1953-11-20

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I refrained from pressing a question sent to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) because it had been, in effect, asked. The question was: Has the Canadian government at any time communicated to the government of the United States, or an agency thereof, any information on Harry Dexter White? Is the Prime Minister now in a position to give the house information on that?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Secretary of State for External Affairs had to be away today on other business. I was discussing the matter with him before he left, and he will be in a position to make, I think, quite a full statement about the matter. To my knowledge there was never any information about this Mr. Harry Dexter White originating from Canadian sources.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he will be able to make a report soon respecting the recent meeting held with representatives of the Canadian Indians?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, a conference was held two weeks ago, and we considered amendments to the Indian Act. If we decide to introduce them I shall make a full report at that time. If we decide that amendments are not necessary I shall make a full statement when the estimates of the department are reached.



REPORTED POSSIBILITY OF SALE TO PRIVATE INTERESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he tell the house whether there is any truth in the report that the Canadian government plans to sell Polymer Corporation to private interests?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have not heard that report. If there is such a report I would say that there are no present plans to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Such reports have been attributed to the minister.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 19, 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. Coldwell.
(Translation):
Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, before concluding the few remarks I started last night, while you were not in the chair, may I offer you my congratulations upon your elevation to the office of Speaker. I am confident that you will fulfil the duties of that office to the satisfaction of all of us, because you are a hard-working and highly competent man.
Last night, I was speaking of the co-ordination that should exist between the Family Allowances Act and the compulsory school attendance act of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, if I may, I shall continue to speak on the same subject this afternoon.
The compulsory school attendance act is a highly social measure and its enforcement involves no penalties. No civil procedures, no fines. All that is replaced by the persuasive action of attendance supervisors and the active co-operation of parents with school
198	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. P. Gauthier board officers. That legislation applies to all children from 6 to 14 years of age, physically and mentally able to attend school. Therefore, a crippled child does not come under the compulsory school attendance act. The same applies to mentally deficient children whose intelligence is not sufficiently developed to enable them to benefit from school attendance, because they cannot be considered as being fit to attend school; therefore, they are not compelled to conform with the requirements of the compulsory school attendance act.
In other words, the obligation to attend school comes to an end when the child reaches the prescribed age on June 30, which is the last day of the school term. The obligation to attend school does not go beyond the seventh grade of the elementary primary school. Although it would be desirable to give crippled children a degree of education that would enable them to compensate for their infirmity, the compulsory school attendance act does not compel those children to attend ordinary schools nor any other schools set up especially for them. As I was saying, there should be perfect co-ordination between the Family Allowances Act and the compulsory school attendance act of Quebec and I am going to elaborate on that statement.
In order to be eligible under the act, all children of school age must attend school regularly, according to the legislation of their own province. Consequently, in the province of Quebec, to be entitled to family allowances all children must comply with the compulsory school attendance act. That does not mean, however, that all children must attend school in order that their parents may receive family allowances.
As a matter of fact, a child who misses school with the authorization of the attendance supervisor is entitled nevertheless to family allowances, as he is thus complying with the compulsory school attendance act of his province. It is evident that, for some parents, the fear of losing family allowances with regard to some of their children has forced them to send back to school children who otherwise would have stayed home; thus, the Family Allowances Act helps to enforce the compulsory school attendance act and is, in a way, a useful complement of the latter.
In conclusion it would be well to remember that it is not up to the regional family allowances office to decide whether an absence from school is legitimate or not. This is the responsibility of the attendance supervisor,

The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell Speaking in England, Viscount Samuel said:
The vices of Sodom and Gomorrah are rampant in our midst.
If that becomes general, retribution won't take the form of an earthquake or a conflagration. It will come in a much more tragical form: the insidious poisoning of the moral sense.
And he added further on these words- which fit in with the discussion we had in this house on divorce:
Adultery is looked on as a joke and divorce has become an incident of little moment.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks I want to quote words spoken by His Excellency Mr. Vincent Massey, the Governor General of Canada, which the newspaper Le Soleil quotes from a Canadian Press report:
Today, we seem to have lost sight of both the divine being and the divine plan. Rather we are faced with a great and terrible machine with no one in control.
We have before us not only a temporary disaster but a tragedy in the truest and deepest sense. Modern reason has confounded itself.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put those words on the record of the House of Commons in order to underline to what extent I endorse the thoughts of those two men who hold such important positions. Surely, they did not indulge in idle talk but said these words because they fully realized the vacuum about which I spoke a moment ago. It is all very well to be preoccupied with social security and to see to it that it is maintained; but let us not forget that spiritual and moral security is still better and necessary for the benefit of mankind.
(Text):


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, it is pleasant to be back here and to see familiar faces. I confess that I could have done with a few less of those who are so familiar and a larger number of strange faces. Nevertheless things are as they are.
To you, Mr. Speaker, I gladly express my pleasure, as others have done, at seeing you in the chair. We have come to regard you not only as a fairminded man but also- this is just 'as important-as a man who knows the rules. It has always seemed to me that the Speaker of this house has a task of peculiar difficulty to perform. He is somewhat like a judge who has to pronounce his judgments right on the spot without having the advantage of counsel, or perhaps having the disadvantage of too many counsel. In 
any event I join gladly in the congratulations which have been offered you so sincerely from all quarters of this house.
I am happy to congratulate the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Of course it was inevitable that the mover would do well because he is a graduate of Queen's University. I had no doubt whatever that he would acquit himself as he did. I congratulate the seconder particularly because without having that advantage he also did so well.
We have heard a great deal about the election and I have no doubt that we shall hear a great deal more. We must allow people their jubilation, and no one can deny that we are experienced losers. As on so many occasions, Churchill has something apropos to say of this situation. He said, "One of the attractive features of British parliamentary life is that every dog has his day. You sustain a grievous defeat at a general election, but in a very few months some parliamentary score cheers all hearts."
We will hope that the scores come along quite fast and that we will have much cheer during those years until the day comes in this country when we will be changing places with the people opposite.
Various people got elected' in various ways. The hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White) told us that he owed his victory largely to the visits of ministers to his riding. I had no advantage of that kind myself; I just had to get along alone. It does raise the question whether the results of the election might have been vastly different if the ministers had got around a bit more. I know of many ridings where they went and where the results were entirely satisfactory to us. I suggest that next time they get busier earlier and get around a lot more.
I want to say a word about that part of my leader's amendment which has to do with free competition. There again I should like to quote words of Churchill, who seems to have a text for almost every occasion. Speaking in 1945, looking forward to the end of the war and of course looking forward to being prime minister again after the end of the war, as I think he did, he said this:
At the head of our mainmast we fly the flag of free enterprise. We are determined that the native genius and spirit of adventure, of risk-taking in peace as in war, shall bear our fortunes forward, finding profitable work and profitable trade for our people, and also we are determined that good and thrifty housekeeping, both national and private, shall sustain our economy.
We all know that Churchill was not fated to guide the destinies of Great Britain immediately after the war. We all remember

that the socialists came into power. We all remember that there was something like an orgy of public enterprise which went on for five years until the Conservatives came back.
I think all of you will agree that the situation has improved since they came back. We remember some of the things the Conservatives have done which are of particular interest to us, such as opening up of commodity markets and the futures market for wheat, which is about to be opened up. Decontrol has now gone to the point that rationing is almost a thing of the past with good results for both consumers and suppliers.
In the meantime, and I have been particularly interested in this, it is illuminating to see what has happened to the mind of Labour in Great Britain. As I say, they had five years in which to try out their nostrums and, as so often happens when people have responsibility, they came to look critically upon some of the things on which they had been sure. Labour has begun to find that there is no magic touch in public enterprise, and they have developed a spirit of caution.
I cannot better indicate this to you than by drawing your attention to a few resolutions which were voted on at the recent Labour meeting at Margate. What interests me most is to see that large majorities were polled against resolutions in favour of more public enterprise. Mr. Speaker, I will draw the attention of the house to just a few of those. A resolution demanding that the entire armaments industry be brought under public control was defeated by 3,592,000 to 2,022,000 votes. A resolution calling for the nationalization of leading firms engaged in the manufacture of aircraft frames and engines was defeated by 3,979,000 to 1,855,000 votes. A resolution calling for state acquisition of controlling interests in firms making machinery of vital concern to the coal board was rejected by a vote of 4,282,000 to 1,784,000.
I need not go further to underline that point. It seems clear, and I think for this we must give the British trade unionists full credit, that they have learned a very valuable lesson in the last five years and they are now going very slowly.
I was particularly interested also in a resolution which demanded greater participation by workers in the management and control of national industry. This resolution was defeated by a large majority and Mr. Ernest Jones of the national union of mine-workers had stressed the necessity of holders of managerial positions being technically fitted to hold such posts. I should point out there that it was still felt that efforts should
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell be made to spread responsibility for management, but the sound trade union leaders seemed to me to take a very wise attitude in going slow on the whole business.
So much for Britain, and now to come closer to home. What is the attitude here in regard to this question? We have a lot of fair words, Mr. Speaker. Here are some fair words quoted in this house yesterday from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as found on page 176 of Hansard:
It certainly will be the practice of any government with which I am associated that, except in grave emergencies such as total war when all national resources have been marshalled for survival, governments should not interfere in the affairs of business so long as it is operating legally and performing a public service.
Well, we might say of that: "Good sentences and well pronounced." But let us see how those words are followed; and that brings me to quote some comments on what has already been discussed in this house, the decision regarding Canadian Pacific Air Lines.
I found the Prime Minister singularly unconvincing in his answer and in his reasons for refusal given in the house. I thought his reference to railways and water powers was singularly off the mark. We all agree that a charter to build railways, which involves vast expenditures and the expropriation of land and various other aspects which are far-reaching in their effects, must be scrutinized with particular care.
The illustration which the Prime Minister gave of water powers I thought was still farther off the mark. We all admit that water powers have a monopoly character which perhaps nothing else has, but to suggest that an application which involves the buying and putting into operation of a few aeroplanes should be considered in that way, as I say, seemed to me to be singularly off the mark. I do not think it was by arguments of that kind that the Prime Minister became a leader of the bar. In particular I was struck by the fact that apparently this monopoly is to have unlimited equipment. I suppose if the government will go on supplying it with equipment-


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the government has not spent one cent on equipment for T.C.A. in recent years, and it has no intention of providing any further funds for that purpose.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, as far as I could make out the Prime Minister indicated that there was to be provision for further equipment for T.C.A. but, in any
202	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell event, I make the comment that if the government wishes to go on supplying T.C.A. with equipment, then of course it will always be able to take all the business which is offering.
It is always interesting to see that other people agree with the view one takes. I am not one of those people who are in the happy position of believing they are always right and do not care what other people think. Therefore it has been of great interest to me to find the attitude, which has been fairly widespread, as indicated in the press, toward the decision which has been recently made. I read from the Regina Leader-Post of November 16, 1953:
Canadian Pacific Air Lines is a subsidiary of the C.P.R. As westerners, in particular, have good reason to know, the men who operate this company are hard-headed businessmen. It is to be questioned if they would have applied for an air cargo licence, if they had believed this service would not pay its way and would show a loss, rather than a profit every year.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, the government's worry about C.P.A.'s possible losses is touching. But it cannot be accepted seriously that it is C.P.A. the Prime Minister is really worried about. What he was thinking about, and what the government was undoubtedly thinking about when it made its decision this week, was Trans-Canada Air Lines.
Just a word from the Montreal Star of November 12, 1953:
It would be idle for the Star to pretend that it likes the government's decision to reject Canadian Pacific Air Lines' application to run a trans-continental air cargo route from Montreal to Vancouver. This newspaper believed that C.P.A. had presented a good case in offering a better service than had hitherto been available, and that its enterprise and initiative deserved both reward and success.
Then I have a reference in the Winnipeg Free Press of November 14, 1953. I often wonder what the Winnipeg Free Press might have been like if it had not fallen in with doubtful companions. Sometimes it seems so sound and sensible, especially when it is dealing with questions of freedom. Certainly they come through in clear style in this case. After referring to the reasons the Prime Minister had given, the Free Press had this to say:
Not one of these four reasons holds water. With due respect, neither the federal government nor the air transport board, whose recommendations the cabinet accepted, has any right to say that there is not enough air business to support two companies in competition and that Trans-Canada can meet all requirements.
Monopolies by their very nature are slothful, careless and improvident. If you don't like their service, you can lump it. Why should they worry, since there is no competition and nowhere else for the public to turn?
Competition on the other hand is a natural spurt and incentive. It stimulates and increases business.


Of course there has been certain speculation as to what took place in the cabinet and it is always interesting to imagine that, but I think it is reasonable for us to make one comment here. We all know this enterprise is a special baby of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Also we all know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce regards public enterprise not as most of us regard it, as belonging to the public, but he regards it as his own. He has told us that. In case he has forgotten, I would like to go back to the occasion on which he made that very clear. He did not leave it to inference; he made it beautifully clear on March 31, 1950, at page 1429 of Hansard. He was reporting on Polymer, and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said:
A pretty good recommendation for public enterprise.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
Well, this is different; this is my enterprise.


Mr. Mclvor:: Hear, hear.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are all pretty good; they all make money.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We all know that there is a way for monopolies to keep making money. The perplexing thing is that the minister always seems to make the best of both worlds. He tells us-and I think in a way he believes it-that he is a great protagonist of private enterprise, and that that is his real view. But when it comes right down to it, when he gets a public enterprise which in his own way he has made private by making it his own, then it seems to me he changes character and he does not want people coming around and competing with it unduly or making its way difficult. I hope that is a fair statement. I always like to be fair with the minister. I hope he accepts that statement and I hope the people of Canada will realize that that is the situation and that it is not an ordinary monopoly; this is a Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) monopoly and as such is to be regarded with question.
Of course this is not a new problem. This is, in a small way, similar to the huge railway problem which we had and which came up in the early twenties and again emphatically in the thirties during the depression. There were many faint hearts at that time who were all in favour of amalgamation. It is pleasant to recall that the governments of those days, headed by the late Sir Robert Borden, Right Hon. Mr. Meighen and the late Lord Bennett, would have none of it. I am quite sure now that everyone is happy that they took the action they did take, and that no one wishes

we had all the railways of this great country amalgamated. I am quite sure, in fact, that the railways themselves will say that the competition between them has been a good thing.
There we are, Mr. Speaker; there is the situation. Of course in the long run public opinion will decide the question. At the present time, if the newspapers can be taken as reflecting public opinion, I would say that there is a strong feeling running against the government in this matter. Of course, if it is strong enough the government will give way. After all, we are still a democracy. Sometimes it is a little bit hard for us to realize it but nevertheless I think we are, and I think the government will admit it. They will tell us that, and on the whole I think they believe it in spite of their actions occasionally. If it runs strongly enough, public opinion will force the government to do the sensible thing here and not merely give lip service, as they are now doing, to the principle of free enterprise.
Before I take my seat I wish to say a few words about the United Nations Organization. I spent a few days there and I feel it to be my duty to take a few minutes of the time of this house to say how highly important I believe is the work it is doing and how terribly dangerous it is that we may fall into the same apathy as that into which we fell twenty years ago with regard to the league of nations. It is for that reason that I wish to make a few comments on it.
It is merely expressing an obvious fact to say that if what the United Nations Organization is trying to do, namely to keep peace in the world, meets with failure, then of course all that we are doing here is just trivial and worthless. Everything that we are doing depends for its success or even for its existence on a peaceful world. It therefore seems to me that when we disregard, as we so often do, what is happening at the UN we are branding ourselves as people who have no real sense of values.
The psalmist says, "Seek peace and pursue it". The fact of the matter is that when we have peace we are bored to death with it. Peace is a tiresome thing. War is exciting and arouses people to effort; but as soon as we get peace we really become bored with it and most people will do nothing about it. If you have any doubt about that, go and ask the people who are trying to maintain United Nations societies and to stir up public interest just as people twenty years ago were trying to maintain league of nations societies.
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell
Madame Pandit, the president, the other day put the matter perhaps rather extravagantly but nevertheless in words which we may all do well to remember. She said yesterday:
. . . the UN charter once moved people to tears but now it is laughed at.
I think she is wrong there. I do not think it is laughed at. I think the situation is almost worse than if it was laughed at. It is just ignored. People are apathetic. I can well remember what many people used to say after the first war, when men were trying to make the league of nations work. Man, they said, is a fighting animal and he will always fight. I must say that the people who were saying that man was a fighting animal were often not those who had done any fighting themselves.


An hon. Member:: That's for sure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But that is just by the way. Another thing is this. It is not fair to leave it to governments. If we leave it to governments, as we did twenty years ago, we shall have the same results as we had twenty years ago. It will fail. That is exactly what we did twenty years ago. The situation today is extremely similar. Then we had Hitler. Now we have Malenkov.
To me, Mr. Speaker, it is tragic-I would use a stronger word if it can be found-to go back and read what was going on exactly twenty years ago. You can read it in the debates of the British House of Commons, in Churchill's opening volume "The Gathering Storm", or you can read it anywhere you like. What you find is that the league was being betrayed by its friends; it was betrayed by us. We can look back to the ignoble actions of our own government in the autumn of 1935 at the time of the invasion of Abyssinia and the oil sanctions. It was betrayed by the British government in 1936 at the time of the Rhineland incident, when Britain held the French back from doing anything. You find that in Churchill's book and it is as clear as it can be, if we look back, that if action had been taken there, Hitler and Mussolini would have gone up like toy balloons.
We have done better this time so far. The decision-what Churchill called the valiant decision-in June of 1950 has done what they failed to do in the 1930's. A beginning has been made in taking a stand by force against aggression. The task facing us all is to try to strengthen public feeling everywhere-and this country can have great influence-so that governments will be strengthened and

The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell we shall have no such failure as we had in the 1930's. I should like to read just a word from the beginning of the charter:
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and ... to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another . . . have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.
Those were noble words, as Madame Pandit said. It is eight years since they were written and sometimes it seems as if we had accomplished very little.
The first feeling you have at the UN is one of intense frustration and delay. How can it be otherwise when you have 60 nations together, large and small, rich and poor, all equal-and the smaller they are, the more determined they are to show their equality. You have debates that go on and on. You have chairmen who are timid, who are afraid-to crack down. The only cracking down I saw while I was there was that Madame Pandit did crack down on Vishinsky when he was out of order, and she choked him right off.
Nevertheless, in spite of all this, in spite of the frustration which I found among our representatives there, working hard and doing their best, I feel that if the United Nations Organization did not exist, we should get busy and- invent it as fast as we could. It is the only place where people can get together and talk out their differences, something which is far better than having them fester in- different quarters of the world. I had -the feeling that When people were talking together they would not drop bombs on each other. Therefore even an occasional little flickering sign of civilized behaviour on the part of the communists, or a civilized exchange with them, is all to the good. I was there one day when Malik was speaking. It was only on a question of procedure but when he was through Sir Gladwyn Jebb said: "I entirely agree with my Soviet colleague." People may say that is not very much. No, it was not very much but it just gives a tiny glimmer of hope in the darkness to feel that there could be as much civilized behaviour as that between the two representatives. As I say, I feel that it is better to talk than to fight.
There was a pungent answer given by Warren Austin, the United States representative, two or three years ago when some anxious lady asked him how he could sit and listen to so much talk and wrangling. But Mr. Austin gave a pretty good answer. "Madam," the ambassador said, "it is better for aged diplomats to get ulcers than for


young men to get shot." That puts it vividly and perhaps a little crudely, but it underlines the hope one has that as long as people are together there may be some way found.
I shall read a word or two from Jebb before I sit down indicating what he thinks is the real value and I doubt if anyone knows better than he does. I have always felt, ever since the league of nations was established that there is an illustration, an unanswerable argument, contained in that old cartoon, "The Better 'Ole". You will all remember the picture of the two men in the shellhole having a violent dispute, with shells bursting all around them. One says to the other angrily: "If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it." That is exactly the way I feel about the United Nations, that it is all we have, and we should try in every way to improve it.
I know people find it much easier to take stock in NATO and they compare NATO with the UNO. They say that NATO is doing -practical things and is getting ready to defend us, and they are inclined to write UNO off as a talking shop.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what NATO is doing, all it is trying to do, all it can ever do, is to act the part of a fire engine beside a highly inflammable building, hoping that if the building goes up in flames it may be able to put the fire out. On the other hand, it can do nothing and is doing nothing, it is not constituted to do anything, to try to improve the structure of the building. That is a job for UNO and if UNO does not do it I cannot see how it is ever going to be done.
Do not let us write off the accomplishments of the United Nations as if they were nothing. The putting into effect of collective security in Korea was a very great thing. Then there is the settlement in Indonesia and the settlement of the Italian crown colonies.
There is also the incident that happened when I was there. The security council summoned before it the representatives of Israel and of the Arabs who have been having a horrid border warfare going on for months. These two parties are before them. The security council has already made progress and it is reasonable to hope that it may progress still further.
I should like to read a word or two from Jebb, who sets out extremely well, I think, just what we may hope for and what we may not hope for from the United Nations. Speaking of the UNO, he says:
It is a centre in which the great problems now perplexing the world can at least be debated and more especially in which the free world as a whole can express its view and quite often come to fruitful and far-reaching decisions. Indeed if the UN were abolished or if it were reduced to what

might be called the hard core of the western world, the difficulties of maintaining the very concept of a 'free world', that is to say, of persuading the newly emergent nationalities particularly in Asia that the western world really does stand for freedom and democracy while soviet Russia stands for the reverse will be very greatly increased and the whole course of resistance to world communism seriously endangered.
I have one suggestion to make with regard to the United Nations. I feel that every organization depends on having there present, taking part in its deliberations, as many as possible of the top people, and I was greatly struck by the fact that the top people were not there. Dulles was not there, Eden was not there, the French foreign minister was not there, and our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) was not there either. I hasten to say that the last thing in the world I want to do is to suggest that our disarming and able Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) was not a good representative. He was a good representative, but I suggest that when we have a meeting of the world bank or the monetary fund it is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) who is sent. I suggest further that while I appreciate the difficulties of staying there, and I know there are other duties to be done, nevertheless you can telephone just as easily from New York to Ottawa as you can telephone from Ottawa to New York. I do feel that if these senior men were there more-and after all airplanes do annihilate distance-it would have two effects.
First, if would encourage the permanent officials, many of whom I met and with whom I was greatly impressed. I think it would encourage them. They have a difficult task. The new secretary general is a most impressive man, with political experience behind him, with youth, energy, and all kinds of charm and good qualities. I feel in his hands everything possible will be put into the job, but I do not think they can get ahead unless they are going to feel that the nations are really behind them.
That was one of the troubles of the league of nations. I am told that the late Lord Baldwin, when prime minister, never went near it. Although he used to spend his holidays within thirty miles of Geneva, I am told he never attended the league of nations. That must have made it harder for the league to succeed.
The second thing that I would think would happen is that if the senior men were there it would impart a certain sense of urgency to the proceedings. It would do something to do away with the frustration and the terrible delays which get our people down. We have a good staff there but the delays and frustrations do get them down.
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell
Now, just a word before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, to remind us of the extent of the danger. I read an article in the New York Times the other day. They said that we all hate to talk about atomic warfare, that we do not like other people to talk about it. Then they went on to say that it must be talked about, that we must face it together. I would like to read a word or two from two of our great men whom we rely on. They are not panicky. They do not run off in excitement over every danger that arises. A word from Churchill:
Britain and all other nations stand at this hour in human history before the portals of supreme catastrophe and of measureless reward. My faith is that in God's mercy we shall choose aright.
At our meeting the other day Eisenhower said:
These days demand ceaseless vigilance ... we are willing, nay anxious, to discuss with friends and any others all possible paths to peace. We will use every means from the normal diplomatic exchange to the forum of the U.N. to further this search. Beyond the shadow of the atomic cloud the horizon is bright with promise.
I have been discussing the UNO so far purely in its quality as a preventer of war, but that is not the whole story. The United Nations Organization deals with many other things besides war, and it may be these other things may be the best preventive of war. As you know, it deals with education, food and health and other such things. We who live in fortunate lands where we have never known hunger or cold have got to face the fact that we have moved into a world where hundreds of millions of people who have always been hungry, have always been on the verge of misery and disease, have wakened up to the point where they are no longer acquiescent. One of the things that struck me at the United Nations was that the have-not nations, the undeveloped nations, those we are trying to help, do not regard it as a favour on our part. They practically feel that they are entitled to help. They feel in their hearts that they have really been exploited by the rich and the powerful nations. That to me is a thing we must think about.
What are we going to do about Japan? What are we going to do about Germany? They have got to be fitted into the free world. They have got to be given a viable existence. Does anyone imagine, unless Japan can be given a viable existence, that she will go on co-operating with the free world? She will be driven in the other direction.
I have nothing further to say. These things are not going to be settled by little minds and little measures. They are going to demand courage and resourcefulness from us and perhaps some unselfishness too if we are going to work this thing through. Undoubtedly if

The Address-Mr. Bryson we neglect them we do it at our peril. It we find a solution such as Churchill hopes, then we may come into a heritage beyond our fairest dreams. On the other hand, if we think we can live and die in a kind of exclusive prosperity regardless of others we may suffer a fate with other nations beneath our darkest imaginings.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melforl):: This is a moment, Mr. Speaker, which I am not likely soon to forget, in rising for the first time to take part in a debate in the House of Commons.
First of all I should like to add my congratulations to those of others in complimenting the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) upon the return of his government to power in this country for the next four years. I think those of us in opposition should submit cheerfully to the will of the people.
While it is a great privilege for me to be here today as a representative of the people of my constituency, it does carry with it great responsibilities; not only to the people who sent me here, but I cannot help feeling an obligation to the man who has represented a great part of my constituency so ably and so well over the years in this house. I refer to Mr. Wright. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and for the information of hon. members, may I take this opportunity to say that Mr. Wright has just undergone a very serious major operation. I am sure I speak for a great many of Percy's friends here when I say that we wish him a speedy and satisfactory recovery.
It would be quite superfluous on my part to talk at length to the house about the constituency I represent. I am sure that on former occasions you have been told not only about the very fine people who live there but also about the productivity of the soil in that area known as the Carrot river valley. In passing I might say something about the composition of the constituency of Humboldt-Melfort. As you know, it is the result of the redistribution bill, and is composed largely of the old constituency of Melfort, formerly represented here by Mr. Percy Wright, and the old constituency of Humboldt, the representative of which during the twenty-first parliament was Joe Hetland.
I should like to say here that Joe Hetland's path and mine crossed many times during the campaign. I am doubtful if there is any member in the House of Commons who had an opponent who was any more fairminded or played the game any better than Joe did.
When agriculture is discussed in the house I am told that those of us from the west, particularly those of us from Saskatchewan,

are accused-and I imagine there is some justification for the accusation-of wanting to talk about wheat to the exclusion of every other problem faced by agricultural producers in this country. And if I follow that pattern this afternoon it is not because I am entirely oblivious to the very complex problems which I know are faced by other producers of agricultural products in this country, but rather that I may be a little better informed on those very acute problems being faced by the farmers of western Canada, and Saskatchewan in particular.
I think we should approach the discussion of agricultural problems in a systematic manner. First of all, do we believe there is a problem? Then we must find out why it exists. What are the reasons? Then we should suggest what we believe should be done to resolve some of those problems.
I believe I can say without fear of successful contradiction that, in so far as the welfare of the people of Canada is concerned, agriculture is and in all probability will remain Canada's most important industry. I am sure also that cereal grains must be considered a very important factor in the agricultural economy of the country. Therefore it is only natural that we in Saskatchewan should think in terms of wheat, because what a great many of us cannot forget is the fact that in Saskatchewan-and I do not say this in any boastful manner-we produce more cereal grain than all the other nine provinces of Canada combined.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we believe we may have some justification for continuously bringing this problem of wheat to the floor of the house. I was, to say the least, annoyed when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) read a telegram to the house from Mr. Roy C. Marler, president of the Alberta federation of agriculture, who obviously was speaking for himself. And I should like to have the opportunity, before very long, of telling Mr. Marler right to his face that that statement was ill-advised, unwarranted and entirely irresponsible.
Mr. Speaker, every barn door in western Canada is covered with figures to disprove that statement. We are told here-and I am not going to argue the point, because it is true-that Canada's national income is the greatest in its history. The inference of course is that agriculture shares fairly in that tremendous national income. But, as has been said over and over again in this debate, the facts disprove that statement. In spite of the fact that 23 per cent of all the people of Canada are actively engaged in agriculture, they share in only 11 per cent

of the national income. And, mind you, we were worse off in 1953 than we were in 1952.
According to a forecast in the agricultural review, a publication issued by the Minister of Agriculture's department early last year, this prediction was made:
Indications are that the farmer's costs of production will rise in 1953, and in all probability he will be asked to take less for what he produces.
While as yet we have not the complete figures for 1953, I think that forecast will prove to have been correct.
Then, again, the Canadian Pacific Railway is proposing that its freight rate structure in Canada be based on a return of not less than 6J per cent on its capital investment relative to its rail operations. They believe that 6i per cent on their capital investment is a minimum they must have in order that that industry may remain in a solvent position. Yet what are the facts? Again from the department's own figures over the past twenty years, in Canada agriculture has had returned to it on its capital investment less than 2 per cent.
I should like to mention one other thing to prove that there is something basically wrong with our agricultural set-up in Canada. This is recorded in Hansard of last year, in the income tax debate. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made the statement that he did not believe that 90 per cent of the farmers in eastern Canada made enough money to pay income tax, and he doubted very much whether more than 15 per cent in western Canada paid income tax, in spite of the fact that over and over again we are told that the farmer is in a mighty prosperous position, and that he had never had it so good in his life.
In the light of what I have said, we believe there is justification for this problem of agriculture being brought up again and again in the House of Commons. During the past five years we have seen surpluses of every product of agriculture pile up in this country. I will say that the government has been able to dispose of some of these products. They have been able to dispose of them, and we are not faced today with terrific surpluses for one reason and one reason only, namely that the farmers all across this country have cut back on their production. They could see no market; they could see no price; they could see no future in growing commodities which are so badly needed in the world today.
Had we had the foresight to accept sterling in part payment, had we removed those restrictions on the importation of goods from
The Address-Mr. Bryson in return for our products, possibly this condition never would have resulted; but we deliberately did everything we could to discourage trade with Britain, by the imposition of tariffs, taxes and duties on manufactured goods coming into this country. We deliberately discouraged that trade, and Britain, in frustration, had to turn to other countries to try to get these agricultural products where she could, and which she so badly needed.
But, Mr. Speaker, the reasons which I have outlined are not the reasons which were given to the people of Canada by the Minister of Agriculture for this dilemma we are in. He gave us other reasons. When he spoke to the Hudson bay route association the Minister of Agriculture said, "Great Britain does not want our food, other than wheat." He made that flat statement. British goods are not competitive in this country with Canadian and United States goods, we are told. We know that is false. We know that possibly some United Kingdom goods are not of the design that we are used to, or something like that, but in the main British goods are acceptable in Canada.
Then we were told that there was a problem of convertibility. We were told that if we accepted sterling we could not do anything with it. I submit to you that we can do lots of things with sterling. Many other countries of the commonwealth will accept sterling. Perhaps the best thing we ever could have done would have been to accept sterling as part payment and re-invest it in Britain in the form of credits, in order that Britain could rebuild factories that were destroyed during the war, and in that way enable her to manufacture more goods to trade with us for our agricultural products. We believe that could have been done.
Finally, when the federation of agriculture and the farm unions in Canada became worried about the loss of our United States markets, those few flimsy markets that we have there for our agricultural products; when they saw those markets going by the board, they asked the Minister of Agriculture to address the annual meeting of the federation of agriculture in Vancouver, and they put the proposition to him there. They said to him, "We must get back the British market which we have lost". The Minister of Agriculture said to them, "Great Britain today is buying beef from the Argentine cheaper than she can buy it in Canada. Great Britain is iable to buy bacon in Denmark for something like 30 cents a pound". In effect he said, "If you farmers want that kind of market, I will get you back the British market tomorrow;
the United Kingdom, in order that the United Kingdom could trade manufactured goods but you do not want that kind of market.

The Address-Mr. Bryson The farmers of Canada have priced themselves out of the British market".
To quote Shakespeare, "This was the most unkindest cut of all". Possibly there was some truth in what the minister said, but the farmers were not to blame for it. It was because of the policies which have been pursued by this government, which have allowed our cost of production to rise and rise until we have come to the point where it is pretty tough to compete with some of these other countries.
I am not too concerned about the price of goods we sell; I am not concerned about the price of pork or beef, or cheese or anything else. What I am concerned with is that there is no relationship between the cost of production and the prices we get for the things we produce. That is the key to the whole situation. These rises in the farmer's cost of production, Mr. Speaker, the unprecedented rise in the cost of farm machinery over the past five to eight years, the rise in the price of farm fertilizer, the rise in the price of farm fuels and everything else- these are the reasons why it is pretty tough for us to compete in some of these markets of the world. And the Minister of Agriculture says, "You fellows are to blame".
I shall mention only one other thing. I am going to speak for a moment about fertilizer, and when I am through with that I am going to make a request of the Minister of Agriculture. In 1943 fertilizer-and this is old stuff-


Mr. MacDougall:: That's for sure.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: -the government of Canada operated a plant in the city of Calgary to manufacture ammonium nitrate to be used in the explosives industry. As the war came to an end, this commodity began to pile up in the Calgary plant, so the government developed a process whereby it could be used in the manufacture of fertilizer. In 1945 the cost of production of that product was $19 a ton. In spite of the fact that the federation of agriculture over and over again insisted that the government maintain that plant for the use of the farmers of Canada, they sold it to the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company in Trail, the only monopoly in the fertilizer industry, as far as we are concerned, in western Canada. They sold the plant for 50 cents on the dollar; but what happened? In the summer of 1946 the cost of production under private enterprise rose from $19 a ton 
to $40.59 a ton, and it has been going up steadily ever since. Last year in Saskatchewan we paid $112 a ton for fertilizer.
Before I came down here the other day I was speaking to a fertilizer dealer, and he showed me a letter he had received from the Trail people, telling him that in the crop year 1954 fertilizer will be $120 a ton. It is probable, Mr. Speaker, that not too many farmers are going to be interested in fertilizer at $120 a ton.
The request I am going to make now of the right hon. Minister of Agriculture is this. Will he give serious consideration to having the whole fertilizer industry investigated under the Combines Investigation Act during this session of parliament?
The other day I was proud and happy to hear the Prime Minister make a declaration of faith. In <a few well chosen words he said that he believed there were spiritual values in this world to be taken into account. I agree 100 per cent with him. But we in this group believe that there is a practical application of these values. Something has gone wrong with the world. We are losing control of events. Things are happening and we are standing by. With the loss of that control we stand to lose our freedoms, our liberties and in the final analysis our democracy itself. Yet we hold in our hands a solution to this problem which we are not using; and every hour -and every day we neglect to bring that solution into being we earn the enmity of millions of hungry men and women in the underdeveloped areas of the world.
Remove hunger and its basic insecurity and we will have done much to help remove the explosive possibilities in these underdeveloped areas of the world. I care not whether we talk of a dictatorship of the communist variety or of the fascist variety, the fact is that these people are accepting these ideologies not because they like them but because they are ready to accept any ideology that holds out for them hope of survival.
I say again that hunger is the root of the political stagnation and economic frustration in the underdeveloped areas of the world. These people have not the strength, the health, the will or the ambition to set up democratic forms of government, let alone the industrialization which they need to maintain them. They are not interested in the ballot box; their first concern is for the bread box.
I am in favour of sending food as a temporary measure to alleviate hunger in some of these countries, but whatever we do

let us not use it as a bargaining power. Let us not feel that we have to send food to a certain area because communism is getting a foothold. Let us do this before communism or fascism gets a foothold. As I say, gifts of food are only a temporary solution and we must follow them up with the only sound solution there is, by providing technical aid.
We have been able to do great things in this country. I quote Sir John Boyd Orr, who I think is the best authority on the subject, who says that in the last 10 years in the United States they have been able to produce food twice as fast as their population has increased. It is significant that their population has increased at a rate faster than the population of India.
We hear a lot of talk about overpopulation. Ask anyone you like in what areas there is overpopulation and invariably he will say in China or India. This is not a fact, according to Sir John Boyd Orr. We picture the people of Holland as being happy and contented, and there are 713 people to the square mile in that country. In China where people are dying of starvation there are 103 people to the square mile. There are 718 people to the square mile in Great Britain; yet in India, where one million people died last year of starvation, there are just 271 people to the square mile.
I submit that if you remove hunger you automatically solve this problem of overpopulation. We have a responsibility to see that these people are provided with the technical know-how and the scientific knowledge to enable them to grow food as we have been able to grow food. We must pass our knowledge on as a positive effort towards peace.
Finally, we talk about our way of life. I think it is time we redeemed ourselves in the eyes of the world by making our way of life the universal way of life. We should do this just as a matter of mercy and decency. It is time we realized that we have a down to earth, practical solution to this problem which will do much to bring peace to the world.
I agree that the processes of peace like the processes of war do not come cheaply, but the returns will be never-ending in terms of prosperity, security and spiritual rewards. I believe that is a practical application of the Prime Minister's declaration of faith.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, at five minutes to six last evening I asked a member in the Social Credit ranks, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe), for permission to ask a question, which he
The Address-Mr. Goode refused. He was quite right. When I indicated that I wanted to ask a question an hon. member in the official opposition directed my attention to the fact that the hon. member was making his first speech in the house. I did not want to insist upon asking the question particularly, but a new member in this chamber must realize that if he takes issue with an hon. member on this side he forfeits the right that may belong to an hon. member making his first speech.
We know there is an unwritten law in this house that a member taking the floor for the first time shall be allowed to express his own opinion. However, the hon. member for Cariboo took issue with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite). When he is in the house a little longer than he has been at the moment he will realize that the hon. member for Skeena is one of the most respected members of this house.


Mr. Low:: He says foolish things just the same.


Tom Goode: So does the leader of the Social Credit party. I am sure that at the appropriate time the hon. member for Skeena will reply to the hon. member for Cariboo. I bring this up at this time because I wanted to have it understood that I did not wish to ask the hon. member an embarrassing question. Members of his group know that I have never made a habit of embarrassing gentlemen in the house. I believe that the hon. member's opinion is just as important to him as my opinion is to me.
The hon. member said he was having some considerable difficulty covering his constituency because of the lack of railroad facilities. That is not completely true, although I do not think the hon. gentleman wished to tell an untruth. There is in his constituency a railroad which is not controlled by the board of transport commissioners but rather by the Social Credit government of British Columbia. I would have thought that if the hon. member was having trouble in the administration of his constituency he would have received a pass from that railroad, as many others have.


Solon Earl Low: He does not need it, he has one.


Tom Goode: Last night he said he needed it. He said that the Social Credit government in British Columbia were interested in the proper administration of his riding. If they were interested in the administration of his riding a pass certainly should assist the hon. member in covering the distances he has to cover.
210	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Goode


Mr. Hansell:: He did not need a pass because he has one; we all have.


Tom Goode: You may answer me, sir, when your turn comes.


Ernest George Hansell: Then stop playing marbles.


Tom Goode: When talking about members making their first speeches, I hope that before too long the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) will make his first speech in this house. He is a gentleman with long experience in political affairs, having been the leader of the official opposition in the British Columbia house. I am quite sure that my friends in the official opposition will take the opportunity of asking him questions during the speech he makes. What is good for one should be good for another.
I want to compliment my hon. friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), who made an excellent speech in this house last night, although I cannot agree with the subject matter particularly. He has part of the riding that was taken from me on redistribution and, if he accepts my invitation, he and I will work together for the good of Burnaby. I believe that as Burnaby has been divided we can be more effective when working together than when working against one another.
I want to mention something about overseas trade and I am not going to talk about wheat, for I know nothing about it.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Tom Goode: I do know something about canned fish. The town of Steveston is located in my riding, and it produces more canned salmon than any other fishing village or town in Canada. I think the figures indicate that it turns out 80 per cent of Canadian canned salmon. Last year, when we had a particularly large surplus, retail stores in Steveston were in the position of being unable to operate, and a lot of them were closed. A lot of fishermen were out of work for many months. To prevent that happening again, my colleague from British Columbia, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), went to England some time ago and he is now in another country.
What is more important, I think, is that the fishing industry decided to help itself. Three or four members of the industry, whose expenses were paid by the industry, went to England a while ago to see what they could do about selling canned salmon. I expect that before too long the Minister of Fisheries will be able to report the effectiveness of that delegation to the old country. I hope


he will have been able to do what he did last year, when he sold some $4 million worth of canned fish to England.
When speaking about the old country, I have become very concerned about some of the remarks appearing in the English press to the effect that some of our public men are going to that country and making statements that cannot be justified in this house. Those gentlemen do not come from the House of Commons in Ottawa. Some time ago the premier of Alberta went to England.


Mr. MacXnnis:: To Britain.


Tom Goode: To Britain, yes. When he came back this is what he said, as reported in the press on November 2:
Premier Manning says the British people, steeped in the essence of the past, have great fortitude and stability but spiritually they are backward.
"Their life revolves around the dog races," Manning said in an address at the annual banquet of the Alberta division of the Canadian Medical Association.
Less than 10 per cent of the British population attend churches, he said, but the dog races are followed by thousands. . . .
Britain would have to regain her sense of spiritual values if she was to recover her world status.
He goes on in the same vein. I hear one of my hon. friends on the other side implying that I am talking politically. That is not true. I want to develop the idea that when our top men go to Britain or elsewhere they can most materially affect our overseas trade. I do not believe for a moment that the remarks by Premier Manning are going to affect sales of wheat to Britain. I do believe that his remarks as reported in the British press may affect sales of Canadian canned salmon to the British market.
If I may say so, Premier Manning is the last person who should come back to Canada and criticize the British people in regard to their attendance at the dog races because, I understand, one of the members of his cabinet is very much interested in horse racing; but Premier Manning has never done anything about that. Let him first put his own house in order.


Solon Earl Low: How do you know he has not?


Tom Goode: Do you know that he has?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Tom Goode: Well, he must have transferred the ownership of about fifty horses to someone else if they do not run under Mr. Maynard's name any more. Do you agree with that?


Solon Earl Low: No.


Tom Goode: Well, you and I will never agree.


Solon Earl Low: What was he to do, shoot them?


Tom Goode: That might have been a good idea, and if Mr. Manning's remarks were correct it might have been a good idea if he had shot some other things in Alberta.
The point I make is that when our junior political officials go overseas they should be very careful about the remarks they make because, although Mr. Manning's statements may not affect Alberta, they certainly are likely to affect sales of canned salmon by British Columbia.
The News of the World, a paper which some of you know, immediately after Mr. Manning's speech said that it might reflect on trade between Canada and Great Britain. Surely we are having enough trouble now without some of our political gentlemen going overseas and coming back with stories of this kind.
My hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Hansell) is anxious to interrupt me, and I will say that he made a speech in Vancouver some time ago and said that no other government in the history of Alberta but the Social Credit government had ever met the enemy head on. There was something else in that speech which I do not wish to read here, but if the remarks of Premier Manning are meeting the enemy head on, then I hope he will change his tactics when he goes overseas in future.
I wish to refer to another matter, Mr. Speaker, and this was mentioned by the Financial Times. I refer to the Doukhobors in British Columbia. Some time ago in Burnaby we witnessed the trials of those unfortunate people. The reason was that Oakalla prison farm is located within my riding. Those Doukhobor men and women were brought from the Kootenays to Burnaby and put in prison, and their trials were conducted in my riding. I attended the majority of the trials and I may say that justice has never been administered in a fairer manner than at the trial of those unfortunate people. Mr. Graham B. Ladner, who was the magistrate, excelled himself, I think, in his conduct of the trials. I have in front of me at the moment a lot of information in regard to every individual case that was tried. Not only did Mr. Ladner judge the cases entirely on their merits but, after convictions, he obtained reports from the probation officer to make sure that his final decision would be correct. I have the reports in front of me. Any of the hon. members who are interested in the Doukhobor problem might like to see it some time. The Financial Times, in a very small article, said the trials were held in the village of Jubilee in Burnaby. I would remark to the eastern
The Address-Mr. McLeod papers who wish to write about western affairs that Jubilee is not a village at all. Jubilee is a locality in South Burnaby.


Mr. Ferguson:: Did they get the bare facts regarding the whole matter?


Tom Goode: I will just let that remark go, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member had ever seen one of the naked parades, he would know that the bare facts are quite apparent. The locality of Jubilee is, as I say, part of South Burnaby. Within a mile in each direction I suppose there are 20,000 to 25,000 people residing. It is not a village at all; it is part of the municipality of Burnaby.
The paper also says that the trials were held in a little village hall. I may say that we have no courthouse worthy of the name in the municipality. The only one there is the basement suite in the municipal hall; and the trials had to be held in a meeting hall in South Burnaby, the only place in which they could be held in the locality. It is not a good place for a trial; it is more suited for meetings of organizations, but it was the only thing we had. I do not think the constituency is open to any criticism because we did not have a place to take care of other people's business, because the Doukhobor problem is not ours; it belongs to the Kootenays and I hope it stays there from now on. One thing that the Doukhobors have in common, I think, with shipping canned fish overseas is that they both should go overseas. We in Burnaby do not wish to see any more Doukhobors in the riding.
May I make a few remarks with regard to the war veterans allowance. I have received the same information as other hon. members; all of us have been discussing this matter with the Canadian Legion. Although I cannot go along entirely with the whole brief with regard to war veterans allowances. I feel that the minister should consider an extension of the permissible income. To those recipients of the allowance who cannot earn an income of their own I suggest that the figures in the brief should be applicable to these men who have given much to our country.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsfoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode), who has expressed a great degree of tolerance for new members in this house. From the remarks he has made I infer that he is not quite so tolerant of the government which the people of British Columbia have installed. However, I would suggest to the hon. member that he reserve his criticism until such time as that government has been allowed to show the
212	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McLeod people of British Columbia and the hon. member what they may do for them and him.
The broader aspects of the speech from the throne have been quite fully and intelligently discussed by previous speakers. The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Holling-worth) and the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve) have been deservedly congratulated on a fine effort and a worthy contribution to the discussions of the house. The increase in the number of lady members has been quite gallantly noted. In all these things I concur most heartily. At this time I should just like to let you in on a little secret. My opposition in the past election was a lady, and I mean a lady in every sense of the word. I refer to Miss Hilda Cryderman. She was a close runner-up in this election, and you almost had a fifth lady member. I am sure she would have been a graceful member had she been elected.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is incumbent upon the hon. members of this house and upon this government to tackle bravely and seriously the national and international problems mentioned in the speech from the throne. Canada today is one of the great nations of the world. Her voice is listened to with respect and her achievements in the defence of freedom and in the promotion of the democratic way of life have won the admiration of the civilized world. By the individual efforts of our people and by our system of free enterprise we have become one of the great industrial nations. Our people have mastered the art of production to such a degree that we have accumulated huge surpluses, mainly of foodstuffs, that have become a problem to our national economy. Those surpluses, I am afraid, create a problem of distribution for which our government has no answer.
No one will deny that millions of the people of the world are in daily need of our wheat, fruit, meats and fish. The problem is how to make our surpluses available to those people or, in other words, to place sufficient purchasing power in their hands to take from us the foods that we have accumulated in such great quantities. This problem must be solved. I would urge that our government take special heed of the advice offered by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). Hungry people are dangerous people and are prone to listen to the "isms" rampant in the world today. The best way to halt the red menace threatening the world is to make available to them the vast supply of our surpluses. I would


strongly urge, Mr. Speaker, that this house take prompt and immediate action to solve the problem along those lines.
May I now, Mr. Speaker, mention a few matters of local interest to me. The riding of Okanagan-Revelstoke is a new one. This fact alone is proof of the growing importance of the interior of British Columbia and of the province in general. I have been agreeably surprised that so many of the members of this house have visited or are planning to visit the Okanagan. Should they decide to make that trip in the near future, I can assure them that it would be a pleasant one. I can also assure them that it would be a pleasure to me to welcome any of them in our little town of Enderby.
In the last parliament my riding was part in Yale and part in Kamloops and was ably represented by the hon. members for those larger ridings. These gentlemen are still in this house and I should like to assure them that I will do my best to live up to the high ideals of service which they established. In a new riding it is perhaps fitting that the electors should choose a member subscribing to the new ideas and policies of the group in this house with which I am so proud to be associated.
I make these remarks, Mr. Speaker, despite the reference of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) who referred to the "wacky" people of British Columbia and their temporary insanity. Might I suggest that it is human and natural for a person to draw his conclusions from the people with whom he is most closely in contact. In such case this is not a nice reflection on the good people of Skeena. As to the temporary insanity, I trust this illness will have been cleared up before the next federal election, and the electors of Skeena will mark their ballots so as to cast no reflection on their sanity.
Despite the physical and material advantages of Okanagan-Revelstoke we have our problems. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for York Centre on behalf of the government make these remarks, as found at page 13 of Hansard, dated November 13, 1953:
In short, we represent not only the farmers of the prairies, the fishermen of the maritimes and the British Columbia coast, the fruit growers of the Annapolis and Okanagan valleys and the Niagara peninsula . . .
I would like to have heard a reference to the lumbermen of British Columbia. However, it is gratifying, Mr. Speaker, to have the assurance that the government is concerned about our people in British Columbia. When we see heavy shipments of fruit from south of the international boundary pouring

into our stores long after our own fruit is ready for market, it is no wonder we fear that we are being forgotten. Our fruit growers are not afraid to meet fair competition, but this is not fair competition. The United States fruit grower has received the high prices in his home and export market that early fruit commands, but when our fruit is at maturity it is put on our home market in competition with the tail end of the crop for which the United States grower is prepared to accept a very low price. It is from the early crops that the profit is made, but the United States grower has had his profit first and we maintain that the British Columbia grower should be given a chance. We know there is provision under the system of seasonal tariff changes to take care of this, but it usually happens that our home market is flooded before the provisions are enforced.
We have heard much about commonwealth trade and the closure of the sterling area markets. We have a glaring example of this in the loss of our apple market in the United Kingdom. This equally applies to markets for lumber, dairy products, fish and bacon. I trust, Mr. Speaker, this house will solve the problem of commonwealth trade and so bring to British Columbia and to producers generally a greater degree of security.
The interior of British Columbia produces more than fruit, Kamloops trout and sunshine. Our dairy industry is important. At Summerland we have an experimental farm maintained by the federal government, and it is a good farm. In connection therewith a herd of Jersey cattle has been maintained for years which has contributed much of the foundation stock used in the building up of herds in the province. New and proven methods of dairying emanating from this farm have meant much to our dairymen in the improvement of the quality of their products. Now we understand a move is under way to transfer this herd to eastern Canada. Jersey breeders throughout British Columbia and dairymen generally are incensed at this proposal, and I sincerely trust that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will explore all phases of this matter before authorizing such drastic action.
We do not have unlimited pasture lands at the disposal of our stock raisers. Every acre must be intensively farmed and cultivated. Most of our areas require irrigation. This is expensive. We have plenty of water in our creeks, lakes and rivers, and we especially urge that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act be fully applied to our province
The Address-Mr. Bell and that a wide program of development be undertaken. I shall have more to say on this at a later date.
I come now to a purely local problem of the people of the city of Vernon who are badly in need of improved postal facilities. During the past few years the population has tripled and is still growing. The Post Office Department has recognized the need, and a new and larger post office has been authorized. The site has been purchased and money was voted by the last parliament to get the construction under way. Still nothing has been done. Is it any wonder that the people of Vernon are asking why?
In Enderby we also need a new post office building. I have been given to understand that this will be built by a private individual under a long-term lease contract. I trust there will not be too much delay in the go-ahead signal for this project.
I was not sent to Ottawa solely to criticize the government. I am sure the citizens of my riding will expect me to remain true in my support of the principles and policies in national and international affairs that I have long advocated as a Social Crediter, and they will expect me to work while in this house for anything that will promote the growth and development of the riding and the welfare of our people as a whole.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Before beginning my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to express my compliments through you to our new Speaker. I realize that the words of a new member do not carry the weight of those of a veteran member of the house, but at least I want you to understand that they are sincere.
It was also very gratifying for me to note that younger members were chosen to move and second the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I also compliment them on their effort, and I am looking forward to exchanging words with them at a later date. I was also very much taken by the remarks of the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) the other day when he spoke in a poignant and nostalgic manner of the sea. I cannot hope to equal his words, but I must confess it is about the sea that I wish to speak today.
I have the honour to represent a large constituency, in fact one of the largest in Canada. Incidentally, it is very difficult to get around because I must pass through two other constituencies to get to the Albert county end of the Saint John-Albert area. It is reasonable to suppose that there is a
214	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bell diversified economy in an area such as this. We have both a rural and an urban population to deal with. There is no question, however, but that we depend a great deal on the all-year port of Saint John in our constituency. This port, which should be a $2 million enterprise, is wallowing in the doldrums of waste, extravagance and neglect, and it is mainly in this respect that I have been sent here as a member of the opposition to present their case for your consideration.
The truth of the matter is that export through the port of Saint John last season was as bad as at any other time since the depression years. We lost our profitable cheese and bacon markets, the wheat agreements have fallen through, and other products are not moving in the way they should. This is a story which shows how foolhardiness has reached into our very pockets and taken our earnings from us.
I would like to present here the story of what the bacon and cheese trade meant to this port in other years. The Canadian Pacific Railway sent two ships a week to our port for this business. The Donaldson line sent two, as did Furness Withy and the Manchester line. Each of these ships-and there were eight of them-called there each week during the season. They needed four gangs per day and four gangs per night for purposes of unloading and loading. There are from 16 to 22 men employed in each gang, so that amounts to approximately the employment of 1,280 men. Each gang was good for up to 40 hours of work on a ship. Up to forty gangs of longshoremen lost approximately 40 hours a week at $1.78 an hour. Also checkers, shipliners and others concerned with work on ships suffered a loss in their wages, as did railway gangs who dropped up to 40 hours per week per man at $1.45 an hour.
Direct wages to these highly regarded port workers amounted to $15,000 per ship, and you will remember that there were these eight ships. Yes, $120,000 was involved. Moreover, there were others concerned, such as railwaymen, who lost their opportunity to work and to earn wages. What a loss to the port workers in that community. About one sixth of the population in that community is dependent upon or indirectly concerned with this national port.
These are the facts about the bacon and cheese trade in respect of our port and the workers there employed. And I may say that these are only two of the products with which I have taken time to deal. There are

other types of farm produce the flow of which we certainly miss, and I would refer to pulp, long lumber and pit props, which we missed last season. These are exports affecting not only New Brunswick but other areas in Canada. It is all very well to treat it lightly, but the fact is that it affects the pocketbooks of our men in the city of Saint John. It means that mothers and children must accept a lower standard of living.
No matter how anxious and willing one may be to earn for his wife and family, the urge is not enough. There has to be trade and opportunity. Never was it as true as in this instance to say: Give us the tools and we will do the job. Give the Saint John longshoremen the ships and they can carry out their work as satisfactorily as any longshoremen in Canada. They proved themselves during the grim days of war, and since then they have just been waiting for the opportunity to work at their vocation.
We have not had our fair share. We are getting the runaround.	In time of war
Ottawa knew full well the great service that could be rendered by our ice-free, splendidly manned and convenient eastern port; but now it seems that Portland and other ports are receiving consideration, and are on the favoured list.
As for the condition of the port itself, let me say that some of our piers are a menace to life and limb. It is not unreasonable to suppose that in a few months' time some might slip into the harbour. Dock space is an eyesore of rotting, moulding timber, and it is a peril to navigation in the harbour. Anyone who has seen this waterfront district lately would be convinced, as I am, in common with other longshoremen, that something must be done. Our harbour is crumbling into ruin because our maritime rights are being sold for a mess of promises which have been shelved and forgotten.
I feel, too, that I should make reference to the immigration shed at Saint John. After the war we were very pleased to find that the government at Ottawa was giving us some consideration, and began the building of these beautiful immigration sheds. Let me say that those sheds are second to none anywhere. Indeed, they are show buildings. If one is entertaining a visitor to Saint John that visitor is taken to see the immigration sheds. They represent a marvellous piece of construction and planning. But one thing was forgotten; I do not know whether the contractor or someone else forgot it. They neglected to supply immigrants. We are still waiting to see when the immigrants are coming to use these beautiful sheds.

Although the port of Saint John had a good number of ships call last winter, any longshoreman will say that the gross tonnage handled through the port was down from previous years. It is not the number of ships that makes the large pay envelopes; it is the amount of goods coming and going. Again, much of the cargo handled was grain, a most important commodity but the loading of which requires very few workers as compared with the number required to load other cargoes. We still want the grain business; do not misunderstand me. We appreciate that when grain comes through our port other cargoes will follow. Nevertheless these figures are distorted when grain is considered in the light of the total that could be shown for the port.
The Ottawa government, which boastfully claims to be the father of prosperity, was not generous with the people of Saint John. I would add, too, that the city has 4,000 longshoremen who belong to the union. I believe it is the largest local in the maritimes. In other years their pay envelopes have contained about $90 a week. Last season the average was $45 a week, or only half the normal pay. I might add that these figures which I have at my disposal can be carefully checked, because they were prepared in conjunction with the longshoremen's association and various steamship officials. Even inbound ships mirrored the decline in business. Ships coming to Saint John brought only from 500 to 1,500 tons of cargo, instead of the former average of from 3,000 to 4,000 tons.
I would point out further that not only the stevedores are affected by this slump. The slump affects all of us. Hardly a business can be found in the city of Saint John that has not some connection with the port, which can truly be described as the lifeblood of the community. For example, every time a boat comes in a pilot boat has to go out, with four men aboard. A mail boat takes three tugs, with from five to six men per tug. Any vessel of over 2,500 tons when docking needs six men to help her dock. For a lower tonnage than that, four stevedores can do the job. Mail boats generally use a gang of 16 men, and the same applies when the vessel goes to sea. Men are used on the docks to clear her, and the pilot boat and the men aboard her are used to get her out of the harbour area, past Partridge island.
During a regular winter-port day we should be employing 1,800 men. It will be appreciated that when a ship is tied up there must be considered the money that the crew would spend in the city, as well as the amounts spent
The Address-Mr. Bell by the ship for light meters, water meters, telephones and the like. This means revenue to the city.
I should like also to say in this respect that we have heard many arguments for consideration for the small western farmers, who are in dire need these days. I believe it is simply a matter of credit and of financing over a difficult time. I should like to bring to the attention of the house the fact that we have a similar problem, on perhaps a reduced scale but just as serious to us in the area. That concerns the credit that grocery stores and businesses have given to these longshoremen who had this bad season. If we do not have more work, some more ships this winter, then the whole economy of the area will break down. The famous Beaver boats which come to us use 20 gangs of 19 men, and pay roughly $15,000 into the port during each day. We used to have five to five and a half active cargo months, but as you all know it has been cut down now to only four and a half owing to the extension of the Montreal season.
I feel I should mention at this time the fact that during the war everybody was quite pleased to use the ports of Halifax and Saint John and forget about the ice in the St. Lawrence, but today they are breaking the ice in the St. Lawrence at a cost of over $1 million the season, to take work away from the ports of Saint John and Halifax.
Our port has always been advertised as a two-railway port, but in reality it is only a single one. We do not have the railway facilities on the east side of our harbour to be able to say this. If Ottawa officials and others agree that it is necessary that decent facilities should be provided in Saint John for use in time of great national peril, which might occur again in the future, when efficient dispatch of cargo will be necessary to win a war, then I personally feel that the two-railway system is necessary in this port.
It is difficult for us down there to understand why when we have such a heavy defence program our national port has been overlooked almost entirely. Here we are talking of expanding the port and aiding the flow of imports and exports and all the while helping our people and increasing the economy down there, and at the same time we forget the grim spectre of fire. Many of us in Saint John go back to the early thirties when the west side docks were completely wiped out by fire, which took a life or two and completely razed our facilities to the ground. It is only common sense to expect that something like that could happen again. Then there is the consideration of the terrific

The Address-Mr. Bell investment going back a period of many years. The usual fire precautions should be taken in this instance, as they would be with any investment.
As I say, authorities have agreed that we should have some kind of fire facilities, but Ottawa keeps turning down a fireboat for Saint John with the cruelty of a Nero turning thumbs down on the Christians. It is very difficult for us to see why Halifax should have two boats and Montreal four while Saint John, which has had two quite serious blazes already this year, has absolutely no fireboat.
As the speech from the throne unfolded, we all listened, and particularly the new members, for words of encouragement and perhaps a little indication of something that would mean a little more for our individual constituencies. May I say that I sat and listened to the speech from the throne. My constituents had shown, in the only way they knew, their disapproval of the government, by voting me to represent them here. What comforting words did I receive? I looked through the speech from the throne and I found these words:
Nations can best achieve economic strength and security through more liberal trade.
Particularly do I like the use of the word "liberal" with a small "1" in this instance. Nevertheless, I feel that this statement is not too damaging to our case if my plea does not fall on deaf ears. We are all respectfully waiting to see what these words "liberal trade" may mean to Saint John.
For a moment I should like to refer in a general way to merchant shipping. I have not only a constituency interest in this phase of our life, but a sort of personal interest, owing to my living down east. We who served at sea in the merchant navy during the war all had hopes-we used to talk about it quite often-of Canada's merchant fleet. When the war was over we were quite pleased that a start was made. In the second report of the Canadian maritime commission, and also in the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), we received an indication that some sort of fleet was to be retained as a nucleus in case of another national emergency. But these Canadian freighters which so proudly sailed the seas during the war and delivered the goods, as it were, seem to be disappearing fast. While the Park Steamships company was reducing its fleet from 176 ships to 30-these are the 10,000 and 4,700-ton types-the lack of a definite policy, or perhaps the inability to carry out the recommendations, has left us

now with our entire Canadian merchant shipping fleet amounting to 64 vessels and a paltry tonnage of 426,049.
It is apparent that we should have a fleet. I ask here, why has nothing been done to assist the Canadian ship owners? Perhaps the main reason for this failure is contained in a recommendation to our maritime commission prepared by the Canadian shipowners' association, which was presented to a committee of the cabinet on October 15, 1953. The memorandum is quite lengthy. The part of the summary which I like gets to the root of the whole trouble. It is No. 5, and states that the Canadian deep-sea merchant marine receives no assistance such as that provided by other governments for their merchant navies.
I realize that it is difficult for Canadian ship owners to compete with Scandinavian and British companies when it comes to operating costs at sea; nevertheless some sort of assistance could be given on a temporary basis to help us accustom ourselves to sea life. Let us revise this situation before it is too late, Mr. Speaker. A merchant navy is essential to a nation's prosperity and survival. A nation's external trade goes hand in hand with its available merchant navy service. Let us develop our external trade, realizing that shipping services themselves produce trade.
In Saint John we are very proud of the drydock, one of the largest in the world. It was with some dismay that we learned of the small share our dock was to play in the enlargement program of the Royal Canadian Navy. This city, which at one time was the greatest shipbuilding port in the world, has been relegated to the position of a builder of parts and ancillary articles, one might say. This salt water, year-round port plays second fiddle to the inland, fresh water shipyards of Quebec.
In thinking of our drydock it is not defence work on a temporary wartime basis that we are thinking of now. Our workers have built up a community of homes around East Saint John and its drydock. Any lay-off, be it temporary or otherwise, will greatly affect their lives. It is not as though they could go somewhere else and pick up jobs, because jobs are not available. I think serious consideration should be given to this drydock in the defence estimates so that as much work as possible can be made available to this area.
I imagine that many hon. members are thinking that here is another passionate plea from the maritimes. However, I should like

to refer to Hansard of February 8, 1951, where the former member for Saint John-Albert is reported as having said:
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) must still recall the expressions of confidence accorded to him, and the enthusiasm with which he was greeted in the course of his recent tour of the maritimes.
That was in 1951. My mind goes back to last August, when the same minister again came down our way. A large theatre was engaged for the evening with the usual fanfare, but evidently times had changed. Instead of confidence and enthusiasm, less than 100 persons by actual count were present at that gathering. I do not suggest there was anything personal involved. I only submit that it was a protest at the changes that had come so quickly to our area.
We need overseas trade if the economy centred around my constituency is to survive. The answer is not to put an icebreaker on the St. Lawrence or to increase truck traffic across border points in central Canada. The answer is a farsighted trading policy with those overseas countries which are our natural markets.
(Translation):


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to extend to you as well as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and all the members of the house the cordial salutations of the people of the constituency of Richelieu-Vercheres.
At the beginning of this twenty-second parliament, I wish to draw attention to the fact that the electors of Richelieu-Vercheres have been electing Liberal members for the past 12 parliaments.
I also wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on his great victory. I also want to thank him for stopping at Sorel to make a speech during the last electoral campaign.
I thank the electors of Richelieu-Vercheres for the magnificent majority they have given me, but I know such a large majority was due to the prestige of the Prime Minister and to his platform.
Mr. Speaker, may I also congratulate you on your appointment. It is an honour which is reflected not only on you but also on the whole French-Canadian people and I think it is another fine example that we may set our French-Canadian youth in order to make them understand that they have the right and the privilege of being free to attain the highest positions in the public administration of our country.
The Address-Mr. Cardin
I also wish to congratulate the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Lesage) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) who have become members of the cabinet. These promotions were no surprise to those who knew them and I am sure that they will do a lot of good work for their country.
May I also be permitted to congratulate those numerous members who have been appointed parliamentary assistants and, while wishing them good luck in the fulfilment of their duties, I think it might be fitting to wish them patience, for I am told that members seeking a solution to some of their problems follow them through the halls and even to their homes. Well, I rest assured that these parliamentary assistants will be able to help their colleagues, being very well aware of the difficulties which they have to face.
Finally, I extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Hollingworth) and the seconder (Mr. Villeneuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and together with my fellow members I wish them good luck in the career they have taken up and in which they have made such a good start.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I was among the many thousands of Canadians who participated in Her Majesty's coronation through the medium of television. I must say that I was greatly impressed at the solemnity and splendour of that ceremony. I do not believe I was the only person who was deeply moved when our young Queen in accepting the crown accepted as well the tremendous responsibilities that have fallen upon her shoulders.
I dare say that coronation day was a great day for Great Britain and for the commonwealth nations, but it was even more than that for Canada. It was an historical moment, because for the first time in our history her gracious majesty was crowned Queen of Canada. As I watched the ceremony I could not help noticing that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) was placed next to the Prime Minister of England in order of precedence.
This fact made me realize that Canada had not only reached adulthood but that she was now playing an extremely important part in the affairs of the commonwealth nations as well as those of the world generally. I began to wonder how in such a short time Canada had become so important, and I came to the conclusion that one of the reasons

The Address-Mr. Cardin Canada had achieved what she had was the national unity we have acquired in this country during the past 50 years.
I believe honestly and sincerely that that national unity is the greatest political achievement this country has known for a long time. I believe that national unity is the only political formula that can guarantee a brilliant future for Canada. I believe that national unity is the basic principle of our constitution. I believe that national unity is not incompatible with provincial autonomy. I have at heart the welfare of my French-Canadian compatriots as well as the welfare of my country and I am tired of hearing petty and fallacious arguments that may well undermine our national unity.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have decided to answer as best I can any arguments that may have the effect of destroying this basic principle of our democracy. Also, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) seems on many occasions to have not only the ear but the voice of the premier of Quebec, as well as that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) I have decided to concentrate my few remarks on the speech made by that hon. member in this house not so long ago. I certainly regret that he is not in his seat now. As a matter of fact I find it far easier to speak about or accuse someone when he is in front of me rather than when he is absent. However, as you know, we cannot always control the hour at which we are going to speak.
Many hon. members may have been surprised that the hon. member for Three Rivers asked the federal government to build a bridge between Three Rivers and Ste. Angele. I cannot say that I was surprised because, during the last federal election, I heard the hon. member make the promise that the bridge would be built. However, I must say that I marvelled at his calmness and coolness and the matter of fact tone in which he made the demand. The hon. member had just finished accusing the federal government of sticking its nose into provincial affairs and of not respecting provincial autonomy. In the very next breath he went on to demand that the federal government build a bridge between two points in the province of Quebec. As everyone knows, that is one of the matters which are strictly and absolutely within provincial jurisdiction.
I do not disagree that the bridge is necessary or that it is a good thing for the economy of the province. I agree with the hon. member on those points, but I disagree with him in that being so sensitive about provincial


autonomy, he baldly demands in this house that this government should build a bridge between two points in the province of Quebec. This attitude of being neither one nor the other, neither fish nor flesh, creates a great deal of confusion not only in this house but in the country. It is something which I think should stop before we have more serious results. Also, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member for Three Rivers ask the premier of Quebec to build the bridge, seeing that he has his ear. That would be an excellent thing.
The hon. member also suggests that if the government cannot build the bridge alone it should reach some understanding with the provincial government and with the municipalities for the construction of that bridge. I believe this government has had some experience in the building of bridges in cooperation with the province of Quebec, and I am led to believe that it has not been as successful as one might have wished. As a matter of fact the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) on May 5, 1953, when making a statement regarding the abolition of tolls on the Jacques Cartier bridge in Montreal, had this to say:
Beginning in 1944, the city of Montreal and also the province of Quebec stopped making their annual contributions towards the deficit of the bridge, and it was decided to take court action against the city. Finally, on December 9, 1952, the Supreme Court of Canada maintained the decision of the Quebec court of queen's bench and of the superior court of Quebec that the city of Montreal was liable to the full extent specified by the tripartite agreement. Subsequently the city of Montreal has made payment in full of its arrears to the national harbours board in the amount of $954,833. The province of Quebec so far has not made good its arrears in the same amount.
I do not believe there is any further comment to be added to what I have already read here, Mr. Speaker, but it does not seem logical and it would not be logical for the federal government to enter into a new agreement when a previous agreement has not been fulfilled.
As you perhaps know, Mr. Speaker, there are many demands made by members of this house, by my constituents, and by many of the constituents around Montreal for abolition of the tolls on the Jacques Cartier bridge. I rather imagine that the situation which exists between the provincial and federal governments may well be one of the reasons the tolls on that particular bridge have not yet been abolished. I do hope, however, that the government will at least give consideration to the abolition of tolls on the Jacques Cartier bridge before'they consider

any other agreement with or without the province of Quebec for the construction of a bridge at Three Rivers.
The hon. member for Three Rivers in his speech claims that the federal government, contrary to our constitution, has invaded the provincial tax field to the extent that it now receives 77 per cent of the tax dollar. That is a statement I have heard many times in the house and during the recent election campaign. Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that is not a true picture of the situation because it does not include revenues that are received from provincial sources. As a matter of fact, in 1951-52, from sources which were strictly provincial, the provinces received $493 million. In 1952-53 the amount was slightly higher. Those figures, of course, do not take into account revenues received by municipalities through municipal taxes and so on. If we were to take all the figures and group them together I am sure that the result would not be quite as great as 77 per cent and the picture would not be so black as the hon. member has painted it.
The hon. member states that Quebec is in a very precarious financial position; that it has not the finances to undertake projects that are of a purely provincial nature; that the constituencies and municipalities have not the money to take advantage of the changes that are to be made in the Bank Act and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation when municipalities will be called upon to furnish finances for public services. He painted a very black picture of the province of Quebec with respect to its financial position. It was very stirring indeed to hear him, but what he said was not quite accurate because if you recall, early last spring the minister of finance of the province of Quebec estimated that the surplus of revenue over ordinary expenditure for 1953 would be over $40 million. Since 1946 the province of Quebec has had a surplus of over $293,447,000. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, that of course does not include any of the subsidies the federal government pays to the nine other provinces of Canada. Those are sources of revenue that the province of Quebec has been able to obtain in its own domain.
The hon. member also claims that it is an easy thing for Ottawa to go ahead and to give subsidies to the different provinces because they have the money, and that Quebec would like nothing better than to be able to give subsidies to those in the province of Quebec who may need them. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that in the words of the minister of finance of Quebec himself, the province is absolutely capable of giving out subsidies.
The Address-Mr. Cardin I would suggest that they might perhaps give subsidies to the different municipalities in Quebec.
It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that the perception of taxes as it exists in the federal government is not illegal today, as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) claims. I believe that it is in complete accord with our constitution which allows, permits and empowers the federal government to levy taxes by any means for matters of national interest. Besides that, I believe that the responsibilities of the federal government cannot be restricted by simply restricting these powers of levying taxes. On the contrary, the responsibilities of the federal government-responsibilities that occur either by circumstances or by the will of the people- are the very factors that decide what taxes have to be levied in this country. There is not a serious Canadian who does not realize the increasing responsibilities that are being imposed upon the federal government. Even the hon. member for Three Rivers in his speech also exhorted the federal government to add a national health program to the already heavy list of responsibilities that fall on the shoulders of the federal government. Mr. Speaker, there can be no other way. Either we have responsibilities and we give the people what they want or we do not; either we face 'our obligations and we tax, or we do not. If we do not, then to my mind it is the beginning of the end.
The hon. member speaks of the redistribution of taxes. That is all very well. It makes very good speech material, but it always ends up in the same way. Last year we had a budget of $4J billion. Of that, $2J billion went for defence, $1 billion went for social legislation and $1 billion went for administration and for reduction of the national debt. Let the taxes be shuffled and reshuffled any way any person may want it done; we will still come up with a budget requiring $4J billion a year if we are to maintain the standard of living that we are now maintaining and that the country wants us to maintain. To me that is absolutely logical in reasoning, and I believe it is the policy that has been followed by this government.
Again, the right of the federal government to impose taxes to meet its responsibilities does not exclude the right of the provincial government to impose taxes to meet their responsibilities. But this very double taxation which would have been a tremendous burden on the people of Canada is one of the reasons the federal-provincial agreements were entered into. Today I still maintain
220	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cardin that those agreements are by far the best way of solving an extremely complicated problem.
Again the hon. member for Three Rivers asks that there should be a provincial-federal conference so the governments might come to an agreement. I would remind the hon. member that nine of the ten provinces of Canada have already reached agreements with the federal government. Those agreements are working satisfactorily, and the provinces which have taken up agreements with the federal government do not find themselves in any way in an inferior position to that of the federal government; nor, Mr. Speaker, do they believe or think they are in any way jeopardizing their provincial autonomy. I am positive that the governments of the nine provinces of Canada that have entered into the federal-provincial relation are as keen and as anxious to maintain this autonomy as may be the premier 'of the province of Quebec. But these provinces, I maintain, consider themselves to be autonomous provinces co-operating with the federal government in solving common problems in the best interests of the people they represent.
I am truly sorry to see that the province of Quebec does not understand this. Because of what I believe to be a political war-horse, the population of Quebec is not receiving that to which it has a perfect right. Quebec is refusing grants for universities because she is afraid she may lose her ethnic entity. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is through the universities that our young French-Canadian men and women can acquire the knowledge, the technique and the training necessary to compete in a highly competitive world. Quebec also refused to take part in the trans-Canada highway. She not only refuses millions of dollars in that respect but she is also refusing a great economic advantage. She refuses the generous offers made under section 35 of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, whereby the federal government is willing to pay the larger part by far of the cost of reconstruction of slum areas.
I have tried sincerely to understand why the province of Quebec does not take advantage of the subsidies that are offered. I could see it or I could understand it-and I would perhaps be in favour of the refusals-if this government had in any one respect made any definite attack upon the provincial autonomy. But so far the federal government has not done so, to my mind. It may be that the province of Quebec fears that the federal government may do so in the future. But I think it would be a wise policy to do what


the other provinces in Canada have done, namely to watch carefully the movements of the federal government and, at the same time, to accept the subsidies that are now being given out to the other provinces. In other words, it would be far better for the province of Quebec to wait until the bear exists before they start shooting, and not to shoot at imaginary game.
There is another thing I wish to mention, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Three Rivers stated that the province of Quebec entered into confederation enthusiastically in order to maintain its ethnic entity. I fully agree with that statement. I also add that the situation has not changed in any way, and that confederation is still not only the best but the only way of maintaining the national unity of French Canadians in the province of Quebec. I believe that secession from confederation, either moral or physical, would be nothing less than suicide for the French-Canadian people.
I should also like to state that I have at heart, as have my French-Canadian colleagues, the interests of the language and the culture in which we have been raised. We have these interests as much at heart as has the hon. member for Three Rivers, the premier of the province of Quebec or any other French Canadian. We are equally anxious to maintain our provincial autonomy. But we do not see how co-operation between the provincial governments and the federal government can in any way be considered as an attack upon provincial autonomy.
I should also like to recall, Mr. Speaker, that some years ago it was a group of representatives from the province of Quebec, sitting in this house, who not only maintained our ethnic entity but who made it known in such a way that we French Canadians can now utilize the privileges and the rights given to all Canadians. This particular achievement, Mr. Speaker, is called national unity. These French-Canadian members who sat in this house were indeed illustrious politicians and men of high calibre, but I do not hesitate to say that the representatives we have from the province of Quebec sitting here at the present time can at least safeguard what our predecessors accomplished for us in Quebec.
It seems to me we have come a long way from the days of Upper and Lower Canada and the time when there was so much racial prejudice and misunderstanding between the two great ethnic groups in our country. It seems to me that those days have gone, and I hope forever, and I find it very gratifying indeed to see so many English Canadians learning not only the

French language but learning also French culture and the French mentality. I believe this is one of the things that has made national unity. Bilingualism is becoming a very common thing in our country, and I believe it is not only adding to our national unity but it is also giving our Canadian culture a mark of distinction.
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that when I first came to the house I looked around for any discrimination there might be against the province of Quebec. I looked for it on the side of the government and also looked for it in the three opposition parties, and I am indeed happy to tell my constituents of the province of Quebec, or of any other province, that I have not found any evidence of any serious discrimination against the province of Quebec or against any other ethnic group in Canada. On the contrary I have found in this house, which is a pretty good cross-section of the Canadian people, a good deal of good will,' understanding and sincere desire for national unity.
I can assure the province of Quebec that if this situation should ever change, if there should be any discrimination shown toward the province of Quebec, or toward any other ethnic group in this country, they can expect to hear a loud cry from this seat and many other seats in the house, because I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that there is no master race in our country but one free democratic people that we call Canadians.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with those who have spoken before me in congratulating you on your election to your high office, but at the same time I should like to express a certain regret of my own in that this house has seen fit to render you mute for this session. I had that feeling of regret, sir, when President Eisenhower addressed the House of Commons last week and when, to my delighted surprise, I was able to understand nearly everything you addressed to us in your own language. It may have been, of course, that in the kindness of your heart you spoke in particularly simple and plain French for the benefit, shall I say, of les sauvages Anglais, but I think there must have been more to it than that. I would commend to your compatriots from Quebec the superb clarity of diction and enunciation in which you clothed your remarks that day.
I suppose also that I should join with others in congratulating the government on having been re-elected, much as one would congratulate any other conjurer for a skilful piece of sleight of hand, but I am not quite
The Address-Mr. C. Cameron sure that the people of Canada are to be equally congratulated. The following four years will perhaps tell the tale.
It has occurred to me in listening to the debate in the house since it opened that any members who were sitting in this chamber twenty or more years ago must have had a feeling as the debate rolled on that the wheel had come full circle. Listening as we have been to the tales of various hon. members of the economic tribulations that have been besetting their constituents, listening to the tales of surplus grain and retracting markets, of lay-offs and unemployment, of coal mines closing down or closed down, of canned salmon piling up in the warehouses of British Columbia and log booms accumulating along the coast for lack of lumber orders, many of these veteran members who sat here in the dark days of the thirties must have had the sensation that this was where they came in.
But, unfortunately, we cannot get up and leave the theatre of the world as we would the local movie house when the picture on the screen becomes painfully familiar. Along with the dove of peace there have been many other birds coming home to roost, birds of ill omen, and of course our government, with true ministerial nonchalance, has adopted a policy of "do not let us look now; perhaps they will fly away again."
The Conservative opposition, on the other hand, has come rushing up gun in hand to shoot the birds or frighten them away; but unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the gun in the hands of the Conservative opposition is the same old blunderbuss which proved so ineffective in the hands of the late Viscount Bennett. In fact when I read the amendment proferred by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to the main motion, it occurred to me that there was a certain, shall I say, ambivalence in the Conservative approach to the twentieth century; for, on the one hand, this amendment bases itself firmly upon the virtues of competition, indeed of free competition no less, and then it proceeds to urge upon the government the adoption of policies that will lead to a high level of international trade, a goal which, of course, can only be reached in this modern age by the path of co-operation, the very antithesis of competition. While I am on the subject of this strange ambivalence of the Conservative party, I have been interested to note that the chief concern of their members in this house has been that struggling little corporation, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which apparently has been done dirt by the government.
One of the Conservative members the other day attempted, shall I say, to equate his
222	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. C. Cameron leader's faith in competition with modern concepts of co-operation and social responsibility, and in doing so he again revealed the state of mind of the Conservative party, and I think revealed the fact that the great Conservative party today is suffering from a bad case of schizophrenia.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are faced again today with the same old problems which we have been enabled to ignore for the last fifteen years because of the grim cycle of events which culminated in the death of forty million human beings. There is, I think, a general admission on all sides that the means by which we came out of the dark days of the depression were closely related to the massive expenditures which it was necessary to make on war preparations in Canada.
I have been interested, of course, in the pronouncement by high political authorities that there is no danger of a recurrence of the depression in Canada. But I have also been interested to note that even the most vociferous advocates of that point of view always toss in, as a little cheering postscript, the fact that world conditions are so unsettled that we must expect a high level of military expenditure in the future.
We are told, of course, that our prosperity at the present time has resulted from the high level of investment that has taken place, and particularly investment from across the line. I have been interested in that argument, because it has seemed to me to be somewhat full of flaws. I took the trouble to investigate in the Canada Year Book the amount of foreign investments in Canada, or the increase in those investments between 1946 and 1951, as compared with defence expenditures made during the same period.
I have found that United States investments in Canada increased between 1946 and 1951 to the extent of two and a quarter billion dollars; which, of course, is a vast sum of money, and represents an enormous capital investment in the development of Canada. But it pales into insignificance when we compare it with expenditures of nearly seven and a half billion dollars upon war rehabilitation and defence expenditures during those years.
I have never been able to understand how today responsible people will try to tell us that there is no relationship whatever between these massive expenditures on military preparations and the buoyant economic conditions we have been enjoying. Nor has anyone as yet explained to me how we can hope to escape a recurrence of the conditions of the thirties, when no single fundamental economic arrangement has been altered since those dark days. The only significant change has been in the size of the public investment 

and expenditures during the years since 1939 with, of course, a consequent increase in the volume of private investment.
Apart from that, nothing has been changed. And I submit to you, sir, that an economy which is based upon continuing vast expenditure on the admittedly dangerous project of military preparation is one that is on an extremely slippery slope. Moreover I think it should be pointed out that even in this period of extreme prosperity, over which the ministerial benches wax so eloquent, there are a number of people in Canada who have been living at what can only be described as substandard levels.
In the census figures for 1951 it is revealed that 83'4 per cent of all wage earners in Canada were in receipt at that time of less than $3,000 a year, and that 83-4 per cent consisted of no less than 3,415,000 wage earners in Canada. Moreover, 2,187,000 wage earners in this country received less than $2,000 a year.
I submit to you, sir, that members of this house would do well to contemplate such figures with all due gravity. For these are the bulk of our Canadian fellow citizens; the vast majority of our fellow Canadians are in this category. And it needs no crystal ball to be able to foretell what will happen to any of those wage earners if, by any chance, they find themselves out of jobs for even a short period of time.
We socialists in this corner of the house claim no ultimate wisdom. We have no foolproof blueprint for the future. Of course we have attempted to examine the world around us, and to make that examination as objectively as possible. But lacking the rose-coloured spectacles with which members of other parties contemplate the current scene, naturally the picture presented to our eyes is somewhat different. I think that in some ways this generation, sir, is extremely fortunate, in spite of the dark days through which we have gone, in spite of the miseries and tragedies which have beset the last twenty years. We are fortunate in this regard that, perhaps uniquely in human history, we have been given a second chance. We have been given another opportunity to grapple with the problems that we have been ignoring for the last fifteen years.
At the close of the first world war we had a world ripe for radical and far-reaching changes. Nineteenth century industrial development had created problems of markets so acute that, finally, those problems culminated in the savage competition which led eventually of course to disastrous international war. And unfortunately the victors in that war reimposed the patterns of the past.

I am not going to recite all the dreary history of the inter-war period; it is well known to all of us. The dreary picture of that time was illuminated only very faintly by lights such as the Dawes plan and Locarno, finally culminating in the wreck of democracy in Germany, the wreck of the Weimar republic-, the rise of fascism and, in our own country, the crash of 1929.
I say we are fortunate, not only because we are given a second chance, as very few civilizations of the past have been; but we are fortunate also in that our society has been placed, shall I say, almost in a laboratory, and we have been subjected to laboratory experiments on our sociological organization. We have had in the last twenty years-and all of us are familiar with it-a most extraordinary history. We have had a history of a vast country, a country rich in natural resources, unable to cope with its own problems, unable to develop its resources, unable to supply the needs of its people until international feuds came to the rescue of a dying economy.
Then we had the most extraordinary transformation, almost overnight. I suggest it would do us no harm to remember that transformation and the means by which it took place. I would take your mind back, sir, to those years when, right here in the city of Ottawa, the government and parliament of that day was besieged by almost hopeless young men. I would take your mind back, sir, to the period when we had riots throughout the Dominion of Canada; and then I would ask you to turn your eyes to the events that took place immediately after or shortly before the outbreak of war in 1939 when, suddenly, all the problems with which governments had been confronted for the previous ten years vanished overnight, and almost their exact opposite took their place. Governments which had been bedevilled with problems of unemployment, bedevilled with the problem of relieving destitution, suddenly found themselves confronted with the problem of finding enough hands, enough men to do the work that required to be done.
How was it done? It was done, sir, I submit by the suspension of capitalism for the duration of the war. All the important features of the capitalist economy were put on ice. No longer did we have free competition; no longer was it possible for industrialists in Canada to produce whatever they desired; no longer was it possible for Canadian citizens to export and import to their hearts content; no longer were the productive capacities left to the hazards of individual enterprise. In its place we had goals of production set for us, quite rightly, by the government of the day. We had import and export regulations. We
The Address-Mr. C. Cameron had-and this is perhaps one of the most important features of the measures taken in these years-almost the suspension for the time being of the major factor of the capitalist economy.
I am not suggesting for one moment that there were no war profits made; there were, and scandalous war profits, for which the present government may well hang its head in shame. But I do point out, sir, that the exigencies of the war situation required that our government suspend the enjoyment of those profits for the duration of the war. This was of course accomplished by the vast war loans which were floated at the time, and which impounded for the time being that vast flood of purchasing power which was let loose on the country.
In the process a most extraordinary thing took place. Instead of a poverty-stricken, desperate people, we suddenly turned almost overnight into a people enjoying levels of prosperity hitherto unknown in our history.
I suggest to you, sir, that the history of that period is something that we would do well here to turn our eyes to. Remember how we came out of our troubles at that time, and ask ourselves if there are not some lessons to be learned in connection with the present evils which are now beginning to appear on the horizon.
Just what is our government doing, beyond denying the possibility of troubles ahead, to cope with the situation that has been presented to us in this house by hon. members from coast to coast, and which was presented the other day to a cabinet committee in this building? Just what is our government doing in regard to that situation? What is it doing with regard to the fact that the vast majority of our fellow Canadian citizens, even in times of prosperity, are living at levels that you and I would consider to be substandard, sir?
Well, they have done some extraordinary things. Last year we had the most extraordinary action, perhaps, on the part of any government, when it barefacedly came to the rescue-I should not say "rescue"-when it barefacedly, shall I say, handed out to a privileged group in this country, the fortunate owners of shares in Canadian corporations, very valuable privileges under the Income Tax Act.
What else has it done? It sold a very valuable business in 1949, which cost the taxpayers of Canada some $25 million. It sold that business to private interests for a total of $3,760,745. That has been one of this government's contributions to the economic problems of today. I would remind you, sir,

The Address-Mr. C. Cameron
that that plant, which was sold in this lighthearted manner for a small fraction of the cost to the taxpayers of Canada, was the property of these men and women who are living on incomes of $3,000, $2,000 and $1,500 a year. I suggest that all hon. members should bear that in mind.
There are rumours, of course, that further moves in this direction are about to be made. This afternoon I was interested when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in reply to a question from one of my colleagues, stated that there was no intention on the part of the government to dispose of the Polymer Corporation. I was delighted to hear the minister make that statement because I had been greatly disturbed, sir, on reading a statement in the Financial Times no later than October 30 of this year, to this effect:
Mr. Howe announced some days ago that the government would sell the big synthetic rubber manufacturing plant located at Sarnia to private interests.
I presume that we can now expect a categorical denial of that fact from the Financial Times.


Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: May I ask the hon, member a question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon, gentleman
agree?


Colin Cameron: Yes.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Will the hon.
gentleman please give reasons why the Polymer Corporation should not be disposed of by the government?


Colin Cameron: Yes, I am going to give these reasons. I am going to suggest to you, sir, that in a time such as this when it is becoming painfully evident that what is euphemistically termed "free enterprise" but which is rapidly becoming monopolistic capitalism in this country is proving its growing inability to meet the needs and the interests of the day, then, such a move of this kind is a definitely retrogressive step. Furthermore, I would think that any hon. member in the light of the history of the sale to the Electric Boat Company, which I have just cited, whereby a property of the Canadian people, valued at $25 million, was sold for just over $3,750,000, would view with considerable alarm-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon.
friend accept a correction?


Colin Cameron: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The assets that
were sold to the Electric Boat Company were not valued at $25 million, $20 million, $15 million, or anything of that kind. The build-

ings were sold; the equipment and the working processes were taken over and liquidated by the company on government account.


Colin Cameron: What was .the
total value?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I do not
remember the details, but I am telling the hon. member that it was not $25 million, $20 million or $15 million. If the hon. member wishes the particulars he will find them in the records of the defence expenditure committee.


Colin Cameron: The authority I am quoting from purports to be sessional paper 216-B. I will check on that and I shall be very glad to retract if I have made a mistake.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure my
hon. friend wishes to be accurate.


Colin Cameron: Yes. It is, as I
say, somewhat anomalous and most disquieting, at a time when, private industry is now revealing its incapacity to deal with that major problem of the modern age, to find that our government is at least reported to be considering further sales of this sort; and I am hoping that before this house rises we shall have some categorical denials from the cabinet benches on that score.
I should like to pass, sir, to another aspect of government policy that is closely linked with our domestic prosperity, namely the history of our international relations; because I think all of us today recognize that the prosperity of Canada depends in large measure upon the relationships that we cao establish with the other peoples of the world. I am going to suggest to you, sir, that our government has been even less successful in its handling of those international problems than it has been in its handling of domestic problems.
I am not going to recite all the details of the way in which Canada has acquiesced time and again in policies which have proven to be disastrous in the end. There is an old European proverb with which I have no doubt you are familiar, sir, and which translated says that he who says "A" must say "B". I would submit that our government has said not only A, it has said B and it is now halfway down the alphabet. It is true enough that now and again after the event we have a show of opposition or some protest from the government of Canada, but there are some questions that are going to be settled in the near future-they may have been settled already for all I know-whose settlement has not been made known to the people of Canada.

There is the vexed problem of the rearming of Germany. In that regard I should like to suggest to you that there has been perhaps altogether too much jubilation in certain quarters in Canada and the United States over the turn of political events in Western Germany. There are some rather fragrant flowers to be plucked from the Bonn regime. There is, for instance, Dr. Heinrich Lohse, who was reich commissar for Russian-occupied territories and in charge, under the notorious Alfred Rosenberg, of the cremation of Jews. He is now living in retirement on a pension granted him by the good Bonn administration.
Then there is Herr von Grunherr who was in charge of Jewish deportations from Norway and Denmark and who has since been appointed ambassador at Athens for Dr. Adenauer. Then there is Dr. Gerhart Peters, manager of the I. G. Farben industry affiliate which supplied the zyklon gas for the extermination of the Jews. Then of course there is the unspeakable Alfred Krupp von Bohlen, now restored to the enjoyment of his properties. I suggest to you that any intention of rearming Western Germany under this extremely dubious regime is one fraught with danger. I believe that the people of Canada and hon. members of this house are entitled to some assurance from our government that they are making representations in that regard.
I cannot help contrasting these people whom I have mentioned with another German of a very different character, the late lamented Ernst Reuter, the heroic burgomaster of West Berlin, who stood as a solid rock against the onslaught of totalitarian communism. I would remind the members of this house that Ernst Reuter was a lifelong socialist. It has been the socialists of Germany who have stood against nazi totalitarianism, on the one hand, and Soviet totalitarianism, on the other. It would be well for hon. members of this house who on occasion see fit to make sneering comments about the socialists and socialism to remember such heroic figures as the late Ernst Reuter.
I ask hon. members to examine these facts of history and to realize that before the end of this twenty-second parliament we are going to have some extremely grim and difficult tasks to perform. As I said earlier, we
The Address-Mr. C. Cameron socialists do not pretend to have all the answers. All we ask is that you look at the facts objectively, examine all the ideas that may be presented for coping with those facts, and cast aside prejudice and decide in the best interests of the people of Canada.
I do not think I can do better than to quote that great English scientist and philosopher, Bertrand (Earl) Russell, who in a recent article in an American periodical had this to say:
If, however, the reign of fear can somehow be ended "our grandchildren may look back to our time as the last moment of the dark ages from which, as from a long tunnel, mankind will have emerged into the sunshine and happiness of mutual harmony."
I submit that we shall not emerge from that dark tunnel by turning our face on the lessons of history and marching briskly back into the tunnel. I submit that it is time for all men and women of good will in Canada to sit down and study the serious problems that are going to face us and to accept ideas for their solution without prejudice, and then decide only in the interests of the people of this dominion.
On motion of Mr. Murphy (Westmorland) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house.
He said: The custom has been to give the members of the house some idea as to what business might be taken up at a later date. While I am not in any way suggesting that I expect this debate to end on Monday, we would be most grateful if it did. I think it is only fair to say that when the debate is concluded we will take up, first, the bill standing in the name of the Secretary of State to amend the Canada Elections Act; second, the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Transport to amend the Pipe Lines Act and, third, the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Transport having to do with the appointment of auditors for the national railways.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at six o'clock.
227

Monday, November 23, 1953