one good reason why we are not in it. If it were a wider arrangement, I am quite sure we would very sympathetically consider any invitation to join it. Again, it has been made abundantly clear that those who initiated the arrangement do not wish, at this time, to extend it beyond those three countries. It is well known to members of the house that the United Kingdom has felt a little disturbed and disappointed because she has not been, up to the present, invited to join this arrangement. If the United Kingdom with her far-reaching obligations in the Pacific, territorial and otherwise, and in spite of the feelings of the present government, has not become a member of ANZUS, I think it is not right for the hon. member to say that we have been shirking an invitation or that we have made known in advance that we did not want an invitation and that that is the only reason we have not received one.


Howard Charles Green: I was only quoting the New Zealand minister of external affairs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall let the New Zealand minister speak for himself. I am telling the hon. gentleman that that is not the situation as I understand it. It has been made quite clear to us that it is the desire of the United States government at this time, and the other two governments in ANZUS, not to extend the membership in that association beyond the three countries who are now members. That being the case, surely it would be very bad diplomacy indeed to go scouting around to see if we could get an invitation, or complaining because we had not received one. I assure the hon. member that that is the situation as I see it, and I think I see it accurately.
This does not mean that, in respect of a general Pacific pact, the time may not come when this group should not be extended. If and when that time comes I do not think Canada will shirk her obligations in the Pacific any more than she shirks the discharge of her obligations in other parts of the world. I can only say I hope the hon. gentleman will not think I am brushing off the matter at this time. It is merely that at present we do not think it would be wise or timely to take the initiative, either in respect of a general Pacific pact or of the extension of the existing ANZUS pact.
I believe I have dealt with a good many of the matters that came up during the discussion, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Lethbridge asked me a lot of questions,
Supply-External Affairs and I must say I am somewhat relieved that it is after ten o'clock and also that he is out of the chamber. Possibly he will pardon me if I do not answer those questions. I hope some of his friends will tell him that one reason I cannot do so is that I hope the session will end soon, because I then will have the pleasure of paying a visit to his constituency. If I tried to answer the six questions he addressed to me this afternoon, the session would not I fear end for two or three weeks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

['Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall consider Bill No. 366, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940. Then we shall move to go into supply and continue consideration of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. Then we shall take defence production, national health and welfare, veterans affairs and transport.']
Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall consider Bill No. 366, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940. Then we shall move to go into supply and continue consideration of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. Then we shall take defence production, national health and welfare, veterans affairs and transport.


[Stage Direction]
It being twelve minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
A-Department and missions abroad-
85. Departmental administration (including expenses of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States permanent joint board on defence), $2,853,958.
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 6, 1953	assiniboia engineering company