1953-11-25

Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I raise a question of privilege.
When I had the honour of making my maiden speech in the House of Commons last Monday, I said, as given in the English translation on page 233, on the subject of provincial autonomy, that it was truly a matter of national scope. All the newspapers which were good enough to report this speech of mine printed exactly what I said. However, 1 see-and it is probably a mere typographical error-that La Presse of Montreal quotes me as stating that it is a racial problem. Every hon. member knows full well that the word "racial" never passed my lips during that speech. I do hope that the mistake will be rectified.
(Text):



REPORTS AND PAPERS

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I wish to lay on the table two copies of the report of the Auditor General and the chairman and members of the federal district commission on the auditing of the commission's accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1953.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the report of the tariff board, reference 112, concerning ethylene glycol.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I Wish to table the report of H. Carl Golden-berg, Q.C., acting as commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act into an alleged combine in the manufacture, distribution and sale of electrical wire and cable products.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: In accordance with the provisions of article XIX (5) of the constitution of the international labour organization, I desire to lay on the table copies in both official languages of authentic texts of the following recommendations that were adopted by the international labour organization at its thirty-sixth session held in Geneva in June, 1953, together with a copy of a letter from the
deputy minister of justice setting out the legislative jurisdiction for each of the above recommendations.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Balcom:: Of the immigrants entering Canada in the first six months of 1953, how many entered by (a) Quebec: (b) Montreal; (c) Saint John; (d) Halifax?


Mr. Harris:: (a) 23,782; (b) 1,036; (c) 3,272; (d) 30,069.
P.F.A.A. PAYMENTS, DAUPHIN Mr. Zaplitny:
What was the total amount paid to farmers in the electoral district of Dauphin under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, in each year from January 1, 1946, to December 31, 1952?


Mr. McCubbin:: No.	Total
Farmers	Payment
1946		 Nil $ Nil
1947	
1,638	211,130.251948	
Nil	Nil1949	
Nil	Nil1950	
[DOT] 318	35,443.251951	
42	3,330.751952	
62	6,928.502,060	$256,832.75


ASSISTANCE TO GOLD MINES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Nose worthy:
1.	What is the total amount paid by the federal government to date to the gold mines under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act?
2.	What is the amount paid to all gold mines, year by year, since the act first came in force?
3.	What mines have benefited from the act and what amount has been paid to each mine, year by year, since the act first came into force?
Mr. Prudham:: 1.	$59,984,164.94.
2.	1948, $10,546,315.84; 1949, $12,569,144.05; 1950, $9,015,970.76; 1951, $10,581,379.70; 1952, $8,287,243.26.
3.	These are reported in the report on the administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1953.

Questions


SWEEPSTAKES
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many persons in Canada, by provinces, have been denied the use of the mails, temporarily or permanently, since the 1st day of January, 1952 because it was alleged that such persons were suspected of having anything to do with the sale or receipt of sweepstake or lottery tickets?
2.	Has there been any confiscation of cash, money orders, cheques, etc., allegedly connected with the purchase or sale of lottery and sweepstake tickets, since the first day of January, 1952? If so, what is the total amount thereof?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: 1.
Newfoundland	 Nil
Prince Edward Island	 Nil
Nova Scotia	 4
New Brunswick	 11
Quebec	 417*
Ontario	 105
Manitoba	 45
Saskatchewan	 26
Alberta	 17
British Columbia	 19
Total 644*
2.	No.
'This number includes fictitious addresses used to evade postal regulations. The exact number is not known but it is believed to be in the neighbourhood of 200.


WHALLEY, B.C., POST OFFICE  MAINTENANCE
Mr. Hahn:: 1.	During the year 1951-52 was there any money expended for repairs and maintenance of the Whalley post office?
2.	If so, was the work done by contracts?
3.	Were tenders called?
4.	What was the name of the contractor or contractors and what was the amount of the tender?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Local tenders were obtained.
4.	Lauries Fixtures, $1,664.54; Tom Binnie, $778.80; Beach Industries, $1,460.00; Ruben-stein Bros., $210.00; Sabourin Plumbing and Heating, $8.55; Geo. R. Speck, $1.00; Whalley Hardware, $10.95; Belyea and Co., Ltd., $75.00.


IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada in the first six months of 1953?
2.	From what countries and how many from each?
3.	What religious denominations are represented and what is the total of each?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	78,336.
2.	Immigration to Canada showing country of last permanent residence, for the six months ended, June 30, 1953:
England	   16,354
Scotland		 5,010
Wales	 351
Northern	Ireland	
2,083Lesser British	Isles	
110Total	
23,908Africa (British)	
249Africa (not British)	
120Australia	
503Austria	
2,339Belgium	
1,153Bermuda	
24Central America	
18China	
896Czechoslovakia	
23Denmark	
1,024Eire	
831Esthonia	
11Finland	
628France	
1,891Germany	
14,010Greece	
620Holland	
11,943Hong Kong	
83Hungary	
39Iceland	
26India	
82Israel	
1,155Italy	
8,095Japan	
17Jugoslavia	
262Malta	
393Mexico	
83New Zealand	
167Norway	
540Poland	
102Portugal	
201Roumania	
22South America	
582Spain	
29Sweden	
509Switzerland	
592Syria	
78Turkey	
8United States	
4,348West Indies (British)	
397West Indies (not British)	
45Others	
289Total	
54,428Grand Total	
78,3363.	Information not available.


VANCOUVER POST OFFICE
Mr. Winch:: 1.	Has the government purchased property in the city of Vancouver in the province of British Columbia with a view to constructing a new post office?
2.	If so, what is the location of such property, from whom was it purchased and at what price?
3.	If such property has been purchased, have the buildings been torn down under public works authority and is the property being fenced in?
4.	Is the government contemplating construction of a new post office building in Vancouver? If so, when?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	Notice of expropriation was filed under late of February 29, 1949.
2.	Property is bounded by Homer, Georgia, Hamilton and Dunsmuir streets.
Compensation has been paid to the former Dwners in the following amounts: A. Anderson, $27,500; B.C. District Telegraph & Livery Company, Limited, $48,500; B.C. Land & investment Agency Ltd., $30,000; B.C. Motor Transportation Ltd., $210,000; Alexander Buick, $8,000; Canada Nut Company Ltd., ?30,000; E. M. Cather and T. H. Walker, 555,000; Rex Cox, $9,000; H. M. Fook and
Questions
Lee My, $57,500; Home Investment Ltd. $9,139.21; Journal Investment Ltd., $50,000 Lloyd's Bank Ltd., $1,600; C. Morisani, $8,700 Ida, May and Helen M. Murphy, $17,000 Barbara M. Murray, $9,000; Neils Rasmussen, $11,500; Royal Trust Co., $10,600; City of Vancouver, $7,500; Robert W. Wyllie, $9,000.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Yes.
(b) 1954.


POLYMER CORPORATION SHARES
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Does the reference to the issue of two million shares of the stock of Polymer Corporation Limited contained in the 1952 annual report of the company, indicate that these shares were sold to the general public?


Mr. Dickey:: No.


STATISTICS BY PROVINCES
Mr. Gagnon:: By provinces, what are the percentages of area, population and railway mileage of Canada?


John Horace Dickey: 


PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION
[Stage Direction]
Area		Population	
-	Land	Land and Water	(June 1, 1951)	(June 1,1953) Estimate100-0	100-0	100-0	100-041	4-0	2-6	2-601	0-1	0-7	0-70-6	0-6	4-6	4-50-7	0-7	3-7	3-614-5	15-5	29-0	28-910-1	10-7	32-8	33-16-1	6-4	5-5	5-56-6	6-6	5-9	5-86-9	6-6	6-7	6-89-9	9-5	8-3	8-35-7	5-4	0-1	0-134-7	33-9	0-1	0-1

[Stage Direction]
Single Track Mileage oi Steam Railways (December 31,1951)
Canada	 100	0
Newfoundland	 16
Prince Edward Island	 0-7
Nova Scotia	 3' 2
New Brunswick	
4	[DOT] 3Quebec	
11	"2Ontario	
24-3Manitoba	
H'2Saskatchewan	
20-4Alberta	
13	-1British Columbia	
91Yukon	
0-1Canadian lines in U.S.A	
0-8
322
[Stage Direction]
Orders for Returns

Mr. Argue:: 1.	Were any farm organizations or co-operative grain-handling organizations consulted as to the appointment of Mr. Earle Robertson to the Canadian wheat board?
2.	If so, what are the names of such organizations?
3.	Which of the above organizations were in favour of the appointment?
4.	Which of the above organizations were opposed to the appointment?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	No, but the recommendation was volunteered by principal officers of the leading farm organizations.
2.	Since the recommendations came from individuals rather than organizations, No. 2 is answered by No. 1.
3 and 4. Answered by No. 2.



Mr. Mang:: 1.	Has the government taken steps to add a fifth member to the Canadian wheat board?
2.	If so, have formal nominations for the post been received from the Canadian wheat pools, the farm union council or the Canadian council of agriculture?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Cardiff:: 1.	Does the government operate stores at any airports?
2.	If so, (a) what mark-up is made on the goods sold? (b) Is the sale restricted to the personnel of the airport? If not, who can buy at the store? (c) What salary does the operator of the store receive?
3.	If the government does not operate the store, (a) Does the government own the building? (b) Is the building rented to the operator of the store, and, if so, how much rent is paid by the operator? (c) Does the government supply the electricity, heating, etc.? (d) Has the store operator a contract with the government? If so, does the contract specify what goods may be sold? (e) Has the government any control over the prices charged? (f) Is the sale of goods restricted to the personnel of the airport? (g) Does the store operator pay income tax on the store's operations? (h) Who decides the location of the store? (i) Is the store intended to be on the main road?


ABSENTEE VOTING
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government received representations from trade union bodies or any other organization asking that the Canada Elections Act be amended to provide absentee voting, or the extension of the advance voting privilege, so as to prevent qualified voters who are away from home on election day from losing their vote?

2.	If so, from what bodies have such representations been received?
3.	What reply has the government made to such representations?


CIGARETTES AND TOBACCO
Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: 1.	What was the number of smuggled cigarettes seized in each province for each month for the years 1952 and 1953 to date? What disposition was made of these cigarettes?
2.	If cars or other conveyances were seized, what disposition was made of same?
3.	What were the quantities of cigarettes imported into Canada each month during the years 1952 and 1953, to date? What was the revenue to Canada on these importations?
4.	What were the quantities and types of tobacco imported into Canada for each month during the years 1952 and 1953, to date? From what countries and what was the amount in dollars?
5.	What were the amounts and types of tobacco exported by Canada for the years 1951, 1952 and 1953, to date, to what countries were such shipments made and what was the total in dollars and cents to each country?


ADVERTISING AGENCIES
Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: 1.	What departments of government employed advertising agencies during 1953?
2.	What advertising agencies were engaged, what was the amount paid to each agency and by which department?



SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN PROJECT


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What has been the total expenditure, month by month, on the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project, from April 1, 1953, to date?



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE BENEFITS

John George Diefenbaker: How many townships of each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta received or were found to be entitled to payment of prairie farm assistance benefits, during the year 1953?



MENTAL HOSPITALS, PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	What departments of the federal government send patients to provincial mental hospitals?
2.	Where are these hospitals located?
3.	How many federal patients were receiving treatment in each of these hospitals on November 1, 1953?
4.	To what extent are provincial governments reimbursed for the medical treatment and care of these patients, and for the maintenance of the hospitals?
5.	Are there any mental hospitals maintained or administered directly by any department of the federal government?
6.	If there are any federal mental hospitals (a) how many patients may be accommodated in these hospitals; (b) how many patients were receiving treatment on November 1, 1953; (c) what is the daily cost of care and maintenance of these patients?



THE CORONATION


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: What was the cost to the Canadian government in connection with the coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and what are the details?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Knowles:: For a return showing the total amount of election expenses on behalf of each candidate, by constituencies, in the general election of August 10, 1953, as indicated in the return respecting election expenses submitted by the official agent of each candidate, as required under the provisions of section 63 of the Canada Elections Act; and showing also the names of any candidates, by constituencies, on whose behalf election expense returns have not been submitted.



DOUKHOBORS

Mr. Winch:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Prime Minister and/or the government of Canada and the premier and/or the government of British Columbia, dated since January 1, 1950, with reference to the Doukhobor problem in British Columbia.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We consent to this order going subject to the usual reservation that we must first get the consent of the government of British Columbia for the production of these papers and also subject to the understanding that they will not include any correspondence of an administrative character between the government of British Columbia and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed to, with reservations made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson).



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES  MEXICO CITY

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents that passed between the Canadian government or any departments thereof and the government of the United States of America, since the first day of January, 1952, with regard to the extension of Trans-Canada Air Lines facilities to Mexico city.


Mr. Pearson:: I would be grateful if my hon. friend would allow this order to stand for today.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



DEFERRED PRICING

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents that have passed between the wheat board and the Department of Trade and Commerce since the first day of June, 83276-21i
Motions jor Papers
1953, relative to the establishment of the policy or method of selling Canadian wheat by deferred pricing.


Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):: The wheat board is appointed by the government and reports to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is well understood in the house that interdepartmental correspondence is privileged. Therefore this motion cannot be agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



SASKATCHEWAN RIVER IRRIGATION PROJECT

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents that have been passed between the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta with regard to the Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project, since the first-day of January, 1953.


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Speaker, this motion is agreed to subject to the usual consideration that the consent of the provinces be obtained.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed to, subject to the reservation made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


Mr. Zapliiny:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other communications exchanged between the Department of Agriculture and Mr. A. H. Parker of Gilbert Plains, Manitoba, in connection with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and/or any other form of assistance to farmers, from January 1, 1953 to date.



SACKVILLE, N.B., ARMOURIES  COAL

Mr. Gillis:: For a copy of the advertisement, correspondence, contract and other documents in connection with the supplying of coal to the Department of National Defence armouries at Sackville, New Brunswick, for (a) the 1952-53 season; (b) the 1953-54 season.



CIVIL SERVICE SALARY INCREASES

Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence dated since January 1, 1953, exchanged between associations representing federal civil servants and the Prime-Minister or other members of the cabinet on the question of salary increases for civil servants.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, members of the government have exchanged correspondence on this subject with the five main organizations, that is to say, the Civil Service Federation of Canada, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, Civil Service Association of Ottawa, and the Civil Service War Veterans Association. In addition to that, a large number of communications or letters and a large number of telegrams were sent during the month of May last by branches of the various civil

Motions for Papers
service associations throughout the country. This seemed to be part of an organized campaign. As is the practice when something of that kind is on, no answer is made to the communications; they are just filed.
It would take quite a long time and it would involve considerable expense to make copies of the messages that were received from those branches during that period. There would be no objection to producing the regular correspondence exchanged with these five parent civil service organizations. I would hope that the hon. member would think that would be sufficient and that we need not take the time and incur the expense of having copies made of this large volume of messages received in the month of May last.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be quite satisfactory to me if the motion were taken to refer to correspondence with the five parent associations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Agreed.
gagetown training area-housing scheme


Mr. Brooks:: For a copy of all correspondence, communications and agreements between any department of the federal government and the city of Fredericton concerning any housing scheme in connection with the Gagetown military training area.


Mr. Claxton:: Discussions are still proceeding with regard to this matter. Several government departments are involved. I would ask the hon. member if he would agree to let this matter stand.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the minister how long he expects these discussions to continue?


Brooke Claxton: That all depends on how soon we can secure an agreement acceptable to the federal government.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is very indefinite.



DAMMING OF COLUMBIA RIVER

Harold Edward Winch: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents that passed between the Canadian government or any departments thereof and the government of British Columbia, since the first day of January, 1951, with regard to any proposed damming of the Columbia river in British Columbia territories and any proposal to the British Columbia government to establish an advisory committee to work with the Canadian government or any international board dealing with said matter.


Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if the hon. member would allow the motion to stand for today.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to refer to a question raised last week by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) and subsequently by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) with regard to a second note from the United States government forwarding a request from the subcommittee of the judiciary committee of the United States Senate that Mr. Gouzenko be made available for questioning. Last Friday, I think it was, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that I would make a statement on this matter in reply to these questions at the first opportunity, and this is the first opportunity because the reply to the note in question from the state department was given to that department in Washington just an hour or so ago.
If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to revert to motions I would like to table at this point, at the very beginning of my statement, the exchange of correspondence between the United States state department and the Canadian embassy in Washington regarding the request by the internal security subcommittee of the United States Senate committee on the judiciary to interview Mr. Igor Gouzenko.


Mr. Coldwell:: Is the correspondence very voluminous? If not, will the minister read it so that we may understand what was discussed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to read it, but I think my hon. friend will find as I make my statement that I have really covered it pretty thoroughly in the statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister may have leave to revert to motions at this time to table the documents?


Mr. Low:: Would the minister consent to having the correspondence put on Hansard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no objection to that at all if it would be of interest to hon. members or if it is their desire to have it included in Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed then that the correspondence be included in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it to be interspersed in the remarks of the minister or is it to be an appendix?


Some hon. Members:: An appendix.


Mr. Speaker:: As an appendix. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For correspondence, see appendix, pages 351-3.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: Last week, Mr. Speaker, we received this second note from the state department of the United States making the request which I have just mentioned. Naturally the Canadian government has given careful consideration to the second request, as it did, indeed, to the first one, having regard to the responsibilities that had been assumed and the special arrangements that have been carefully built up over the past several years for the safety of Mr. Gouzenko and leading to the development of a new identity; arrangements which would obviously not be effective if that new identity became public knowledge.
Mr. Gouzenko, as the house knows, has been given the rights of Canadian citizenship. He is therefore at liberty at any time to discuss any question that he may wish with anyone either in Canada or the United States and either confidentially or otherwise. It is, however, Mr. Gouzenko's own responsibility to determine the effect of any such discussions on the preservation of his new identity, and consequently on his safety. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have naturally done a great deal to assist Mr. Gouzenko in building up this identity so that the safety of Mr. Gouzenko and his wife and family could be assured without the limitations on their physical freedom that constant guarding might involve.
Mr. Gouzenko has certainly earned the right to this special consideration and assistance as well as to our gratitude by his great services to freedom and the risks he has taken on its behalf. While Mr. Gouzenko then is free to determine his own actions without outside influence, the United States request seems to envisage that the Canadian government itself should make arrangements for an interview or take the responsibility of making Mr. Gouzenko available for questioning by the subcommittee of the United States Senate which I have just mentioned. The Canadian government of course fully appreciate the importance of the closest possible co-operation between the Canadian and United States governments in exchanging information important to the national security of both countries. It has therefore long been our practice, and remains our practice, that security information should be exchanged on a confidential basis, which should be respected
External Affairs
on both sides, between the competent authorities responsible for the internal security of our two neighbouring countries.
In accordance with this principle all information which Mr. Gouzenko has at any time presented to the Canadian government has been placed at the disposal of the responsible United States authorities as it became available. Moreover, facilities are and always have been extended to these competent United States government authorities to clarify any point arising out of any of Mr. Gouzenko's evidence or information at any time they may wish to do so.
The federal bureau of investigation in Washington therefore has always had access to Mr. Gouzenko's special knowledge as and when requested. We have been glad to have for years a liaison officer of the F.B.I. in Ottawa, just as there has been an R.C.M.P. officer in the same capacity in Washington. Mr. Gouzenko has in fact been interviewed on a number of occasions on behalf of the F.B.I., the latest occasion being in August, 1950. In the circumstances therefore I think it is true to say that the benefits of Mr. Gouzenko's special experience with and knowledge of Soviet intelligence organizations and their work have always been made as fully available to the competent United States authorities as to the R.C.M.P. itself. That has been the situation since 1945 and it remains the situation now.
The material secured in this way by the F.B.I. includes information which was not made public in the report of the royal commission on espionage because such information dealt with activities by non-Canadians outside Canadian territory. I emphasize this point, Mr. Speaker, because the second United States request that the government make Mr. Gouzenko available for questioning by the United States Senate subcommittee quotes the chairman of that subcommittee, Senator Jenner, as attaching significance to the fact that the royal commission report did not mention evidence by Mr. Gouzenko that he had heard that an unnamed assistant to the United States secretary of state was a soviet agent.
But this particular piece of evidence, as all other parts of Mr. Gouzenko's evidence and information, was made available to the United States security authorities as it became available to us. Our royal commission, it will be recalled, made a very thorough investigation in secret as a result of which prosecutions were launched, and where those prosecuted under the law were found guilty they were punished, and if found not guilty they were released from custody.
32S

External Affairs
I think it would not have been proper, however, for the Canadian royal commission or the Canadian government to have made public so serious an allegation against an unnamed official of a friendly government. It seemed obvious to us that in accordance with our normal practice in these matters such an allegation should first be investigated by those competent to do so. However, the Canadian government, the Canadian authorities, did pass this testimony confidentially, and I think the house will agree that this was the correct course, to the responsible United States officials.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in addition to these full facilities which I have just mentioned and which have always been available to the F.B.I., the United States government in May, 1B49, requested the Canadian government to arrange for a confidential interview between Mr. Gouzenko and representatives of the immigration subcommittee of the United States Senate committee on the judiciary for the specific purpose of questioning Mr. Gouzenko in relation to certain stated aspects of immigration procedure.
The Canadian government at that time was assured by the United States government that if this request were granted the evidence taken from Mr. Gouzenko would be kept secret unless the Canadian government should agree to its release. Under these circumstances, and under these conditions, the Canadian government then agreed to the United States request, and two members of the staff of the United States Senate subcommittee, to which I have just referred, did come to Ottawa and interviewed Mr. Gouzenko in the presence of a member of the United States embassy and representatives of the R.C.M.P.
The conditions at that time, 1949-they do not seem to be the same now because of the publicity given to this matter-made it possible without too much difficulty for this inquiry of Mr. Gouzenko to be arranged and carried on without the public attention which might, in its turn, have prejudiced Mr. Gouzenko's safety status in this country. I have looked at the evidence again recently, and the questions at this inquiry were not limited to the specific subjects for which the interview had been requested. Of course, we are making no complaint about that. However, nothing beyond the information which Mr. Gouzenko had already made available to the Canadian authorities, and which we made available also at the time to the United States authorities, emerged from this 1949 questioning. In other words, this questioning produced no 
intelligence that had not been already made available to the United States security services.
I wish now, Mr. Speaker, to say a word about the sequence of developments in this matter during the last few weeks. The members of the house will, I think, recall that in October a newspaper which modestly calls itself the world's greatest newspaper, the Chicago Tribune-about that there might, of course, be some difference of opinion- reported an interview with Mr. Gouzenko in which the latter stated that, in his opinion, an interview with a United States congressional committee or members of the United States congress would be, and the words used were, "worth while".
This report was, I think not unnaturally, interpreted by us to mean that Mr. Gouzenko felt he had some further useful information to give. If he had such information or views that were worth while, we naturally thought that he would have given them to us before this or would give them to the Canadian authorities at this time. Immediately this report appeared in the press, therefore, the R.C.M.P. then interviewed Mr. Gouzenko to ascertain whether the report on this matter was accurate and what new information might be secured. An R.C.M.P. officer interviewed Mr. Gouzenko and reported to my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that in the interview of October 27 Mr. Gouzenko had told him he had no information that he had not long since made available to the Canadian authorities; that he had been misquoted by the Chicago Tribune', and that he was not, under any circumstances, willing to proceed to the United States to be interviewed by a congressional committee.
The R.C.M.P. also notified the Minister of Justice that Mr. Gouzenko denied that he had ever criticized the handling of his case by Canadian authorities or the use which was made of the information and documents which he had given to the Canadian authorities. Meanwhile, the Canadian government received the note from the United States Secretary of State transmitting the first request of the Senate subcommittee to interview Mr. Gouzenko, the note of October 29 with which I have already dealt, and the request in this first note was to interview Mr. Gouzenko in Canada.
As the house will recall, because I made a statement at the time in the house, the Canadian government replied that Mr. Gouzenko had stated to the R.C.M.P. that he had been misquoted by the Chicago Tribune and had no additional information to give. The

United States government, therefore, was notified that under the circumstances we assumed that the reasons for the request from the Senate subcommittee had disappeared. I think it was a reasonable assumption to make in view of the interview I have just mentioned between Mr. Gouzenko and the R.C.M.P., but it turned out to be otherwise.
On November 21, I think it was, the same newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, carried another interview with Mr. Gouzenko in which the latter was purported to have upheld the accuracy of the first interview reported in the newspaper on October 25, and to have again expressed the desire for an interview with the United States officials. This made the situation somewhat confusing, and I should like at this point to reaffirm to the house what I said on November 17 last regarding Mr. Gouzenko's statement to the R.C.M.P. It was, of course, on the basis of this statement that the Canadian government prepared its reply to the first request transmitted by the state department. Our reply was delivered on November 4.
This second article to which I have referred in the Chicago Tribune cast some doubt on the R.C.M.P. report, and indeed had some hard things to say about my own good faith and veracity, which are not important enough to trouble the house with. I would merely say that I accept, myself, the accuracy and reliability of that R.C.M.P. report. We have generally found, in this house and in this country, that R.C.M.P. reports are both accurate and reliable.
However, on November 19, the state department delivered another note, a second note, to our ambassador in Washington transmitting a second request from the subcommittee, relating to Mr. Gouzenko, which I have already mentioned. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, whereas the original note from the state department forwarded a request from the subcommittee's counsel to interview Mr. Gouzenko in Canada, the latest note, the second note, forwards a request from the subcommittee chairman this time that Mr. Gouzenko, and I am quoting from it, "be made available for questioning by the subcommittee."


Major James William Coldwell: That is in the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It does not say. It just says, "questioning by the subcommittee." Mr. Gouzenko, as I stated, of course is available in that, like any Canadian, he is free to exercise his own judgment to determine his own movements. He can, of course, as I have said, discuss any subject at any time with anyone whom he chooses, and he is the person to
External Affairs
consider the effect of such action on the special measures which have been taken since he came over to us in 1945, in his interests and at his request, to protect him.
The exact purport of the United States note that Mr. Gouzenko be made available for questioning is perhaps not clear, in that it is not explicitly stated where this questioning would take place and under whose responsibility. Presumably, as indeed I have already said, the Canadian government would be expected to take some responsibility in the matter. While I have said that our security authorities do not believe there is any further information to be obtained, the government, in view of this second request from a friendly neighbour, is willing to make arrangements for a meeting to be held under Canadian auspices and in conformity with Canadian procedures. If Mr. Gouzenko is willing to attend at such a meeting, and this is in our note which we gave the United States this afternoon, any person designated by the United States government for this purpose could be present and of course ask questions. It would, of course, Mr. Speaker, have to be understood, and we have made this clear as it was in 1949 at the meeting to which I have already referred, the evidence or information thus secured under the auspices of the Canadian government could not be made public without the approval of that government.
The Canadian government never has attempted and naturally is not now attempting in any way to withhold from competent United States authorities any information that Mr. Gouzenko might have to give and which could in any way strengthen our joint security, or prevent him stating any views he may have on these matters. But we do take the view that any information from a Canadian source on matters of security should be elicited and transmitted to another government in a proper manner in the way which we have in the past found to be very effective and valuable both to ourselves and to our friends, largely because it was done quietly and confidentially.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have now tabled the text of these four communications, which are available to members of the house.
May I now turn for a moment to the second question which was asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) some days ago, and to which he has asked me to reply today. The question: Who in Canada said what, and to whom, about Mr. Harry Dexter White, former assistant secretary of the United States treasury.

External Affairs
Members of the house may have read in the press about a letter from the head of the federal bureau of investigation to a member of the staff of the president of the United States, dated February 1, 1946, which was released by the United States Attorney General, somewhat, as we have already said, to our surprise, as it had been classified and contained references to the Canadian government, and Canadian sources of information.
According to this letter-and I quote from it-
-"sources high placed in the Canadian government" passed information regarding Mr. White's loyalty to his country to the United States authorities.
There has since been considerable public speculation as to who may have passed such information, and what the information was, with a great deal of confusion resulting. The fact, Mr. Speaker, is that the only information which Canadian authorities had on which they could possibly warn our American friends about Mr. White's alleged espionage came from the F.B.I.
We have never secured any information, never been able to secure any information, on this matter from Mr. Gouzenko or any other source. I should explain that following the normal practice governing such cases the federal bureau of investigation, in the winter of 1945-46, informed security authorities in Ottawa that, as a result of information which the F.B.I. had obtained, it appeared that Mr. White might in fact be a soviet agent. Advance advice in such circumstances would allow Canadian security authorities to be on the alert for any evidence of a corroborative nature which they might find here, and none was found.
Now, the initiative taken from Ottawa in this matter was apparently merely designed to make absolutely certain that the F.B.I. were aware that the White about whom they had been making inquiries-the inquiries referred to a moment ago-was in fact the same person whose name was before the United States Senate for confirmation as the United States member of the executive board of directors of the international monetary fund.
The source of this information, this reminder, because that is all it was, and upon which Mr. Hoover appears to have based his letter, was a personal telegram from a security official, not of the Canadian government, but who was stationed in Ottawa to maintain liaison with the Canadian security authorities on behalf of the security services of a friendly third power.
TMr. Pearson.]
It would have in fact been somewhat surprising if this information had been sent by a source high in the Canadian government, because in the report of Mr. Hoover of the F.B.I., which I have mentioned, he stated that this Canadian source on the one hand stated that Canadian delegates to the international monetary fund might nominate and support Mr. White for the office of president -he must have meant executive director of the fund-while on the other hand he said the source had passed on Canadian warnings about White's unfitness on loyalty grounds to hold the post.
While this information, then, did not come from any source in the Canadian government, this non-Canadian source did tell the F.B.I. lhat his message concerning this matter had the blessing of one or two R.C.M.P. security officials with whom it was discussed.
We have done everything possible, Mr. Speaker, to secure the facts on this matter, which include sending a request, to which there has been no reply as yet, to Washington, for the identity of the Canadian source referred to. This we hoped would have provided a quick and easy way of solving the problem. To the best of our knowledge this security liaison officer in Ottawa-not a Canadian-is the source referred to in Mr. Hoover's letter as an official high in the service of the Canadian government. And I should add that this informal message, coming as it did from Ottawa with considerable urgency, might well have been passed on to Mr. Hoover as a Canadian communication, although in fact it was not such.
I should also say for the record that, contrary to statements referred to in Mr. Hoover's letter, at no time did the Canadian government contemplate instructing the Canadian government delegation to support, much less nominate, Mr. White for any post in the international monetary fund, or in any other organization.
It seems clear that in the stress and tension of the moment-and it was a tense and difficult time in Ottawa for security officials -the author of this telegram must have misunderstood the details of information which he had received from some quarter regarding the prospective appointment in the international monetary fund. I find it easy to understand and sympathize with that mistake.
The house may remember the circumstances under which such matters were being dealt with at that particular time. Mr. Gouzenko was being examined in secret in Ottawa, and a distinct but equally important case was being investigated in equal secrecy

in Washington with telegrams and messages about both cases being exchanged between those responsible for security.
It seems clear that the errors in Mr. Hoover's letter concerning the alleged attitude of the Canadian government toward the appointment of Mr. White to a high office in the international monetary fund or the international bank were based upon mistakes originally made in Ottawa in this message from an allied security officer. I must also make it quite clear that this was not a communication in any sense from one government to another. During the war the closest personal working relations developed between the officials of allied countries and it was quite common for responsible persons to communicate informally with each other within their general terms of reference.
The message sent from Ottawa was such a communication, a perfectly proper one, even though inaccurate in one policy point.
Setting the record straight in such detail on this matter has seemed to be necessary to correct the misleading impression caused by uninformed speculations about some alleged high Canadian governmental source apparently being in a position at that time to warn the United States government, on the basis of Canadian intelligence, against some supposed intention of his own government regarding Mr. White.
This statement, Mr. Speaker, and the action which we have now been called to take, will I hope help to dispose of these two matters in a way which recognizes both our responsibility to our own country, our responsibility to co-operate fully with others in our own as well as collective interests, in the effort to defeat and destroy the international communist conspiracy, which is very real and menacing and, finally, our responsibility to do what we can, always, and sincerely, to maintain good relations with our friend and neighbour the United States, the leader and great buttress of the free world. These relations, Mr. Speaker, involve between our two countries many problems of growing complexity. We accept that, but we take I think on both sides of the border deep and abiding satisfaction in the fact that we are able to solve them on the solid basis of mutual friendship, mutual understanding and mutual respect. And I know that, with a few inconsequential exceptions, all Canadians and all Americans, including all hon. members in this house, are anxious to keep it that way.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-
External Affairs


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Leader of the Opposition speaks, and since this is the first occasion that has arisen where a minister has made a statement before the orders of the day are called, I should like to remind hon. members that in the last parliament, when an important statement was made, the leaders of the three opposition parties were permitted to take part in the debate; that is, to ask questions or to make comments. I should like to refer hon. members to page 3669 of Hansard of June 4, 1951, where Mr. Speaker Macdonald said:
It is not customary to allow a debate on a statement made at this stage of the proceedings. I have allowed the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other two groups to speak, but it is not customary to permit other hon. members to do so.
I should like this gentleman's agreement to be adhered to, if it is possible, following the statement.
And further, on a different occasion, Mr. Speaker Macdonald also ruled that a debate cannot be generalized. He said, as reported at page 411 of Hansard of December 8, 1952:
I think now the house is entering upon a debate on the subject.
It had to do with television policy announced by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). Mr. Speaker Macdonald went on to say:
Of course I cannot allow a debate on it at this time. The remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) should be directed strictly to the statement which has been read. We cannot generalize.
With these previous rulings as a guide, I will ask the Leader of the Opposition to make his comments.


George Alexander Drew: As the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out, this is the first opportunity that he has had to present some of these facts to the house, and I do hope that the statement that has been made may serve to end a great deal of loose speculation that has been appearing in the press and elsewhere, and that can do no good to the relationship between Canada and the United States which is of such vital importance to us and to the whole free world.
May I say on this first opportunity that presents itself, with the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the house, his absence having been due to his duties on behalf of the government, that I do not believe any sensible Canadian thinks for one moment that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has any sympathy whatsoever with communism or would express any sympathy. May I say that

External Affairs
I am sure all of us who recognize the importance of our parliamentary system, whatever our own political affiliation may be, respect government as an institution in this country, and1 resent any suggestion of that kind in relation to the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do point out that there does seem to have been a great deal of confusion accumulating during the past week.
Some impression seems to have been conveyed that the government of the United States has been reflecting on the conduct of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. No single member of the government has made any comment of any kind that could be interpreted as criticism of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In fact, the only member of the United States government who has spoken or who has said anything on the subject is Mr. Dulles, who referred to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the most complimentary terms. That being so, it would be well if Canadians, here in this chamber and outside, used great care to draw a very clear distinction between responsible statements, and irresponsible statements for which the government of the United States cannot be asked to accept responsibility any more than the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) must be asked to accept responsibility for some irresponsible statements that have been made in this country-and there have been.
It would be well for us to reflect that as we would be inclined to feel some measure of resentment, no matter what party we may support, in regard to criticism of the government of Canada or members of the government of Canada or in fact individuals dealing with public affairs, it is equally likely that people in the United States would have the same feeling.
Perhaps we have all been reminded within the past week of the immense importance in democracies, where we prize free speech, of self-discipline, restraint and a recognition of the fact that once criticisms cross boundaries they may have consequences in no way related to the ordinary criticisms that we offer against each other. We can say quite strong enough things about each other without having to reach outside of Canada to find the target. And the right of free speech, which is inherent in this democracy of ours, will find its full exercise in the appropriate implementing of that freedom by directing those criticisms within our own country to those whose conduct may or may not be affected by what we say. At the moment there is nothing more important in this world in the temporal affairs of every man and woman than the encouragement and

fostering in every way humanly possible of that friendship and understanding which is the one sure uniting influence that will keep the free world together in the face of this immense threat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: I would suggest that we might at least hope-and I shall not try to commit the very offence that I was suggesting we should avoid-that in the United States they will remember that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is a member of the Canadian government, appointed by the Canadian government, and that those who wish to maintain friendship with Canada would be well advised to remember that, respecting our governmental system as we do, none of us can disregard those things which might impair respect for that government as an institution. The remarks I make in that regard apply with equal force on this side of the line.
One of the things that I think must perhaps be in the minds of most of us is this: If there can be this much disturbance and the use of this amount of black ink over something which is of such relatively minor importance, I shudder to think of what might happen if the almost unbelievable event occurred that there was some real misunderstanding between Canada and the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Surely if there are two peoples in the whole world who can retain a sense of proportion and a true perspective it is these peoples living so close together and understanding each other as well as they do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: May I close my remarks by simply expressing my hope that a sense of proportion will be retained and that all of us in Canada, yes, and our friends in the United States, will remember a symbolic event that occurred in this chamber only a week ago Saturday. On that occasion the President of the United States came to us as the head of the most powerful nation in the world, expressing no hint of their belief in power but, on the contrary, expressing his faith in the abiding strength of friendship itself.
I would hope that this will soon be forgotten, that we will retain our perspective, and that we will carry forward that splendid spirit which could be felt in this chamber when President Eisenhower was here such a short time ago.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in the house will appreciate the advice that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has given to all members of this house-that they should endeavour to retain a proper perspective concerning the matters that are involved in this particular instance.
However, I would like to go beyond that and say that this house should make it abundantly clear not only that we have confidence in the integrity of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson)- and those of us who have had the privilege of working with him when he was an official of the delegation at San Francisco, and subsequently when he was under-secretary of state for external affairs, know the part that he has taken in these matters-but no one with any sense whatsoever could charge the Secretary of State for External Affairs with having any degree of friendship at all with communism or with the imperial masters of the Soviet union.
I would also like to say that I think this house should back up the position taken by the government of Canada. Obviously the request that came to the government of Canada was that Mr. Gouzenko might be interviewed by a senate committee of the United States on Canadian soil. I think the reply of the Canadian government should meet with the approval of every member of this house and of the public across this country. I think that this country, independent in every respect, could not allow a committee of any other country to establish itself on our soil in order to investigate a Canadian citizen. The government has said, I take if, that if an interview is desired it can be arranged under Canadian auspices, that it can be arranged by Canada, and that the evidence will be submitted to the Canadian government and made available to the other government anxious to have that information.
The thing that shocked me most in connection with this whole matter, and I am very glad to say that it has been partly cleared up this afternoon, was the reference by Mr. Brownell, Attorney General of the United States, who quoted a letter from Mr. Hoover containing information allegedly supplied by a highly placed person in the government of Canada, and which has been referred to as of a "classified" type, and the resultant publicity given to it without first of all consulting Canada.
This afternoon we had a demonstration of how careful the government of Canada is. even when dealing with our own provinces, to secure the consent of the provinces when correspondence that has passed between this 83276-22i
External Affairs
government and the provinces is involved. I sometimes think they go a little beyond reason in that regard. However, I am not saying so this afternoon because it strengthens the fact that the United States Attorney General and Mr. Hoover went beyond the decencies of communication between two countries when the inference was made that this was done by a high official of the Canadian government.
Now, if Mr. Gouzenko wants to testify, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, then-I was going to say he should be permitted but that is wrong-as a Canadian citizen he can go to the United States and testify, but I think it should be made abundantly clear to him that if he goes to the United States to testify he no longer can expect security from the Canadian government or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and that would relieve us of the substantial expenditure that we are being put to in connection with this gentleman's protection at the present time.
If he wishes to go to the United States let him go; but let the United States then take steps if they wish to do so for his security.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Major James William Coldwell: We should have nothing further to do with his security if he desires to leave this country, if he cares to let people know who he is and, I suppose, to appear before the television cameras of the United States and all the rest of it. If he does that, then he cannot expect this country to assume responsibility for the maintenance of the veil which Canada has drawn over him in order to protect him. If he rends that veil asunder, then he must assume the consequences. That is my view of the situation at least. I do not want to say more. I rose really because I wanted to say that this house, I think, and the country should support the government in the position that if there is to be any further inquiry of Mr. Gouzenko it will be undertaken under Canadian auspices, if it is on Canadian soil, and under Canadian conditions. I like to think of Canadian conditions as being the conditions that are traditional with our democracy.
I was greatly alarmed in connection with the handling of our espionage investigation in 1946. I am extremely glad that we have not undertaken anything like it since then and I hope we never shall. That is one of the reasons why, whether I am in Canada or elsewhere, if I am asked any questions on what I think of McCarthyism in the United States I shall express myself in terms similar to those used by the hon. member for Spaclina (Mr. Croll) in his effective speech of last Monday.

External Affairs


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an occasion calling for a statement from each of the groups in the house and I am pleased, sir, that you have made it clear that the leaders of the opposition groups would have an opportunity to say a word in reply to the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) this afternoon. May I start in by saying that this group approves the position taken by the government as evidenced by the statement made by the minister this afternoon as it affects Mr. Gouzenko and any statement that he may later make to the representatives of the United States. We think that if Mr. Gouzenko has something that he can contribute in order to help the people of the United States to expose and to root out espionage rings, Canada should, under suitable circumstances, assist him in making a statement. But we support the conditions laid down by the minister that due regard must be had for the security of that man. I think that no one in the house would find much fault with the statement made in that respect this afternoon.
I should like to add, Mr. Speaker, that we Canadians must respect our great neighbour to the south and every effort that they make on their own behalf to render their own security inviolate. It is not our business to try to tell them how they shall conduct their inquiries. It is not our business to criticize the people they put in charge of their inquiries. It is their business. I should like to make it definitely known that I feel it is irresponsible conduct on the part of any Canadian to try to butt into their affairs. Surely if their inquiries are not being conducted as they ought to be conducted, the responsible Americans in the Senate and in congress or elsewhere will take hold of the matter and correct it on their own.
Likewise, I should like to make it definitely clear where I stand with respect to any attempt to interfere in Canadian conduct of inquiries. It is nobody else's business how we want to conduct our inquiries or affairs in Canada. I think that if we are going to have mutual respect and understanding, we have got to have as much restraint in this country as we expect them to have in theirs. I am just afraid that during the past several weeks there have been made on both sides of the line a great many highly emotional and immature statements which ought not to have been made. They have simply added to the confusion and have done nothing else.
I deplore the attacks that have been made by irresponsible people in another nation on

the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think it was not only unwise and unfair but was certainly most irresponsible. In my association with the minister, although I have disagreed with him on matters of policy, I have never had the slightest doubt of his integrity. I am certain, sir, that we have never at any time felt that the minister had any belief in, or any consort with or sympathy with communists or communism. If we did, we would tell him so here. I should just like to make it known that if there is any suspicion about the Secretary of State for External Affairs, we in Canada feel that we can deal with it and we do not have to wait for anybody in any other land to bring it to our attention or to help us to do it. I believe in our rights and I believe in people respecting our rights. I also feel that we ought to be prepared to respect theirs in the same manner.


WINNIPEG
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fernand Viau (St. Boniface):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Was the final report entitled "Reduction of the flood hazard in the greater Winnipeg area" submitted to the Manitoba government for consideration? Also, will a copy be officially tabled in this house and, if so, will copies be made available to the members?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. In reply I would say that the final report of the investigation into measures for the reduction of the flood hazard in the greater Winnipeg area, prepared by the Department of Resources and Development, was transmitted to the premier of Manitoba with my letter of September 25, 1953. The report consists of eight rather voluminous appendices and a summary which sets forth in a concise way the general problem and possible solutions. The report is in mimeographed form. Printing would take some months and cost a considerable sum of money. However, a limited number of copies of the report and appendices are available. Because, in my opinion, it is a good report which will add to the public fund of knowledge on flooding generally, I shall be pleased to see that a copy is tabled tomorrow and that as many copies as possible will be forwarded to the distribution office.
I would emphasize that this is not a government report which there is any obligation to table. Rather it is a report prepared by

departmental officials. I should not like my action in this case to be construed in the future as a precedent with respect to the tabling of such departmental reports.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. H. Hollingworth for an address to his Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cold-well.
(Translation):
Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night, I was suggesting to the government an amendment to the Criminal Code which would allow a national lottery. I have given the main reasons which, in my opinion, justify such an amendment to our Criminal Code. I have no intention of repeating them, but I cannot leave the matter without setting at rest the minds of die-hard autonomists. In proposing such a national lottery it is not my intention to suggest that there should be the least infringement upon the rights of any province.
Such an amendment to the Criminal Code authorizing a lottery would enable the provinces wishing to do so to organize their own lotteries without getting into trouble. I believe that a national lottery would create a genuine interest among the people. An agreement could be reached between the various provinces wishing to organize such a lottery and the central authorities so that the new system could operate in conformity with the views of all provinces concerned and of the Canadian government.
I have completed my remarks on the subject. If you permit me, I would like to devote the few minutes that remain at my disposal to make to the government some suggestions with a view to improving the situation of my fellow citizens.
Before going any further, I deem it a duty to congratulate sincerely my colleagues of the house who have called the government's attention to the precarious situation of the textile industry at present. I believe I have read somewhere that the government intends to take steps to help that industry which employs thousands of people throughout the country and especially in the province of Quebec, where I live.
I spoke previously of another industry, the fur industry. I then asked the government to examine the advisability of levying a tax on raw furs exported to the United States, the surplus of which is shipped back to Canada
The Address-Mr. Dupuis at a dumping price after it has been processed, as in the case of textiles; under present circumstances such a procedure is disastrous to the industry as well as to fur manufacturers in our country. I wonder if the government is studying that question. I do believe that this industry is important enough to warrant some measure to alleviate the present conditions, as has been advocated for the textile industry.
I have already referred to other questions about which I would like to say a few more words, but I have not the time to do so. I notice, for instance, that several of our friends, more particularly those on the opposite side of this house, have raised the question of whether it would be advisable to increase family allowances and old age pensions. Like all other members of this house, no doubt, I receive many letters telling me that the present rate of family allowances; and old age pensions, due to the high cost of living, is now lower than the rate which was set when these measures were adopted.
I am not unaware of what the Department of National Health and Welfare has accomplished, so far, in the social field. I am also acquainted with the efforts which this department has made to keep up with the times, to follow the social evolution which we are witnessing today. I am convinced that the Department of National Health and Welfare, the government itself, even its leader-though I have no right to speak in the name of the Prime Minister-have this matter under serious consideration. As soon as circumstances allow it is to be hoped that some improvement will be made in this regard.
We must not forget, though, as the Prime Minister himself remarked, that it is not difficult to promise the people the moon and the stars-I am not quoting exactly-to increase the social benefits already provided under the different acts. All that is very well, but, as he also remarked, we must also have adequate sources of revenue to cover increased expenditures. I am sure that when the amounts we are called upon to spend for our national defence-and those are absolutely necessary expenditures which have never been criticized by any member of this house-are decreased because of sufficient improvement in the international situation, we will also consider bringing further improvement to our own conditions, by increasing the various allowances granted in the social field, if it be deemed necessary. Everything now seems to indicate that this is probable.
It would also be desirable-and this is mentioned in the speech from the throne- to consider with a liberal and generous mind the lot of those we call the handicapped, or
334	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dupuis rather the disabled, who are not able to earn a living. I have been pleased to notice that the government intends to give particular attention to this category of unfortunate people, and I know that, in due time, this house will be asked to consider a bill providing for valuable assistance to these people.
There are several other suggestions we could make before the budget is drafted. Last night, I said that after the budget speech it would be too late to make our suggestions. Therefore we should make our suggestions now. I beg the government to find a way of decreasing further the tax on tobacco in general, not only on cigarettes, even though the only aim would be to discourage smuggling. I will not repeat all that has been said in favour of the lowering of that tax, but I wish to repeat my request as far as leaf tobacco and cigarette tobacco are concerned.
In my humble opinion, the man who takes the trouble of rolling his own cigarettes, as we say, is still paying too high a tax. I sincerely believe that the Minister of Finance <Mr. Abbott) will give special attention to that part of his budget speech that deals with the excise tax on cigarettes and, more particularly, on cigarette tobacco and leaf tobacco.
As my time is up, I repeat, in conclusion, that I hope the toll on the Jacques Cartier bridge will be removed in the very near future for the benefit of the citizens of Montreal and the south shore. I do not want to trouble the government with that question, but, on the other hand-and I have placed a notice of motion on the order paper in this connection-I believe that it would be a wise move to study the opportunity of coming to an agreement with the government of the province of Quebec on the removal of the toll on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges.
I know that the city of Montreal was reluctant to live up to its obligations; it refused to pay its share of the deficit under the agreement passed between the federal government, the provincial government and the city. I also know that the province of Quebec still owes a substantial sum of money, and I hope that the federal government will not be compelled to sue for payment, as that province was itself compelled to sue the city of Montreal to obtain payment.
I understand that there is still a substantial sum owing by the province. I believe that the holding of a meeting such as the one I have suggested would not only bring about a settlement of old debts but would allow
rMr. Dupuis.l

for the negotiating of new conditions as far as the two parties to the contract are concerned.
I would have liked to discuss this matter at greater length. I know that the federal government is well disposed in this regard. On the other hand we must also recognize that respect for contracts is not merely the federal government's responsibility but that it is also that of the provincial authorities who should carry out the provisions of the contract before proclaiming, in public meetings, that the federal government is responsible for the fact that toll charges are collected on the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges, since this matter comes under their jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, I now bring my remarks to a close. I already told you at the outset how all those questions of great economic importance had been brought to the attention of the electors as a whole. I also recalled the wonderful promises made by a certain party leader while, at the same time, I spoke of that appeal to autonomy made by the government's opponents. Judgment has been passed on all those things.
I now conclude by expressing the wish that the twenty-second parliament will know how to maintain this prosperity, this unprecedented economic impetus, this industrial development, in a word, the prosperity of this country.
I congratulate the right hon. the Prime Minister on his progressive policy which has made of this country a pleasant land to live in. I do not doubt in the least that Providence will keep him at the helm for a long time to come, for the greatest good of all Canadians.
(Text):


James Garfield Gardiner: The debate in reply to the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, has been going on now for some time. At this point I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and seconder (Mr. Villeneuve), and more particularly all the other new members who have come into the house as a result of the recent election who have taken part in this debate. Those of us who have been in the house for some time do receive new points of view from those who rise at different times to speak in the early sessions following an election, and those who have spoken on this occasion have given us a great deal of food for thought in relation to many matters which will be discussed here from time to time.

On this occasion, however, I wish to express my appreciation particularly to the official opposition and the C.C.F. party. They have, as has been their custom, moved amendments to the address. I am going to read the main amendment moved by the official opposition, which is found on page 43 of Hansard for November 16, 1953:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that the welfare of Canada is dependent upon free competition; and that the prosperity and security of all Canadians will be advanced by government policies which will restore markets for primary products and generally promote a high volume of international trade.
This amendment is so differently worded from those to which I have been accustomed since coming to Ottawa that I really must express appreciation to the official opposition for the wording of it. While it does make a passing reference to agriculture by mentioning the restoration of markets for primary products-I suppose some would argue that that does cover the question to a degree-still this amendment is so different from those moved at other sessions when care was taken to condemn everything that related to agricultural policy that I must express my own appreciation to the official opposition for having worded this particular amendment in the manner in which they have.
Then I should probably express my appreciation of the amendment moved by the leader of the C.C.F. party which is found on page 56 of Hansard for November 16, 1953:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that the prosperity and security of all Canadians will be advanced by government policies which will restore markets for primary products and generally promote a high volume of international trade.
That is the Conservative amendment, and to that is added these words:
We further represent that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial participation.
Again, in the wording of this amendment there has not been the usual criticism. I think both the official opposition and the C.C.F. have given expression to the view generally held right across Canada with regard to agricultural policy, which is to the effect that agriculture is in a better position, not only in relation to other activities within Canada but in relation to activities outside Canada, than it has been on many previous occasions.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner


Mr. Nicholson:: That was not the opinion expressed during the last two days of the conference here.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was, but-


Stanley Howard Knowles: But only by yourself.


James Garfield Gardiner: -the hon. member was here a considerable part of his time and did not hear everything that was said at the conference. The suggestion that I expressed any other idea, of course, is very wide of the mark. I have here on my desk all the documents which were submitted to the conference, and they clearly express the opinion that, in so far as agriculture is concerned, as compared with the years that have preceded this, it is in a very good position.
In order to make the position clear I should like to say that we began to discuss the possible future of agriculture in Canada at the end of the war. At that time great fear was expressed that we were going to have, at a very early date, a depression similar to that which we had immediately following the first world war, and possibly one that would even match the depression of the thirties. We have gone along since that time, and I do not think there is any member in this house who would suggest that we have had anything akin to the situation about which fears were expressed at that time.
I have before me a summary of the happenings of the last five years which bears out the statements that have been made in the conference during the last two days, to which reference was made by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). In statements made there it was suggested time after time that there had been a very considerable increase in returns' for farm products in the years 1951 and 1952, and that there had been some reduction in 1953 as compared with the other years. On each occasion it was suggested, however, that there were some remarkable circumstances associated with 1951 and 1952 which could not be associated with any other years.
As I look back over the records I find there was a constant increase in the returns to farmers, both gross and net, in all the years from the end of the war down to 1949. In every year there was an increase in returns, both in total amount and in the prices received for products. In 1949 the cash receipts from the sale of farm products, that is gross receipts, amounted to $2,486 million. Taking that as 100, the returns in 1950 were $2,213 million or 89 per cent; that is there was a reduction of 11 per cent as between 1949 and 1950.
336	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gardiner
As I remember the discussions which took place in this house at that time, it was suggested that we were on the way down; that we were going to continue on the way down, and that eventually we would have in this country conditions very similar to those we had in the depression periods following other wars. But in 1951 the gross cash return was $2,812 million, or 113 per cent of what it had been in 1949. Then in 1952 it was $2,778 million or 112 per cent of what it was in 1949.
This brings me down to 1953. The Current Review which has been quoted by a number of members in this debate is the current review for November, and most of the material in it was compiled up to about September. So any references made there are only with regard to returns that had come in in connection with agriculture down to that time. But when you take the figures available now, and use those as a basis for the estimate for this year, the total cash return is $2,660 million; and its relation to 1949 is expressed by the figure 107 as against 100 in 1949.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has the minister the figures for net farm income?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I shall give those. I have them here, along with the others. They really express a similar position, although in slightly different terms. On each occasion that reference is made to the cash returns of farmers, the question just asked by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) is asked by someone. We are asked: Have you the net returns, too? I realize there is a difference between net and gross returns; but I am also of the opinion that the farmer who understands what net returns, as against gross returns, actually means is not nearly so afraid as some of those who do not actually have farm products of their own.
The figures compiled to indicate net returns take into consideration the fact that last year we had a higher production of wheat in western Canada than we had this year. They say that, because we had a higher production of wheat last year than we had this year, and therefore not so much to carry over from this year's crop as we carried over from last year's, our net position is not as good this year as it was last year.
Well, our net position as to cash returns for the present year may not be as good; but in so far as my farm is concerned, in view of the fact that I have not been able to market all my crop of last year and that a very considerable part of it is still on my


farm, and further in view of the fact that I had a very good crop this year I, and I am sure other farmers in western Canada, actually have more grain on our farms today than we ever had at any other time. And no one is able to convince us that because we have that grain on the farms we are worse off than we were last year, or worse off than we were the year before, or five years before that. We are not worse off with those supplies of grain piled up on our farms than we were before, and no farmer believes that we are.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Lots of farmers are not in the position of the minister, who has a cabinet position to support his farm.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not keep my books that way. My farm supports itself, and the other matters are dealt with for other purposes.
Coming back to the point that we have very considerable supplies of products on our farms, which we speak of as having an effect upon net returns, I should like to place figures of net returns on the record. In 1949 net farm income was $1,640 million, which we took as the figure 100. In 1950 it was $1,448 million, which would give the figure of 88, or 12 points down. In 1951 it was $2,188 million, giving us an index figure of 133, or an increase of 33 per cent. In 1952 it was $1,950 million, giving us a figure of 119 as an index for that year. In 1953 the amount is $1,720 million, giving an index figure of 105, which still keeps us 5 per cent higher than 1949.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask the
relative purchasing power of a dollar in 1949 as compared with 1953.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, there would be some
difference in the purchasing power in those two years.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Quite a difference.


James Garfield Gardiner: But there is a great deal
to be explained in connection with those matters which I would not be able to cover in my 40 minutes. If I were to go off into a discussion of that question as well I would not be able to do it in the time I have.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But that is a pertinent point.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is pertinent; but I am
sure that after I have finished my hon. friend can apply those points in any way he wishes to have them applied, and draw his conclusions accordingly. In so far as these particular figures are concerned they indicate something which I think members of the house should keep in mind when they are discussing the question. Because if they do not, farmers outside certainly do.

These figures indicate that our prices in 1951 took a turn to a higher level, after having dropped considerably in 1950. There are a number of reasons as to why they took that turn. I am not going to discuss them this afternoon because it might require me to offer some opinions which would not be in accordance with the opinions suggested a few moments ago by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew).
If we were going to go into a discussion of why we had such great price increases in 1951 as compared with 1950, we would have to step outside this country to give those reasons, and perhaps offer some criticism as to the manner in which they were brought about. Then again, I would call attention to the fact that prices for farm commodities in that year were very high. We got from 32 to 34 cents a pound for our beef cattle, slightly under 30 cents for our hogs, a fairly high price for our cheese, and a price for our butter which was comparable with that we still obtain. And for other farm products such as wheat, barley and oats we had very high prices.
What I wish to say here today-and it is a repetition of what I said at the conference to which the hon. member for Mackenzie referred a few moments ago-is that I have travelled back and forth across this country a great deal, and I have never yet met a farmer who has intimated to me that he expected over any period of time to get the prices he received in 1951 for his livestock. I have met farmers who think that probably the price of wheat ought to stay very much around the price it has been for the last ten years, but I have not met any who have suggested that we could hope to maintain cattle prices at their 1951 level.
Then again, going across the country, I have not met any farmers who have suggested to me that the unusually high prices we have obtained for hogs in 1953 are always going to continue, or that they are going to continue for any considerable length of time. In other words the arguments put up here that we have had a reduction in prices of farm commodities, and a slight reduction in gross returns, or in net returns, are not arguments which appeal to farmers in general. They have their situation well in hand, and know pretty well what it is.
In discussing farm commodities in relation to the questions that have been put up here, and were put up for the last two days in the conference, it is necessary for us to divide farm commodities into two classifications. One is those that are produced largely in, let us say, one province, or some like potatoes may be produced largely in two provinces such as New Brunswick and Prince Edward
The Address-Mr. Gardiner Island, so far as they are produced for marketing purposes. Then we have other commodities like apples produced in Ontario and Quebec, it is true, but with a market right at the door of the farmer for all that are produced there. But we also have a production in Nova Scotia and British Columbia where the market is not so easily available, and where all agree that one of the essential features of any policies of the future should be a return of the British market for apples from these two areas particularly in order that they might at all times have access to a market where they can sell their product.
Having said that, I should like to point out that we have followed a policy ever since 1939 in relation to that particular matter. When the people of Prince Edward Island come and ask us to do something about potatoes we point out to them that if this government centralized the promotion of potato production at Ottawa and took action right across Canada which would be beneficial to the people of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, we would harm the potato producers of those two provinces and not help them. And when they come here to discuss the question they are satisfied that that is true. Both those provinces are now utilizing the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act of 1939, which we put on the statute books at that early date in order to deal with just such questions as these. I hold in my hand a list of those who have come under that act within the last year. Farmers have been utilizing the act for the purpose for which it was intended, namely in connection with products which are produced in certain limited areas for which they must find markets and cannot find markets. They have been using that act. Prince Edward Island has the ranch-bred fox pelts organization operating under that act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is not much good now.


James Garfield Gardiner: They have another under the same name, and another different organization doing the same thing. They have another handling table stock potatoes. That is, there are three of these organizations in the province of Prince Edward Island which are handling products that are produced in that province and must find markets either in this country or outside of it.
In Quebec we have two agreements for the assistance of marketing fox pelts and we have two agreements to assist the marketing of apples. We have two to assist farmers in that province in the marketing of turkeys.
In Ontario we have an agreement with the Ontario cheese producers' association under which we guarantee advances in connection with the marketing of cheddar cheese.
338	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gardiner
In Saskatchewan-and these are only the ones that came in in the last year; they have been coming in constantly since 1939, but this group came in within the last year-we have forage crops seeds; the Saskatchewan Forage Crop Co-operative Marketing Association Limited of Prince Albert; then the Alberta forage crop seeds, the Alberta seed growers' co-operative, at Edmonton, and the forage crop seeds in Alberta again. The same company has a second agreement.
In British Columbia apricots, prunes and peaches are sold under these contracts that are entered into.
You ask me, what is the nature of that legislation? I say, well, the legislation is based on the experience we have had in selling many farm products under co-operatives. We have guaranteed to the organizations that wish to market their own products an amount which is not greater than 80 per cent of the price of their product over the previous three years in order that they may go to the banks and make arrangements under which they may get money with which to make advance payments, and they have made advance payments. That is why I said to the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), who spoke the other night, that 45 cents was not the price of potatoes, but it is the advance payment made under the cooperative arrangement between this government and the producers down in that province. Therefore they go ahead and promote their own production to their heart's content, and they go on and market the product which has been produced as the result of their activities and we, through our guarantee, make it possible for them to finance their operation.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Can the
minister say the final price?


James Garfield Gardiner: The final price will not be known until they have sold the product. It is too soon to give the final price now. But that is the provision in connection with potatoes. I can probably answer what my hon. friend has in mind by coming at once to the position existing in connection with cheese in Ontario. The cheese producers in Ontario have been having some difficulty in marketing their product over the years. When I came down here first 18 years ago I was convinced, as I think most hon. members were, that we ought to increase our production of cheese in Ontario and Quebec, and get back to the old levels we used to have at the beginning of the century, when we sent 150 million pounds of cheese to Great Britain.
(Mr. Gardiner.)

Well, we started out to try to get that done. We got it done for one year during the war, and from that time on the price of cheese has been going up constantly but the production of cheese has been going down, until last year we could have sold all the cheese that we produced in Canada on the Canadian market and at a higher level than we could sell it at anywhere else. This year we have been up against the same experience. The cheese we have produced here, amounting to somewhere near 60 million pounds, is not enough to supply this entire market if an effort were made to sell it here, without going to any other.
It is true that we sold 10 million pounds, or at least this association sold 10 million pounds of cheese to Great Britain. We bought 5,500,000 pounds of cheese under our Agricultural Prices Support Act last May, for which we undertook to see that the farmer got 30 cents a pound, or at least on the basis of 30 cents for the milk he put in the cheese. Now, partly as a result of the fact that this 10 million pounds of cheese has been sold out of Canada, the price of cheese is comparatively high. The cheese we have now is now selling at around 35 cents a pound. We have sold about half of it at between 32 cents and 35 cents. So the farmers who delivered their milk in 1952 in order to produce the cheese we now have will probably get a little more for their cheese than the farmers who turned their milk over to the board as of the 1st of July of that year and had cheese produced from there on at a price which netted them something less than 30 cents a pound.
That situation is created through the fact that we have gone into the province of Ontario under the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act of 1939 and made it possible for the cheese producers' association to take delivery of cheese in Ontario, pay an advance of 24 cents and go on selling, and up to date they have had about 28 cents a pound. From now on they will obtain whatever sum is received in addition to what has been obtained for the product up to now. I am quite satisfied that the final price, when it is obtained, will be one that is quite satisfactory to most of the producers in the area.
I do not think it is necessary to go into a discussion of other crops that are handled under this act; I believe the point I wish to make is well illustrated, but I do want to say that the sale of what are more or less known as specialties in agriculture, such as potatoes, fruits, tobacco, vegetables of some sorts and even fluid milk, is promoted within the province by the provincial governments

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
and by the provincial farm organizations. If governments assist or control it is the provincial rather than the federal government which acts. That is so largely because of the fact that if we were to go into the provinces and promote production of some of those commodities to the detriment of the producers and affect their prices we would, of course, be open to criticism. But we say to them, all right; you go ahead and handle them. We will assist you under our co-operative marketing act and we will assist you in some other ways in connection with the handling of those products.
When we come to meat products, dairy products and grains such as feed grains and wheat, our situation is quite different. It was those products upon which the figures I read a few moments ago were largely based. When we talk about the cash income of farmers across Canada, or when we talk about the net income of farmers across Canada, we are largely reasoning with regard to what we know about the production and marketing of livestock, dairy products and grains. Reasoning from those we are inclined to say either that agriculture is better off or that agriculture is not better off.
I have not had the privilege of being in the house during the last two days because I was attending the conference, but during the time I was here listening to the debate I was somewhat surprised at the nature of the discussion in relation to these questions. I find it very difficult to be affected by the reasoning of those who say the farmers in this country are not as well off today as they were at some other time. I do not find that as I go across the country. I want to make it perfectly plain that I find farmers in Canada who are not as well off today as they were at some other time. I find localities in which a group of farmers may not be as well off today as they were at some other time. But the farmers who produce these particular products, which after all bring most of the wealth to farmers across Canada, are not in general worse off than they have been at some other time. They are better off than they have been at some other times and I do not even except the year 1951, because in 1951 we had to deal largely with what we produced in 1950 and we had not then struck one of these big crop years. 1951, 1952, 1953 were the three biggest crop years we have ever had in western Canada.
The other day I heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) say that he used to live out in western Canada. I know he did. When I went into the legislature in Saskatchewan in 1914 he was living
at the Y.M.C.A. in Regina and had been there for possibly twelve months. His activities from that time on have been largely associated with the building of storage for grain in western Canada. Therefore he has firsthand knowledge with regard to it. My activities from that time down to this have been associated with the legislature of Saskatchewan and with this house. I said the day before yesterday, and it was in the press of yesterday, that about three-quarters of my time during that period had been taken up considering things that would be helpful to wheat farmers in particular, because in Saskatchewan we grow and have grown over the years more than half of all the wheat that is grown in western Canada and, therefore, more than half of all the hard wheat that is grown in this country.
Yesterday, listening to the members who were at the conference, and particularly the ministers, I was struck by a remark made by a minister who does not belong to the party to which I belong but comes from a province which is right alongside my province, the province of Alberta. His statement ran something like this. A great many people are talking about the oil supplies we have in Alberta. They are talking about our coal supplies. They are talking about our timber supplies, and so on. When you take the whole production of Alberta in everything else and put it up against farm production you find that farm production is $200 million greater than that of all other production put together.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, farm production is what makes things tick out in Alberta. It is true that oil helps along a little for the time being, but the people who live there and expect to live there throughout the years know that the fundamental thing is the production from farms.
In connection with Saskatchewan, I was looking out the window of the railway car the other day when I was passing Virden, Manitoba. I always look out the window as I go past that point because my old friend Dr. Motherwell, who preceded me as Minister of Agriculture, used to tell me that when he was moving out from Brandon to his homestead he got stuck right there with his oxen and had to unload his household effects, get the wagon out of the mud and back on to the road or back on to the prairie so he could go on.
Do you know what I saw on that spot the other day when I was going along on the

The Address-Mr. Gardiner train? There is about a foot of oil on the ground right where he was stuck, and there are four oil wells right around it. I venture to say that if Dr. Motherwell had been able to prove that there was oil right under where he stood he never would have reloaded his settlers' effects. He would have stayed there, and we would have lost the experience of one of the finest agriculturists we have ever had in this country. It was 1879 that he went out there and we have been going on building up that country upon the production of agricultural products.
Those of us who were accustomed to offer up prayers in connection with these things no doubt on many occasions prayed for big crops, good crops. The one thing which was likely to cause us any great trouble out there was a crop failure, and unfortunately, we are subject to crop failures and we have no way of proving to you this afternoon that we shall not have them again. I have every reason to believe from my experience out on the prairies, which extends now over more than 60 years, that we are going to have them again. Therefore no one can get me greatly excited about the fact that we have more wheat piled up out in western Canada than we ever had before. I want to say that is the best condition we ever had in western Canada, and I do not know how anyone is going to convince our farmers otherwise.
The suggestions made here since we have been discussing this question, along the line that our farmers are in a terrible plight out in Saskatchewan, do not conform to the facts in relation to it. I know that what I am saying now will be quoted to those farmers by some people on the other side who will say, "Gardiner comes down here and says you fellows are not hard up at all" and that I go out there and I tell them, "You are in a terrible plight and therefore you ought to get more money and more help from the treasury of Canada, and you ought to vote for me." All I am going to say to them is that I obtained more than 50 per cent of the votes in my constituency in spite of the fact that they put up the best man they had against me in the last election.
I think we will go on assisting in the production of more and more. We are able to reason these things out with the farmers. The farmers understand fairly well. They do not agree they are losing out during recent years. The time you have to go back and try to find some way of helping is when they have no crop at all. But this year they have piled up around them more grain than they ever had before.

I think I can hear my friends getting up after I have finished and saying, "Oh, yes, but what good is wheat?" As one lady said yesterday over at the gathering-as a matter of fact, she was the only lady there as a delegate-"Well, you cannot put boots and shoes on children with wheat alone". I quite agree with her. As a matter of fact it reminds me that I myself once said that you can have a pile of wheat as high as the pyramids of Egypt, but if you go out and sit on top of it and you have not enough clothes on, you will freeze to death; and you might as well die one way as another.
But that is all right; I was saying that when we did not have any wheat. I am not kicking very much when we could put up a pyramid of wheat and say to people in general, "Well, here it is". That protects us against two things. In the first place it protects us against the year when we do not have any crop, and I think we will have those years in the future. When we do have them, we will have grain to sell; and if we have a whole year's crop left there to be sold, it is not going to do us any harm to have it. It is going to help us.
Then I had occasion to say something yesterday which I hope will be carried on by others, particularly in the official opposition, in view of what was said by the leader of their party this afternoon. Right in the middle of our campaign last summer-I do not know why everybody seemed to miss it- the United States wheat growers took a vote on the question of whether they would take a lower price for their grain at once under the guarantees that are given by the government on the wheat that is in the bins, or whether they would reduce their acreage. They voted, by something over 80 per cent of the farmers in the area, to reduce their acreage. The reduction they undertook to make was from 78 million acres down to 62 million acres, or 16 million acres. I would point out that 16 million acres is two-thirds of our entire crop.
I said yesterday to the United States delegates at the conference, and I say it to this house, that I think we owe an expression of appreciation to our American friends for that action. When we are talking here about having piled up great amounts of wheat, in spite of the fact that we have not as many acres as we used to have in production- we have reduced our acreage-at the same time the Americans to the south come along and say that they are taking out of production an area 16 million acres in extent, which is two-thirds as much as our acreage in western Canada. I am sure everyone will

agree that that action itself is of greater assistance to us in solving the problem of any surplus wheat we may have than probably any one thing that has been done by anybody else. I therefore suggest that we owe a vote of thanks to the Americans on the other side of the line for doing that.
Why did they do it? I have been down there, and I have discussed the matter with them from time to time. From my discussions with the experts on the other side of the line I am satisfied that they realize that we up in western Canada must be able to grow wheat if we are going to live there at all. They have told me so over and over again. But they told us only yesterday of the wonderful increases in the production of soya beans down in the area to the south, in the same area where they have been growing wheat. They told us about the wonderful production of other farm commodities. So they can go on producing those commodities and making a living growing them. If in that way, sir, they are operating in order to be of some help to us, then at the same time when we are discussing questions even having to do with dairy products, as related to their markets, I think we ought to say something in appreciation of the things they do which are helpful.
They think we perhaps send too large a quantity of oats down there some place and they criticize us somewhat. If somebody brought a lot of wheat out into the middle of western Canada we would think that they were not trying to help us at all. Therefore I am not surprised when somebody down there gets up and says something about oats. But when we have people who sit down with us and say "Out of consideration for growers elsewhere we ought to cut down on our acreage", I think we should express some appreciation of what has happened in that connection.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a word about surpluses. The only surpluses of livestock we have are those which are largely in cans. I refer to the pork that we canned during the period we were fighting the foot-and-mouth disease, and a small quantity of the beef which we imported into North America as a result of our arrangements with Britain and New Zealand, in order to fight the foot-and-mouth disease. As a government we are not considering that this has any relationship whatsoever to our policy with regard to agricultural prices support. We only used the agricultural prices support board in order to do the job. We passed special legislation in order to make it possible for them to do the job because they were accustomed to
The Address-Mr. Gardiner buying and selling products. So we put this product in cans and now we are disposing of it.
I have noticed suggestions that we are disposing of it at a considerable loss. We never expected to dispose of it in any other way. It was not canned in the first place as a means of giving assistance to the farmers under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. It was put in cans in the first place in order to make it possible for us to go on fighting the foot-and-mouth disease and at the same time to let people go on marketing their livestock. The same thing is true with regard to cattle. Recently we have been selling this pork that is in cans. We have sold quite a bit of it at American prices in the United States and in Canada; but we know there is a limit to the time we can go on holding that product. It is still a good product, but it has to be consumed somewhere before it is much older. So we are selling it over into Europe at reduced prices.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the minister if
he has figures on the losses and quantities of beef and pork on hand now?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the figures here.
They have to do with all products under the Agricultural Prices Support Act. The stocks of cattle and hog products remaining at November 25, 1953, in round figures were: 20 million pounds of canned pork and 9 million pounds of frozen carcass beef. The total cost of cattle and hog programs carried out while fighting foot-and-mouth disease on products sold to date is estimated at about $60 million, including the $32 million already recouped by vote of parliament.
These actions on the part of the government are for the purpose of getting these products, which were set up in our effort to fight foot-and-mouth disease, out of the way of the marketing of other products in this country. Now, I do want to say this. When I came into the house the night before last I heard the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) reading a paragraph out of a report issued by my department entitled "Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada." From the middle of page 5 he read the following:
The continuing high level of economic activity is reflected in the income components of gross national product. Labour income for the first seven months of this year was 10 per cent higher than in the corresponding period of 1952. This resulted in a small increase in employment accompanied by sizeable increases in wage rates. Average hourly earnings, one of the best indicators of the basic wage structure have continued to advance. At July 1, 1953, average hourly earnings in manufacturing industries were 6 per cent over those at the same date in 1952, and increases in other industries ranged between that of mining
342	HOUSE OF
Address-Mr. Gardiner which was up 4 per cent and building construction where hourly earnings were close to 10 per cent higher. Although the trend in basic working hours has continued downward, more overtime and less short time, particularly in manufacturing, has resulted in slightly longer working hours this year. Along with higher basic rates, the longer work week has contributed to the steady rise in average weekly earnings to their present peak. At July 1 of this year, average weekly salaries and wages stood at $57.58 compared with $53.96 at July 1, 1952.
My friend stopped there and used that paragraph as a basis for criticizing the situation which exists in Canada. All I want to say to the house is that we have surpluses only in wheat and cattle. We have no surpluses in these products upon which the figures I have just quoted are based, except in wheat and cattle, and all other products, including dairy products, must be sold to consumers in this country. I cannot understand why a representative of any agricultural constituency should get up in the house and criticize the fact that the people in the only market he has for most of his products, and the best market he has for most of them, are doing fairly well and therefore consuming Canadian food. I think the only way the average Canadian can be a good customer or a real purchaser of Canadian products in a good market is to have good wages, to be employed all the time, to be doing the things which he is capable of doing, and to get good returns for doing so.
When I have said that I know if he gets too much it is going to increase the cost of production on the farm. But I am quite satisfied that with the prices we are getting at the moment we are not being materially hurt on the farm, and if we can keep the other fellow getting the same return and are able at all times to sell to him all we produce at present prices we ought to be able to carry on.
What I want to say to hon. members who have been criticizing a great deal is that compelling that better price is not our job. It is the job of the provinces right across Canada. They can establish prices for these different commodities in their own provinces. The province of Ontario has done so to a greater extent than any other province. The province of British Columbia over the years has done so to a very considerable extent. The maritime provinces have taken action in that regard as well. The one province in particular from which there is not much Liberal representation in the house, and the province that is kicking the most, is the province that does the least in that connection.
Therefore I should like to suggest that in this house we realize that the fact that we have had three very fine crops recently, the fact that our farmers have taken care of


these crops in greater quantity than ever before, the fact that the farmers are telling us now that they are hoping we will be able to continue under the international wheat agreement or otherwise conditions under which we will be able to sell, if not this year then next year, at reasonable prices, all demonstrate that they are expecting us to go ahead with the policies we have been following. I am sure if we do and are able to accomplish anything like the same results we have obtained in the last ten years, agriculture will continue to be at the highest level of prosperity that it ever has experienced even though we would like to see it higher.


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, no one, I imagine, rises to speak in this house for the first time save with a certain amount of fear. While I am very conscious of my own shortcomings as a new member, I am encouraged to make this effort by the friendship and fellowship which has already been made so evident toward me from all parts of this house and from a great many of the members. I certainly hope to enjoy it for many years to come.
(Translation):
We, from Quebec, enjoy the same measure of understanding and friendship between the two racial groups forming the majority in our country.
This friendship between the two races has been of great help in the past and it still continues to bring to our country the drive necessary to its progress and development.
It may happen sometimes that our opinions differ, but the fact remains that the respect to which each group is entitled exists between us.
(Text):
At the outset of my remarks I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to my opponent in the past election who represented the riding of Notre Dame de Grace or Mount Royal, as it was known earlier, from 1940 to 1953. While I have always liked and respected Mr. Whitman, since my arrival the comments about him made to me by his innumerable friends on both sides of this house brought into sharp focus the esteem in which he was and is held by all who knew him. He was popular and was liked by everyone both inside and outside parliament, and while I am very happy to be here I am sorry that my gain was his loss, because I know you will all miss him.
The constituency which I represent is the largest in point of population on the island of Montreal, and it is largely residential. While we have our quota of stores and indus-

tries, I take my greatest pride in the people who live in Notre Dame de Grace and Montreal West, the two areas which comprise the riding. Few of us are rich and fewer still are poor. Few of us are famous and very few of us are notorious. The majority of us are English-speaking, but about one-quarter of us look upon French as our native tongue and about 2,000 are at home in Italian, while you do not have to look very far to find those who have come to Canada from all over the world and who now make their home with us because they think it is a nice place to live. We have Protestant, Catholic and Jewish houses of worship in the area.
An instance of the way in which we all live together and get along together may be found in the fact that a Jewish congregation for a couple of years met and held their services in a Presbyterian church while they were awaiting the erection of their own synagogue. All in all I think we can be proud of ourselves, because we are a typical part of urban Canada and we are making our contribution in many ways to the development and progress of a country of which we are very proud.
But we do have our problems, and one is the question of low-flying aircraft. Not too far to the west of us lies Dorval airport, and every hour there are airplanes passing overhead. These planes go over at heights which seem to us to be unreasonably low, and we are fearful that before very long some mechanical failure, some human error or some act of God will bring death and destruction crashing down from the skies into our homes. All of us are worried as we read from time to time in the newspapers of such accidents in other parts of the world. Surely there must be some method by which the menace of many airplanes flying low every day over the major populated areas could be removed. Perhaps it could be done by rerouting their path to the airport, or perhaps by an amendment to the regulations which would make them fly at greater altitudes. I think this is a problem which affects many communities across Canada, and one which deserves the careful consideration of the government.
Another of our problems in this riding is caused by the fact that it is largely bisected by the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway which enters Windsor station through Notre Dame de Grace. For this reason there is no communication between the northern and southern sections of the riding for perhaps a mile and a half. Hundreds of cars, because this is a major metropolitan area, must go many blocks out of their way in passing from
The Address-Mr. Hamilton one section to the other. What is badly needed are two underpasses at strategic points beneath this railway line, and this matter of course comes to this house through the board of transport commissioners which answers to the government. In co-operation with the civic authorities of Montreal, we have already studied this matter carefully and we have definite ideas on the subject. However, we are going to need both the authority to proceed with the project and some measure of assistance from the funds which are made available by the government for this purpose. I hope that when the matter comes up for consideration it will be dealt with speedily.
The whole question of level crossings, overpasses and underpasses, is one affecting many parts of the island of Montreal. I feel that the government has not dealt with it adequately. Each year in our Montreal area alone many people are killed because of inadequate protection at road and rail intersections. The $1 million per year which the government makes available in its estimates for correcting this situation in all of Canada is totally inadequate, even allowing for contributions by all the parties concerned. It is going to be impossible to clear up this condition if the present attitude is continued. This is a matter of national interest, and I hope the study which the board of transport commissioners is currently making will not be long delayed in presentation and will not be pigeonholed when it does arrive.
I have just one more observation concerning Notre Dame de Grace, and then perhaps I can proceed to other matters. Our postal service is totally inadequate for the needs of a community such as ours. While we are essentially a residential community, stores and businesses are scattered throughout the area. We have numerous salesmen and representatives who combine both home and office. For some reason which was defended on the grounds of economy, but which still did not seem to result in any great reduction in the Post Office Department expenses, mail delivery in our area was reduced a few years ago from twice a day to once a day. This has caused us a great deal of inconvenience. My riding is an integral part of a great city. It is a busy place with many interests, and it is dependent upon an adequate postal service. Many of these activities are being seriously handicapped and inconvenienced by a postal service which would be more appropriate for a small, sleepy country village. We feel that we are entitled to the restoration of adequate postal facilities.
All of Canada, and certainly I think all of Montreal, is awaiting with great interest some indication of a definite date on which work on the St. Lawrence seaway is going to begin.
344	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hamilton We have heard many speeches on this subject from members of the government. We have heard many rather vague statements on the subject. Indeed, during the period of the election I rather expected any day to see a photograph in the newspaper of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) turning the first sod with gold-plated shovels supplied by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe). But somehow nothing seems to have happened. I hope that in the course of this debate one of these gentlemen will give us some indication of a definite date upon which these promises will begin to be implemented.
As a councillor in the city of Montreal I have acquired some little knowledge of the problems facing municipalities in Canada. They are serious problems. While the cities in this country have so far been able to keep their heads above water, despite the government's rather callous attitude towards them, the time is rapidly approaching when the federal government must adopt a more considerate attitude if municipal finance is to continue on a sound basis. Today municipal progress and development is grinding to a halt. Capital improvements which are particularly necessary to solve the crowded traffic conditions in the centre of almost every Canadian city cannot be undertaken because they cannot be financed. Police forces are undermanned, and they cannot give adequate traffic safety protection. Water and sewage plants are loaded to capacity and beyond capacity.
In Montreal in September the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), speaking to an international gathering of municipal officials, congratulated them on being mayors with imagination. Unfortunately, while this government has done rather well through the use of its imagination-its imaginary health scheme is one excellent example of what can be done in this field, and its imaginary devotion to free enterprise is another-municipal administration is a very realistic matter. No amount of imagination can solve the problems which are facing our municipalities, because they are fundamentally problems of finance and a dollar is not imaginary.
The civic government is the government which is closest to the citizens of Canada. It is the government which they see in action every day of the year. It is the government which protects them against fire and theft, which cleans the streets and takes away the garbage, which brings in water and takes


away sewage. It performs all the very essential functions in a modern civilized municipality. It seems only reasonable that this municipal government deserves the help of the federal government in performing these essential functions.
Certainly the two basic suggestions made by this party regarding federal-municipal relationships in the field of finance should be implemented immediately by this government, because they represent no concession by the government but merely the granting to municipalities everywhere of that which is their due. I refer, of course, to allowing cities to tax federal real estate on the same basis as 'other property, and releasing municipalities from the obligation of paying federal sales taxes on their purchases-a tax, by the way, which is paid by no other level of government and which certainly should not be paid by our cities. I was glad to hear in the speech from the throne some indication that action was contemplated in this field. We do not know what the measure will be, but I do hope that when it is introduced it will be in keeping with the size of the problem which exists.
Since my arrival in Ottawa I have come to realize under what a tremendous handicap members on this side of the house labour, due to the absence of any adequate trained technical assistance for purposes of research, and other functions of a similar nature. Members of the government have at their disposal literally squads of highly trained personnel, economists, scientists, research people and others, to work with them; and so they should, for the responsibilities of the government are heavy and their duties great. But surely this side of the house, too, with its equally great responsibilities to examine actions of the government, to conduct our own research into problems which face us and to develop our own thinking on the issues of the day-surely we are entitled to a reasonable measure of assistance and a staff section to do work which we have not time to do.
Perhaps a first step in this direction might be made through the establishment of a research service like that which is available to congressmen in the United States. Called the legislative reference service, it is a division of the library of congress and is freely available to all comers from their legislative chambers on a non-partisan basis. Through it a congressman may get a quick digest of a complicated bill or law, together with all the arguments adduced either for or against it. He can get a research report on anything

from atoms to zwieback, or the entire substance for a speech on any knotty subject to which he may refer, and get the information he might need-and it will be noted that I spell knotty "k-n-o-t-t-y". I was not worried at all about hon. members in this house, but this material does get into print.
The introduction of such a service for hon. members on this side of the house would, I think, be welcomed by all parties. It would supply us with basic information which we badly need but do not always have time to obtain. And to the extent that it made this information available to us I think it would assist us in arriving at sound basic decisions.
I have been impressed in this connection by the number of people, just ordinary citizens, with whom I have discussed this matter and who simply did not believe that some sort of assistance of this kind was not available to us. I can understand that, because it is hard for anyone to comprehend that a government with about 175,000 civilian employees, and a full complement of experts to do much of the thinking for each of its ministers, is not interested enough in careful scrutiny and debate of those measures to provide some degree of assistance in the field of technical research for opposition parties.
Now for a few moments I should like to deal with the steady movement of the present government toward socialism, a trend which was demonstrated so clearly in recent weeks when they refused to offer a private corporation the opportunity to enter into even partial competition with the government's personal air line.
But before I do that I should like to express as my personal view that one of the great strengths of this Conservative party lies in its continued adherence to the basic principles of free competition and free enterprise. Young men like myself, and young women, who have confidence in the future of this great country, and also a certain confidence in ourselves and in our ability to build for the future, do not want the golden opportunities of this future denied to us by a paternalistic government, such as the present one, which wants to do our thinking and our planning for us. We want to retain our independence, and we feel we can best do so as members of a party which stands for economic freedom of the individual and is opposed to the domination of the individual by the state.
To demonstrate how far the present government has crept, in secret and in stealth, toward socialism, I would like to
The Address-Mr. Hamilton show how closely their attitude toward their responsibilities, as expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself, parallels that which is openly set forth by the avowed socialists of this country.
The case for the socialists comes from a book entitled "Social Planning for Canada," which the late Mr. Woodsworth, then leader of the C.C.F. party, in a preface terms "undoubtedly in line with the Regina manifesto". Speaking of national planning, which is of course the base of the socialist approach to government, the authors of "Social Planning for Canada" said at page 222:
The basic logic of central planning is the need for some authority with the responsibility and the competence to see the economic problems of the entire nation as an integral whole.
And again at page 228:
Democratic decision on such highly technical points as whether tariffs should be low or high, or what the percentage of bank reserves should be, is naturally absurd.
And then at page 251, referring to existing control of some aspects of railroad transportation, we find this:
What is required is the consolidation of these controls, and then a deliberate use of them to forward a conscious and consistent social policy.
That, then, is the essential idea of socialists as expressed in this book. Turning to the stand of the present government, we have an address delivered by the Prime Minister at a meeting of the air industries and transport association. Doubtless realizing the weakness of his entire position, he starts out by defending it by a comparison between the jet aeroplanes of today and the wood-burning locomotives of 40 to 75 years ago when he says that the federal government-
-wants to prevent a recurrence of abuses that occurred in Canada's early days when lines were built where there was not enough traffic to support them.
Surely, if he had any comparison to make, he could have found something of the present day, instead of using the dead hand of history to try to arrest our progress in 1953. Then the Prime Minister, in his address, proceeded to lay down very clearly the premise that the present government has decided it will supplant the normal economic processes of a free society. He said:
We will endeavour to determine whether there is enough business in sight for two lines to serve the public at reasonable rates and with reasonable profit.
The decision of the cabinet, he said, would be based on-
1.	What is best for the public, not just for a short period, but indefinitely;
2.	What will be best for the air industry itself.
346	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hamilton
So here we have the whole damning indictment of a government which has divorced itself from its past great traditions, traditions to which it still pays lip service on every occasion and behind which it hides from time to time when public opinion is outraged, a government which has today embraced and outwardly avows in the words of its first minister some of the basic principles of socialism.
To put my argument in the briefest possible terms, let me say that the base of socialism is state planning; and the present government claims it can decide what is best for the public, not just for a short period but indefinitely, and what will be best for industry itself.
In a free economy, and under free enterprise, such decisions are made by business, by industry, and by the market-place; in a socialist economy they are made by the government. Since these decisions are now being made by the government, it is obviously a socialist government, no matter how much it may protest otherwise.
I encountered recently an interesting example of the way in which this government conducts its business, and it is another telling indictment of its tendency to build up groups of people on the public payroll without any clear idea of what they are doing, or whether they are continuing to do it.
The case I have in mind is that of the fisheries prices support board, an idea which is probably extremely sound in principle. In the twelve months ending March 31, 1953, this board were almost inactive, however; they paid out only $36,500 in a total of 1,307 cheques. Any business firm would handle such an undertaking as the part-time responsibility of one clerk. The present government retained twelve full-time employees to do the job, including an executive director, a marketing officer, a departmental accountant, a departmental solicitor, an economist, two technical officers, four clerks and a typist, plus another economist on a part-time basis. All told, including some $7,200 in travelling expenses and $3,374 for sundries, the operation set back the taxpayers $65,903.17, for the administration of a board which paid out about half that amount in actual subsidies.
The explanation offered is, of course, that when this top-heavy group is not busy supporting fish prices-and that is most of the time-they are doing other work. This brings up another interesting point, however, and that is the extent to which this government is using civil service employees for jobs other than the ones for which they are ostensibly employed. The answer to this


question is hidden somewhere behind the smokescreen which hides so many of the government's actions; but certainly we have here a clear-cut case of one thing or the other. Either we have twelve people doing less than one person's work, or we have twelve people employed for one job and doing another without the knowledge or consent of this house. In either case it is a scandalous proceeding.
Another interesting report which crossed my desk recently was that of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a government body which in its own opinion and that of the government knows better than Canadians themselves what radio and television programs they like to hear.
On the face of it the C.B.C. had a successful year, for despite a loss of over $2J million on their television operations they have a net over-all operating surplus of some $375,000. This looks good in print, and will doubtless crop up from time to time in government speeches across the country, but what we will not be told is how this profit was arrived at. The method was this. First, the government kicked $6| million into the kitty from public funds in the form of a statutory grant; then an additional $5,725,000 was received from licence fees, making a total of $11,975,000 which the C.B.C. received from the taxpayers of Canada for performing a service which, under a government less socialistically inclined than the present one, private enterprise would perform for nothing.
Put another way, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the past year had a net loss of over $11J million, all of which was picked up by the taxpayers of this country, either in straight grants or in licence fees. Since the total revenue from time charges of all private radio stations in Canada last year was just about $12 million, this means that the government could have bought time for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days in the year, on every private radio station in Canada for the amount of money they poured into the C.B.C.
Before leaving this question I would just like to express my hope-and a vain hope I am afraid it is-that the C.B.C. can be persuaded to release its stranglehold on television in our major cities of Montreal and Toronto, also Vancouver, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Halifax, and allow private television stations an opportunity to go into action. In Montreal, years after we might have had a private television station, the C.B.C. finally got theirs into operation. Now they are creeping toward a second, which will doubtless enable them to accumulate bigger and

better deficits; but there seems not one iota of hope for private enterprise in this field in our major cities.
I am continually intrigued by the mental gymnastics which various members of the cabinet go through in order to try to convince Canadians that some government action or policy, of doubtful value, is really beneficial to all and sundry. I am sorry I have selected the Minister of Finance because he is a nice gentleman and sent me a pleasant note this afternoon.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I congratulate you; you could not quote a better source.


William McLean Hamilton: When the Minister of
Finance spoke in Montreal some time ago he attempted to show that our taxes were really not very high after all. Of course he admitted they looked high in relation to past history, but then when you deducted the cost of defence, they were lower, and when you deducted the costs of social security measures they were still lower; in fact, if you deducted enough items you finally reached a point where the federal government's share of the tax dollar was less than it was in 1939. To me, this comes close to the story of the farmer who decided to teach his horse to go without eating; he just had it properly trained and down to one straw a day when the horse died.
The man who collects my taxes, and those of both the citizens and the corporations of Canada, however, seems never to have heard of the finance minister's teachings, and some of us horses who never got onto anyone's payroll are finding that we, too, are pretty well down to our last straw.
The effect of this policy of high taxation, bitter as it is at the present time, will not be fully felt until such time as our Canadian economy encounters a period somewhat less prosperous than at present; then serious difficulties for which this government will be directly responsible are certain to arise.
The reason is simply that this government has denied us, both as individuals and as private enterprise, the opportunity to lay aside adequate reserves to carry us over an adverse period. High taxation-continuing, cruelly heavy taxation-has taken away from us much of the money which normally we would have salted away for a rainy day. When that day arrives-and arrive it must- we will have nothing to cushion the shock.
Some consideration for business and industry in this regard is especially important, for unless the government is going to continue the long strides it has already made in invading the field of private enterprise, and socialize us completely, it is to private enter-Drise that Canada must still look for her
The Address-Mr. Hamilton future development and her continuing prosperity. If this is so, then we must allow the businessman a reasonable measure of freedom to prepare himself for whatever the future may bring.
One measure which I would recommend to the Minister of Finance for his consideration in preparing his budget is a provision allowing corporations to set aside a portion of their profits, before taxation, in a reserve fund to be used in subsequent years for sales promotion, advertising and the like. Time and again it has been shown that lagging sales can be revived and increased with additional emphasis on the marketing side of the business. As sales pick up, so does employment, so do purchases of materials, and soon things are going well again.
Therefore I suggest that we try to direct a portion of the company's profits, or shall we say make it possible for them to use a portion of their profits in work of this kind. Such a procedure does not of course deprive the government of any tax revenue over a period of time. While they may lose it this year they will pick it up in subsequent years when the fund is used. Not only will they pick up the revenue from such a fund, but they will have the additional advantage of increased sales and profits; and heaven only knows that the day is far distant when this government will not take a generous bite of whatever profit any of us manage to make in our business.
In the years to come, with the tremendous productive capacity we have built up in this country, and with our steadily growing industrial complex, the people who move merchandise from the end of the production line into the hands of the consumer

the salesman, the advertising man, and those associated with them-are going to play a vital part in ensuring prosperity. As someone has said, nothing happens until somebody sells something to somebody. If this is so, then surely we should do all in our power to see that our marketing effort continues at a high level and I would like to think that the suggestion I have offered is perhaps one way of ensuring that.
Indeed I think my party, with its foursquare stand in support of free enterprise and its realization that the people of this country are better able to develop their own destiny if they are unhampered by stringent government controls and restrictions, holds a solution to the problems of our day which will be supported by Canadians long after the socialist philosophies to which we are now subjected have passed into history.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr, Speaker, unless you are getting weary of

The Address-Mr. Maclnhis hearing it, I would like to be included among those who have congratulated you upon the high position which you now hold in this house. Your election to the position of Speaker was a personal pleasure to me. I am sure you will serve the members of this house with satisfaction and yourself with credit, and add honour to the country.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) for the very kind references he made to me when he spoke last evening. I am sure that if he continues to be a member of this house as long as I have he will find as I have found that no matter what differences-political, philosophical or economic-he may have with the members of this house, they are kindly and sympathetic. That has been proven to me over the past few years, and I am quite sure every member will find the same thing if he is here long enough.
Mr. Speaker, we are meeting at a time which is very reminiscent of the days when I first attended this house, the 1930's. We were then embarrassed with surpluses, and it appears that today we are again beginning to be embarrassed with surpluses. Indeed, I believe that we are at the beginning of one of the periodic dilemmas of the capitalist system. We were free of them for quite a few years because of artificial conditions, but if the world is going to have peace we can expect to have those dilemmas again. I believe we are confronted with the age-old dilemma of the capitalist system-how to distribute to the people the things which the people produce. That has never yet been done. I hope we have learned sufficiently during the past few years so that we can do it this time.
This is not solely my own point of view. I have in my hands a copy of the Montreal Gazette for November 23, 1953, which reports upon the food and agriculture organization meeting in Rome. The report says that they are meeting at a time of falling prices and mounting stocks of unsold food, particularly in North America.
Now, would not one believe that in a rational society we would be glad to have great stocks of food and falling prices so we could buy that food? Unfortunately that is not the case. When prices fall, when goods become abundant, then our troubles begin- oh, not the troubles of all of us, but the troubles mostly of those who produce the goods. The organization is meeting in Rome to try, as they say, to bridge the gap between the few who have abundance and the many who are hungry. I wish them success, because their success will be our success.


Since I came down here I have heard proposals that we should give some of our surpluses away to people who are less fortunate than we are. I fully agree with that and, as a matter of fact, I have a resolution on the order paper to that end. I hope we will find ways and means to help people who need our help. We will then not only help those people with food and other things, but we will help to build conditions in other parts of the world that will promote the peace which we all seek. However desirable that may be, it will take a little time.
I had been thinking this over and before I left home I came in contact with many people in my constituency and in other constituencies around Vancouver. I feel quite sure there are large numbers of people in the great city of Vancouver who could do with some of the goods we have in surplus today. I say, why not make some of our foods available to those among us who need them? There are many living on old age security and old age assistance pensions who find it difficult to get along on their incomes. They could use to great advantage a little more bread, a little more butter, a little more meat and a little more of many things which we are wondering how to dispose of. I say that $40 a month is not a living income for anyone in these days of high prices. The time has come, indeed I think it long overdue, when the amount of the pension should be raised. Could there be a better time than this, when our storehouses are bursting at the seams with the good things of life, to raise the pensions of those on old age security and old age assistance so that, in their declining years, they could have a little more of the things the rest of us enjoy?
Another thing that came to my attention is this. During the last four or five months I have noticed that the price index has been going up; that is, the cost of living has been rising. The explanation that those who prepare the cost of living index give us for the rise in the index is that food prices have been going up. But as I hear it from the farmers, their trouble is that food prices are going down. How can it be that the cost of living to the consumer is going up because of increasing food prices when prices to the farmers, to the producers, are going down? If that is the case-and if it is not the case someone is giving out wrong information-I think the time has arrived when this government should institute an investigation by a royal commission or otherwise to try to find out why it is that when food prices go

up, the producer gets a smaller share of the consumer's dollar. That is a matter to which we should give our attention.
Then there are other people among us who are not getting sufficient to live on. There are those on war veterans allowance. Session after session members from this side of the house have pleaded with the government for a better deal for those unfortunate people. Session after session our pleas have been ignored. However, I am going to suggest again that the government take an early opportunity to act on the recommendations made by the Canadian Legion. I do not believe those recommendations are unreasonable. As a matter of fact I believe they are very reasonable.
The recommendation with regard to the basic rate is that for a single person it be raised to $60 a month. These men on war veterans allowance had to serve in a theatre of war; in other words they had to put their lives in danger. When you take that fact into consideration, I do not think $60 a month at today's prices is too much to ask for these men. Then for the married veteran the Legion suggests $120 a month. They also propose that the ceiling on total permissible income should be raised to $1,200 for a single person and $2,000 for a married veteran.
Speaking for myself, I have never been able to understand why the government or anyone else should be opposed to allowing persons on war veterans allowance to add, by earned income, to the income which the allowance gives them. I have said in this house before, and I say it again, that I believe it would be good for the veteran in the first place, because it is good for a person to feel that he is a useful member of society and that he is helping to keep himself. If he can help to keep others also, so much the better. If it is good for the veteran, it is also good for the country.
Shortly before I left home a woman called me on the telephone. She is on the widows' pension or allowance and she has also, I believe, a little additional income. She is a woman somewhere over 60. An offer was made to her that if she would help to look after an old lady, she could earn $10 a month. She went to see the Department of Veterans Affairs, so she told me, and they told her that if she took that position-do you call a job of that kind a position or is it just a job-a deduction would be made from her pension or allowance or whatever you call it.
I think that is a terrible situation. It would be good for this woman to take this work. She has nothing particularly to do. Because
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis she has nothing to do she must feel frustrated-as would every one of us-and, as we say, get fed up with life. Here she would get something to do, she would get a little bit more income and everyone would be better off. But no; we do not believe in that sort of thing. We believe that these people should get along on the meagre income the allowance provides.
Many people have come to me to ask my advice. Many of them have taken jobs without getting permission, then have found themselves caught and over a long period of time have had to pay back money that was earned and spent. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time that we stopped that sort of thing. I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who said the other evening that if the allowance cannot be increased now, legislation to raise the permissible income should be introduced at once. I hope the government will see its way clear to have that done.
Then there is another group which could be helped. I refer to the blind pensioners. I imagine that most members, or at least all the members from British Columbia, received a brief that was approved by the Canadian Council of the Blind and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind urging that, for the age group 21-69, the basic federal allowance of $40 a month be assumed by the federal government and that it be given without a means test. There is much that one could say in support of that proposal, but as others have said it already I will not repeat what has been said but will content myself with saying that I am supporting it.
I now wish to say a few words with regard to the amendment and the subamendment. The amendment reads as follows:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that the welfare of Canada is dependent upon free competition; and that the prosperity and security of all Canadians will be advanced by government policies which will restore markets for primary products and generally promote a high volume of international trade.
That was moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) on Monday, the 16th of November. We have moved to amend that by deleting the first phrase, that is, "We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that the welfare of Canada is dependent upon free competition". Then we have added:
We further represent that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial participation.
The leader of this group and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. 350	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis Knowles) dealt with that matter fairly fully, and I am only going to say that as far as I could find in the province of British Columbia during the federal election campaign all parties were in favour of national health insurance. At least the candidates of all parties in that province were in favour of national health insurance.
I note that today the medical profession is working frantically to get some sort of prepaid health insurance going so that they will not have to accept a state health insurance plan. They agree it is becoming absolutely impossible for the ordinary person to pay the high cost of medical and hospital services today. Anyone who has had experience with medical and hospital services during the last few years will know how much those costs have gone up. I have been talking to doctors and they tell me they are quite convinced that it is only a matter of time until national health insurance will be forced on us by the needs of the people of the country.
I am not going to deal with the amendment to any extent. I note that, according to one of the Ottawa papers, the Leader of the Opposition has called his party back to free competition. All I wish to say in that regard at the moment is that he has to take his party back a very long way before he will get free competition. If there is anything that is missing in business today it is free competition, and I think I can prove that to the hilt before I finish my speech, which will be tomorrow.
I asked the director of the combines investigation branch if he would give me a list of the reports made by that branch since 1945. He supplied me with a foolscap sheet of items, and the last report was tabled in the house this afternoon. The list begins with a report on Canada and international cartels made in 1945. It is a general report and not connected with any specific offences in Canada, but I would like to read to the house some of the conclusions of the committee that drew up the report. On that committee there were several Canadians of distinction. One of them is now chief justice of the province of Ontario. Another is principal of Queen's University, and some of

them are still in the service of the government. I will just read one paragraph from the section on page 66 dealing with conclusions and recommendations. I am sure the government has not acted on the recommendations made in this report. The report reads:
Chapters I to III describe some of the cartel arrangements which affect Canadian imports, exports and internal trade in a number of commodities. Those examples illustrate the power of cartels . . .
To do what? Now listen:
... to eliminate competition and to control production and distribution in wide areas of trade. The allocation of markets through restrictive arrangements made by private interested parties impinges on government authority over foreign trade and may nullify national trade policies developed to serve wider public interests.
While the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition is calling his party back to free competition they are urging the government to find markets, and wherever governments try to find markets they are met by the controls and the arrangements and the agreements of international cartels which are above governments, which ring a bell and governments come around and ask them what they want. The report continues:
Government policies to encourage either imports or exports may prove ineffective if private barriers to such trade are erected by cartels. The reservation of the domestic market to particular producers may be as effective as a prohibitory tariff in barring imports. The allocation of import or export quotas by cartel agreement subjects foreign trade to quantitative limitation although such control may run counter to public policy. Ways must be found to prevent private business organized as cartels from supplanting government in the establishment of such commercial policies.
I would like to know what the government has done to carry out that recommendation, and I would like to know what the opposition has to offer the government in order that they may carry this out so that then we may have some free competition in business.
On motion of Mr. Maclnnis the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Note from the State Department to the Canadian Embassy, Washington, dated October 29, 1953;
2.	Note from the Canadian Embassy, Washington, to the State Department dated November 4, 1953;
3.	Note from the State Department to the Canadian Embassy, Washington, dated November 19, 1953;
4.	Note from the Canadian Embassy, Washington, to the State Department dated November 25, 1953.

[Stage Direction]
Text of note from State Department to Canadian Embassy in Washington, dated October 29, 1953:
"The Secretary of State presents his compliments to his excellency the ambassador of Canada and has the honour to advise that the Department of State has been informed by Mr. Robert Morris, counsel for the Senate internal security subcommittee, of his desire to interview Mr. Igor Gouzenko in Canada. Mr. Morris has further inquired of the Department of State how such an interview could be arranged. He has been informed that his request would be submitted to the government of Canada through its embassy in Washington.
"Mr. Morris desires the department to mention that he has noted the publicly expressed desire of Mr. Gouzenko to talk to the Senate internal security subcommittee, and that the chairman of this committee, Senator William E. Jenner, considers this offer to be valuable.
"It would be appreciated if the Department of State might be informed concerning the reply the Canadian government desires to be made to Mr. Morris on this matter."
Text of note from Canadian Embassy to State Department, dated November 4 1953:
"The ambassador of Canada presents his compliments to the Secretary of State and,
in reply to his note of October 29 transmitting a request from Mr. Robert Morris, counsel for the Senate internal security subcommittee to interview Mr. Igor Gouzenko in Canada, has the honour to state as follows:
"1. Apparently Mr. Morris' wish to interview Mr. Gouzenko arises from the fact as stated in your note of October 29 that he has 'noted the publicly expressed desire of Mr. Gouzenko to talk to the Senate internal security subcommittee'. This presumably refers to a statement attributed to Mr. Gouzenko in an article in the Chicago Tribune that he had some further information.
"2. Before this request had been received from Mr. Morris, Mr. Gouzenko had already been questioned concerning his alleged statement since, if there had been any additional information, it should have been given to the Canadian authorities. Mr. Gouzenko, however, denies that he has any further information beyond what was reported in the royal commission's report.
"3. Mr. Gouzenko states that he has been misquoted by the Chicago Tribune and denies both the alleged remarks concerning additional information and the alleged criticism of the handling of the case or the use of the information derived from it.
"4. Under these circumstances, it is presumed that the reasons for Mr. Morris' request to interview Mr. Gouzenko have disappeared.
"5. All information connected with this case which could be of value to the United States government was promptly transmitted without delay as soon as it was available."
Text of note from State Department to Canadian Embassy in Washington, dated November 19, 1953:
"The Secretary of State presents his compliments to his excellency the ambassador of Canada and has the honour to refer to the ambassador's note No. 807 of November 5 with regard to the request of Mr. Robert Morris, chief counsel for the internal security subcommittee of the Senate committee on the judiciary, to interview Mr. Igor Gouzenko in Canada.
[Stage Direction]
External Affairs
"The information in the ambassador's note was conveyed to the chief counsel for the internal security subcommittee, but its chairman, Senator William E. Jenner, has now written to the Secretary of State that 'there are certain facts on espionage in the United States (originating with Gouzenko) now in the record of the internal security subcommittee which do not appear in the report of the Canadian royal commission'. Senator Jenner attached to his letter to the secretary a subcommittee press release of November 7, 1953, containing the text of the previous exchange of notes between the Secretary of State and the Canadian ambassador on this subject, with comment by Mr. Morris, including the following:
"Certainly the excerpt in the secret security memorandum of 1945, which has become known as the 'Nixon memorandum' concerning the fact that the secretary to the Secretary of State Stettinius was a Soviet agent, was not in the report of the royal commission.
'There are also other statements in that same memorandum which likewise were not published in the royal commission's report'.
"In view of the foregoing, Senator Jenner has asked the Secretary of State to renew to the Canadian government the subcommittee's request that Mr. Gouzenko be made available for questioning by the subcommittee".
Text of note from Canadian Embassy to State Department, dated November 25, 1953:
"The ambassador of Canada presents his compliments to the Secretary of State and has the honour to refer to his note of November 19, 1953, concerning the request of Senator William E. Jenner, chairman of the internal security subcommittee of the United States Senate committee on the judiciary, that the Canadian government make Mr. Igor Gouzenko available for questioning by the subcommittee.
"Careful consideration has been given to this request, taking into account the special responsibility which the Canadian government has assumed for Mr. Gouzenko's protection and the arrangements which have been made to provide a new identity for him, his wife and his family.
"Mr. Gouzenko has been given the rights of Canadian citizenship and he is, therefore, at liberty to give his views on any question to anyone in Canada or the United States. He naturally must consider for himself the effect of his actions on the special measures that have been taken in his own interest and at his request, to protect his security and to conceal his identity.
"The Canadian government fully appreciates the importance of full and close cooperation between Canada and the United States in exchanging information important to the national security of both countries. All information, without any exception, which was provided by Mr. Gouzenko to the Canadian government, has always been made available to the competent United States authorities as it became available to the Canadian authorities. Moreover, facilities have been extended to the United States authorities to clarify any point arising out of Mr. Gouzenko's evidence or views. In this connection, the federal bureau of investigation has had access to Mr. Gouzenko as and when requested. Mr. Gouzenko has, in fact, been interviewed on the F.B.I.'s behalf on a number of occasions, the latest date being August, 1950. This has been the situation since 1945 and remains the situation now.
"The material secured in this way by the F.B.I. included information which was not made public in the report of the royal commission because such information related to activities outside Canadian territory which was not relevant to that report.
"In addition to the facilities used and available to the F.B.I., the Secretary of State will recall that in May, 1949, the United States government requested the Canadian government to arrange for representatives of the immigration subcommittee of the United States Senate committee on the judiciary to interview Mr. Gouzenko confidentially in relation to the subcommittee's examination of specific questions relating to immigration procedures. The Canadian government made the necessary arrangements and the interview with Mr. Gouzenko took place under Canadian auspices in the presence of a member of the United States embassy and two representatives of the subcommittee. Mr. Gouzenko's evidence included general statements on the operation of soviet espionage networks, as well as such information as he had concerning operations in the United States. This interview revealed no information which had not already been made available by the Canadian authorities to the competent United States authorities.
"The note of November 19 from the Secretary of State refers to a 'secret security memorandum of 1945'. The memorandum referred to was apparently prepared by and is in the possession of the United States authorities. The Canadian government is unaware what information is contained in this memorandum. In so far, however, as the excerpt from it in the Secretary of State's

note which refers to a United States official is concerned, all such information from Mr. Gouzenko's testimony was conveyed to the F.B.I. through their representative in Ottawa.
"As stated in the note addressed by the Canadian embassy in Washington to the State Department on November 4,	1953, Mr. Gouzenko has denied to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that he has any further information to communicate.
"It is in the light of the foregoing considerations that the Canadian government has examined the second note of the Secretary of State on this matter. It is noticed that, whereas the first note forwarded a request of the Senate internal security subcommittee to interview Mr. Gouzenko in Canada, the
External Affairs
present request of the chairman is that he be made available for questioning by the subcommittee.
"The Canadian government believes that there has already been ample opportunity for Mr. Gouzenko to give information and make known his views to the United States authorities through established channels. Nevertheless, in view of the second note from the State Department, the Canadian government is willing, if Mr. Gouzenko agrees, to make arrangements for a confidential meeting, under Canadian auspices, at which any person designated by the United States government could be present, it being understood, as it was in 1949, that the evidence or information thus secured would not be made public without the approval of the Canadian government."
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 26, 1953