1955-01-26

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR-PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members, I am sure, will want me to note the presence in our gallery of a most distinguished visitor, namely the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
(Translation) :
We extend to him a most cordial welcome. (Text) :
We do hope that the conversations that he had with our parliamentarians during his too short a stay in our capital will help, as he said himself upon his arrival, to further the cause of peace and freedom in the world.



CRIMINAL LAW


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That Miss Bennett, Messrs. Boisvert, Brown (Essex West), Brown (Brantford), Cameron (High Park), Fairey, Garson, Ledue (Verdun), Lusby, Mitchell (London), Montgomery, Murphy (Westmorland), Shaw, Mrs. Shipley and Messrs. Thatcher, Valois and Winch act on behalf of this house on the joint committee of both houses of parliament appointed January 14, 1955 to inquire into and report upon the questions whether the criminal law of Canada relating to (a) capital punishment, (b) corporal punishment or (c) lotteries should be amended in any respect and, if so, in what manner and to what extent; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to inform Their Honours that the foregoing members have been appointed to act on behalf of the Commons on the said joint committee of both houses.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime .Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether
the announcement attributed to the Minister of Agriculture in Edmonton, namely that 20 million pounds of Canadian butter would soon be made available to Canadian institutions at a price lower than the present support price, is right?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: That is the intention of the Department of Agriculture.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question? With the disposal of this surplus butter, is it the intention of the government to continue the present support price?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government's policy in that regard will be announced as soon as a decision has been reached.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to a question that has already been asked, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question in view of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in western Canada with respect to 70 million pounds of surplus butter that we have, stating that it was 20 million more than we needed and was necessary to hold, and that it was going to be sold. The Prime Minister has said that it was going to be sold, and that it was the policy of the government to sell it at less than it cost. In view of this surplus I would like to ask at what price it is going to be sold, and to whom.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The matter has been under consideration, and the only decision that has been arrived at is that inquiries will be made from the institutions to see if they would be interested in taking substantial quantities of butter at a price considerably lower than the market price, for consumption in those institutions.
The policy will be to exercise very strict supervision to see that that is restricted only to public institutions and does not affect the general marketing conditions.


William Earl Rowe: I would like to ask the Prime Minister what type of public institutions he has in mind. Does he mean government institutions? Do I understand it is not going into the trade? I think the trade would be interested to know how much less it is to be sold at. This is the kind of information to which we are entitled-that is, whether it will

Inquiries of che Ministry be five cents or ten cents. It is the government's policy to purchase butter, and I think we should know that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: A floor price was set for butter. I am told that because of the unusually good conditions of the pasture land . throughout the last season about 20 million pounds more butter was produced than is usual. It so happens that there is now in storage about 20 million pounds more than is considered normal supply required to bridge the time between the end of January and the new season.
Now, I would not like to state at this time what price the Department of Agriculture will fix for these institutions-and these would include government institutions, hospitals, homes, and other places of that kind that are supported either out of public funds by the government or out of public funds obtained otherwise for the general welfare of those who are living in those institutions.


William Earl Rowe: I would like to ask a further question. Would the Prime Minister tell us if his government does not consider that probably the heavy importations of oleomargarine had as much to do with it as the heavy crop of grass?


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: There are diverging views about importations of oil for oleomargarine in this country, and there are diverging views among Canadians as to the propriety of having such a high floor price for the production of butter. But I think there are a large number in this house and elsewhere who realize that the dairy industry is essential to the prosperity of the agricultural community in Canada. The advantages and disadvantages have to be very carefully weighed, and that is one of the responsibilities we have to discharge and for which we have to answer both to parliament and to the public.



SUGGESTED METHOD OF DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister consider recommending to his cabinet colleagues that another way of dealing with the butter surplus would be to give it away to old age pensioners, and to others who need it, perhaps on doctors' prescriptions?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not prepared to answer?


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that other governments have dumped goods into the sea in the past, is not this government to be commended for releasing this butter to hospitals on a lower price basis?



EFFECT OF IMPORTATION OF CHEESE ON BUTTER MARKET

Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question arising out of the previous question. Does he not consider that the dumping of 2,500,000 pounds of cheese on to the Canadian market will disturb the butter market?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows of no dumping of cheese into Canada.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question I hope it will be on a different subject. I think we have had enough questions on butter. Could we perhaps slide on to another subject?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thought possibly the Prime Minister would clear up the mystery as to what price this butter is going to be sold at.


Mr. Fleming:: The mystery continues.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Sybil Bennell (Halton):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the hardships to many of my constituents and the critical state of negotiations in the settlement of the Ford strike, will the minister tell the house whether the government intends to reduce the 15 per cent excise tax on cars in order to assist in the settlement of the strike?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the question of excise taxes on motor cars has been drawn to my attention on a number of occasions recently and in particular by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and the hon. members for Essex West (Mr. Brown) and Essex South (Mr. Clark). But I am sure my hon. friend will understand that in this context, or even in

a general fiscal context, it would not be desirable nor possible to make any announcement of intention, but rather to state the fact when it occurred, if it does occur.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister noticed the story in this morning's Gazette that the Canadian Pacific Railway, commencing April 24, is about to lop 16 hours off the run from Montreal to Vancouver? Will the minister indicate why our publicly owned railway has not been in a position to make a similar announcement earlier, in view of the statement of the former president, Mr. Vaughan, to the railway committee of parliament some years ago?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I received the hon. member's question only a few minutes before coming into the house. However, I think my hon. friend must have failed to notice that, almost side by side on the same page of the same issue of the Montreal Gazette as the article he mentioned, there is an announcement by the Canadian National Railways to the effect that on April 24 a new fast transcontinental passenger train will considerably reduce the running time of the Montreal and Toronto sections of the Canadian National Railways run to Vancouver.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: should like to ask a supplementary question. Why is it, then, that the Canadian National Railways has not inaugurated a schedule earlier, when the former president said that was quite practicable and possible on the transcontinental run.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think I can add anything further to what I have said on the subject.



FURTHER LAY-OFFS OF EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport in regard to layoffs of section and maintenance men on the Canadian National Railways. How many have been laid off during the last week or so, and is it expected that the numbers that have been laid off will cover the situation?


George Carlyle Marler: While the hon. member was good
enough to give me notice of a somewhat
Inquiries of the Ministry similar question, I submit with deference that this is the kind of question that ought to be placed on the order paper. I think it will be well understood that details of the current employment position in a countrywide organization the size of the Canadian National Railways must be obtained from the different regions, and it seems to me only reasonable that the management could not be expected to have immediately at hand complete information from which they could, on short notice, determine the answer which might be given. In any event I hope my hon. friend will allow his question to go on the order paper, so that it may be duly answered.


John George Diefenbaker: No; this is a matter of great importance to the men working on the railways.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: And it is a matter of immediate importance.


Mr. Speaker:: Inasmuch as the debate on this particular point might be of interest to some hon. members, I would point out that of course answers to questions on the orders of the day are not debatable. Perhaps the hon. member would allow this matter to stand for the time being.



REGULATIONS APPLYING TO IMPORTATIONS FROM NEW ZEALAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture or, in his absence, the parliamentary assistant. Is cheese imported from New Zealand and other countries subject to the same strict inspection as Canadian cheese, in the matter of water content and the like?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Any imports of cheese are subject to the same import restrictions as cheese that is exported.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask a
supplementary question of the parliamentary assistant. In answering my question he said that the imported cheese is subject to the same regulations as our exported cheese. Is that the same as the inspections made of our cheese for home consumption?


Robert McCubbin: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that, but I think it is. However, I shall find out and let the hon. member know.

Inquiries of the Ministry
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT	NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY



ALLEGED DISAPPEARANCE OP MONEY AX BRITANNIA BEACH, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, has the Postmaster General had an opportunity to investigate and to report upon the disappearance of $44,000 from Britannia Beach post office?


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: Every case is investigated in the department, and this one is actually under investigation. I have asked for a report, and when I receive all the details I will be glad to inform the house about it.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, and in doing so I apologize for not having given him notice of it. According to an article in this morning's Gazette it is indicated that the government may be contemplating bringing the Canadian dollar into conformity with the United States dollar. Would the minister care to enlighten the house on that?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I did not happen to read the Gazette this morning. I was interested to see editorial comment on what someone thought was going to be government policy. But I think the answer to the hon. member's question would be that government policy will be announced when it is announced.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the government consider allowing Canadians and others to travel to Europe via Scandinavian Airlines from Winnipeg to Copenhagen?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I shall take my hon.
friend's question as notice and answer it at a later date.
[Mr. McCubbin.l



APPROVAL OF PROTOCOL ON ACCESSION OF FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the protocol to the North Atlantic treaty on the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany, signed by Canada at Paris on October 23, 1954, and that this house do approve the same.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege and my responsibility to wind up the debate which we have been having now for more than four days, and to try to deal, as best I can, with some of the points that have been raised in the course of this debate.
In order to assist me in the discharge of this responsibility the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) has just reminded me that it was six years ago today that he, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), whose absence we have all regretted during this debate, and I took our seats for the first time in this house.
This debate has not merely been prolonged, it has been far-reaching in its importance, and has been characterized, if I may say so, by a great sincerity of purpose displayed on the part of those who have contributed to it. I believe it is not unfair to say that emotion and fear have determined the viewpoint of some of the hon. members who have indicated they are not in favour of the resolution; while on the part of others, and I am thinking particularly of the hon. members for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) and Spa-dina (Mr. Croll), there has been a demonstration of the mastery of those feelings, of emotion and fear, which are so insecure and dangerous as a basis for policy and action. Those two members-with others-made their case for the resolution solely on the basis of reasoned evidence and of their own sober, realistic judgment.
In dealing now with some of the points, critical and otherwise, raised in this debate, I might say that there have been two criticisms of a general kind which have been levelled against the government; I am not dealing now with the substance of the resolution.
One has been repeated by a good many of my hon. friends opposite and it is that the government has failed to educate the people to the importance of the issue which we are now discussing, and failed also to inform parliament adequately on this and on foreign affairs generally.

The second criticism in this category is that the government is confronting parliament with a fait accompli and should have consulted it previously on this matter.
With regard to the first criticism, the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) said there is a great vacuum-if I may use that scientific expression-of ignorance in the country despite, as the hon. member put it, the millions spent on publicity by the government.
But the truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the government through the Department of External Affairs spends less than $80,000 per year for publicizing the activities of Canada at home and abroad in so far as international affairs are concerned. Of that sum $21,000 alone is spent in the dissemination of information about foreign affairs in Canada. So much for the "millions" spent on publication.
It has been alleged that the people are ignorant about the issue with which we have been confronted, but if that is so-and I am far from admitting it-I would point out that this particular issue of whether West Germany should or should not be brought into the association of western democratic states as a fully sovereign nation has been before the people and the parliament of Canada since 1950. There was very little opposition expressed by this parliament at earlier sessions on the association of Germany with the west in this manner.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the house committee on external affairs has had, I think, adequate opportunity in those years to discuss this matter, and has indeed done so.
In June, 1952, in the debate on the ratification of the NATO EDC protocol we talked a long time in this house about German rearmament. Yet some hon. members opposite speak as though this were the first time this subject has been under discussion. I would also point out that in the earlier discussion in 1952 the resolution to which I refer was passed in this house without a division.
Now, what are the facts regarding the information which has been made available to members and to the country concerning this particular issue of the admission of Germany to NATO? As soon as the London and Paris decisions were taken and as soon as the texts of those agreements were received in this country by immediate air mail from Paris, 500 copies were made available at once, without request, to all the members of the external affairs committee of this house and to all the members of the NATO parliamentary committee. Copies were also made available to public libraries throughout the country, to 93 editors of newspapers, to labour 50433-35
North Atlantic Treaty
and educational organizations, to private citizens who were on our mailing list or who requested it and to the educational branches of the defence forces.
Furthermore, in the first number of the external affairs bulletin after these agreements were signed, the one issued in November, the text of the final act and an explanatory article was made available to a large mailing list. In the December number of that bulletin a 5-page article was included on the association of Germany with NATO and dealing in a factual way with the matter before the house today. There were distributed 6,283 copies of that bulletin, including 74 to members of this house; indeed copies were distributed to all who have asked to be placed on the mailing list for that bulletin. The only reason it was not sent to more members of this house is that, on grounds of economy, we have asked members who wished to receive these publications to let us know so that we will not waste money in sending out publications to members who do not desire them. We could spend a great deal more money on information about these matters if we had it, but we have tried to keep our expenditures in that regard down to a minimum. If members who are on the committee on external affairs will recall past experience, they will realize that in that committee the government-and I am not complaining a bit about this fact-has been subject to searching criticism for expenditures in this regard.
As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) stated in his interesting speech, it is not only the responsibility of the government to inform public opinion in Canada on these matters but it is also the responsibility of members and of the press of this country. So, dealing with this point which was raised first by the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken), I would suggest that if EDC is not, according to a Gallup poll, understood by people in this country and if the initials mean very little to most of them, that is a matter to be regretted, but I hardly think it is a matter which can be laid on the doorstep of the government. Probably the reason why EDC is not better known is that in this country there has been a fundamental unity in connection with matters associated with EDC and NATO; and matters on which we are united rarely catch the attention of the people of the country. I would ask the hon. member not to worry too much about the importance of this Gallup poll because just the other day I read the result of another

North Atlantic Treaty
Gallup poll which said that only one in three Canadians can name a member oi the Ottawa cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: That is not surprising.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Human nature being what it
is,	I doubt that EDC or NATO will ever command as much interest among the readers of newspapers as do initials such as N.H.L., C.B.C. or even C.O.D.
As a mild reproach to the government, it has been suggested also that we do not take parliament enough into our confidence on matters concerning foreign affairs. I have looked into the record and I found that in each of the years 1952, 1953 and 1954 we devoted seven full days to the discussion of international matters; and in the committee on external affairs in 1952 we had eleven days, in 1953 twelve days and in 1954 thirteen days. I may repeat that we have had more than four days debate on this resolution in this house at this time, when the United Kingdom parliament-and I think we will all agree that the United Kingdom has as deep and immediate interest in this matter as we have-managed to dispose of its resolution in two days.
I feel, however, that the criticism made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) of the manner in which the pertinent documents in respect of this matter were tabled and were made available when the house opened was undoubtedly justified. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I apologize to him and to the house for the rather sloppy and indeed inadequate way in which that was done. I hope that we shall do better in the future.
The second criticism which I have mentioned, and which was stressed particularly by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) and the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis), is that in this house members have been confronted with a fait accompli, that they have no alternative in the matter, that they can do nothing about
it,	that the decision is already made. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that criticism is nonsense. In this matter-as the hon. member for Saskatoon must know; he is a student of constitutional matters-this government has followed not only the correct legal procedure-which indeed would not have required submission of the matter to the house as, legally, ratification is an executive action- but has followed also the correct constitutional practice and the one which has been followed by every other government which

has the same kind of parliamentary institutions that we have; I refer to the United Kingdom and other NATO governments. Indeed it is the same practice that will be followed by the United States, which has not yet even submitted this matter to congress. At least, I should say that it has been submitted to congress, Mr. Speaker, but it has not yet been considered or discussed there.
The hon. member for Saskatoon must know what this practice is, namely that the government takes the responsibility for signing an agreement, then brings that agreement to parliament for approval before ratification. Ratification is not given-this is now constitutional practice-without such approval.
I think it was suggested by him and indeed by others that we might have brought this matter to parliament before signature. In reply I claim that such a procedure would have been an impossible way to conduct diplomatic negotiations. In this case, indeed, it would have been even physically quite impossible. What would we have brought to parliament before signature?
The principle involved in this matter is the same-whether Germany should or should not be associated with the west- that had already been discussed in this parliament, as I have pointed out; not only had it been discussed but it had been approved by parliament when we approved the EDC protocol. The principle having been approved, we are certainly on good, sound, constitutional ground in taking part in these discussions, in signing the agreement and in afterwards bringing the agreement, as we have done, to parliament for approval or otherwise. That is exactly the course we have followed since the war in the case of every important international agreement. To argue, as a legitimate explanation or excuse to justify refusal to support the resolution, that any hon. member is being confronted with a fait accompli, is to advance a proposition that does not hold water in the slightest degree.
It has also been said that we should have called parliament after the agreements were signed. More than one hon. member on the other side felt that we should have done that in an emergency session. I would ask hon. members what was the emergency in connection with this resolution which would in the circumstances have justified the summoning of parliament last autumn? I can understand the necessity of taking that course if inaction on our part would have held up the implementation of these agreements, but there was no possibility of that happening and we in

the government knew it, as did hon. members generally. So here again we did what the other signatories to these agreements have done, what the United States did, what the United Kingdom did, what France and the other governments did, submitted them to their legislatures in ordinary session, and I am sure hon. members will agree that the agreements in question were quite as important to those countries, especially the European countries, as they are to us.
The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has stated that the result of this delay is that Canada is among the last of the signatory countries to take action in this matter. With respect, I suggest we are among the first, for if he will consult the records he will find that at the present time there are only three signatories to these agreements that have completed the process of legislative approval-the United Kingdom, Norway and Iceland.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about Greece?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Greece has not yet, as I understand it, approved these agreements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Last week.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I am wrong I will apologize to my hon. friend, but my information is that only three legislatures have approved these agreements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Belgium, too.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If we approve this resolution this afternoon, as I hope we will, then to the best of my information Canada will be fourth of the countries concerned to take the necessary legislative action.
Now, Mr. Speaker, some questions have arisen in the course of this discussion concerning Canada's commitments and how they might or might not be affected by the action we are proposing to take. I thought I had covered that in my earlier statement, but the house might like me to deal with some specific points which have been raised in the course of the debate since that statement. Some of these questions are questions for information and some of them are rather in the nature of critical observations with regard to our commitments.
So far as the first category of questions is concerned, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) asked me whether we had undertaken any new commitments in the resolution before the house. I would merely ask him if he would be so good as to read my earlier statement when I said we had not, that in fact we have undertaken, in so far as guarantees in the resolution are concerned, exactly the same kind of obligation that we undertook when the house gave 50433-351
North Atlantic Treaty
approval to the EDC-NATO protocol. I would, however, like to add that if these agreements are made effective, and I hope they will be, the Federal Republic of Germany will become a member of NATO and as Canada is a NATO area that will have, I suggest, a beneficial effect on existing commitments because the obligation of assistance under the North Atlantic treaty pact is reciprocal.
This point, Mr. Speaker, may strike home with greater force if we remind ourselves that with modern weapons and long-range aircraft full-scale war today would be quite a different matter from that of the last world war when this continent was safe from attack. Hon. members are aware, or they soon will be, of the large sums of money which will be necessary to be found on this continent to create an effective continental warning system. Surely that emphasizes the necessity of keeping our defences flexible and the necessity of continuing to examine with our friends in NATO the best and most effective way we can allocate our resources for the? general security. We would be irresponsible indeed if in that examination we did not take into account changes in the vulnerability of various areas of NATO as they occur.
That does not, Mr. Speaker, in any sense involve a weakening in our interest here in the defence of western Europe or any other NATO area. It does, however, I think, involve an increasing European interest in the continued security of North America as a NATO area. Anything that makes less possible a knock-out attack on the main centres of western strength, which are on this continent, increases the deterrent and thereby, I suggest, diminishes the risk of aggression anywhere.
As to the second category of questions about our commitments, there were-I say this in no captious sense and I would not be dealing with the matter if it had not been raised by hon. members opposite-critical observations about the extent of the commitments which we have undertaken. But in this case, if I may say so, the criticism of the two wings of the Conservative party, if I may put it that way, with respect to this matter tended, as has been the case before, to cancel each other out.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes), in what I thought was a very useful and indeed important contribution to this debate, asked me if I was satisfied that Canada was doing enough under NATO. My answei to that question is yes. Having regard to all the circumstances, including the one I have just mentioned, I think that we do not need to apologize in any way for our contribution to the common defence under NATO.

North Atlantic Treaty
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre when talking about the London conference said, as found at page 427 of Hansard of January 21:
I had hoped that Canada might have made as forthright a statement with regard to her forces in Europe as is implied in the commitment of Great Britain. . .
I would point out to the house that the commitment of Great Britain was to keep its forces, four divisions, I think, and the second tactical air force, on the continent of Europe for 44 years. I confess-indeed, confess is the wrong word-I said the other day and I repeat that Canada did not give any such pledge at the London meeting and was not asked to give any pledge of that kind because the United Kingdom pledge was given as a member of the western European union. That omission, if you like to call it an omission, on our part should please the hon. member for Three Rivers because, taking issue with his colleagues, he did state, and I am sure I am not misquoting him, his opinion that we had done and were doing rather too much in Korea and, indeed, in Indo-China and that we are overextended in these matters. He certainly overextended our figures with regard to the brigade in Europe because he nearly doubled them. He is on the record as having said, and that is the only reason I mention it, that we should not have been at the London conference. Indeed, he went a little further and said that we-I think by "we" he meant me-forced our way into that conference, a point that has been dealt with very effectively by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis). That is an interesting argument, Mr. Speaker, when you compare it with the other argument that this matter was so important for Canada that we should have called a special session. He said also, and I quote from Hansard for January 21, 1955, page 413:
But Canada had no more business to be there than Greece, . . .
Greece is an important and respected member of NATO. I would point out, however, that Greece does not have, and did not at that time have, any forces in Germany. Greece was not giving any mutual aid through the arrangements which were under consideration at the London conference. The sovereignty of Germany was under consideration also, which was a matter of real and immediate importance, not only to Canada generally but to the forces which we had in Germany. The hon. member's suggestion, however, was that notwithstanding all this we should have stayed away and allowed these matters of very direct concern to us to be decided by others. I do not myself, Mr. Speaker, approve of that form of new colonialism.
The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) expressed his worry over our defence expenditures, and that is certainly a legitimate worry. He felt we should be very careful because our existing commitments were so heavy that we should not increase them. Well, I share his preoccupation with defence expenditures, but I was mildly surprised at his worry, because just a few minutes before he made that statement he said, and he may or may not be right, that a sense of realism and an examination of what is going on should convince us that war is all but on us at this time. Then he added that we should, therefore, adopt the appropriate measures now open to us. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, they do involve expenditures on defence.


Mr. Dufresne:: I was speaking on the resolution.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was another question raised in this debate about our commitments. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Quebec West asked, and it is a good question, what would we do if the West Germans attacked Berlin? Are we involved? The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) went farther than that and said, at page 410 of Hansard for January 21, 1955:
I state also as a fact that there are unscrupulous groups in Germany who will go to any lengths in an attempt to unite East Germany with the west. Then what will we do?
Then he went on:
What if the United States decide that they are going to support this war against communism and communist barbarism in eastern Europe?
I thought I had answered that question in my earlier statement. It is such an important one that I do not apologize for repeating the answer. I said then, and I repeat now, that any aggressive action of this kind by the West Germans or by anybody else in NATO, but especially by the West Germans because they have undertaken a special obligation in this regard, would break the London and Paris agreements and would break the NATO agreements. In the case of the Federal Republic of Germany, such action would also break their own special undertakings, which they voluntarily assumed in London, not to use force. Far from there being any obligation or commitment on our part to go to their help, there would be an obligation on our part-it is written into these special undertakings to which we have subscribed-to consult under article 4 of the North Atlantic treaty as to what action we should take against an aggressor, whether or not he were a member of the NATO organization. I am

sure this is a purely hypothetical question, but it is just as well that the answer should be plain and unambiguous.
Several members, and particularly the hon. member for Prince Albert, wondered why the limitation imposed on the Federal Republic of Germany in regard to the production of certain weapons should be restricted to, the phrase used is, "in its territory." I assure the house that there was no ulterior purpose, nothing sinister about these qualifying words. I would point out also that there were other clauses in these protocols which cover the level of stocks of the member governments, the level of stocks to be permitted, and which were to be controlled by a majority vote of the western European council. The German level in these special arms is zero.
I would point out also that the arms limitation agency set up by the western European agreement has power to control imports into Germany and exports of these armaments from other countries to Germany. This power relates not only to exports and imports of what we call the ABC weapons, but also to heavy warships, mines, aircraft and certain other types of weapons. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization command can inspect these levels-and equipment-of the German forces, amongst others, at any time. I feel that in the circumstances we have established rather firm safeguards, not only in regard to production but the provision and use of armaments.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister a question? What is the explanation, then, for the establishment by the Dornier aircraft company of a plant in Spain?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, there is nothing in the agreement, as I have just said, which would prevent a private German company from establishing a factory in Spain, Canada or any other country for the manufacture of aeroplanes. But there is something in the agreement which would prevent the German federal republic forces from equipping themselves with heavy aeroplanes.
The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl), in a statement which moved us all, made a very interesting suggestion that our new partner, the young Federal Republic of Germany, as I hope she will be, might subscribe to some of the international conventions which have been worked out under the United Nations charter, and more particularly the genocide convention. This thought, if I may say so, is one which I feel sure would have a genuine appeal for the German federal republic, as it has for other countries which have subscribed to similar agreements based on similar principles.
North Atlantic Treaty
I would point out in this connection, Mr. Speaker, that the federal republic has already agreed upon a declaration incorporated into the final act of the London conference, to abide by the obligations set forth in article 1 of the United Nations charter, which all members of the United Nations are pledged to follow in the pursuit of the purposes of the United Nations. One of the most important of these purposes is, and I quote from the charter:
. . . promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
This declaration of the federal republic is an aspect of the agreement which I admit has received very little attention, either here or elsewhere, possibly because we have directed so much attention to that part which turned on the rearmament of Germany.
Now, on the rearmament side of this agreement, which seems to be the only one attracting a great deal of attention, emphasis has been laid on the statement-not in this case a fact-that nobody wants these agreements.
It is quite true, Mr. Speaker, that the communists do not want them, and it is also true that they are bending every effort in every country concerned to destroy and defeat them. We do not hear as much sometimes about this Russian pressure as we hear-and we have heard it in this house -about American pressure in respect of these matters. I would like to ask any hon. member opposite to point out any such unfair pressure by the United States since these agreements were negotiated in London early last autumn. The attitude of the United States administration in respect of these matters during these months has been wise and understanding and characterized by no pressure of any kind.
In an effort to illustrate the seriousness and indeed the importance of this communist pressure which I think, notwithstanding what has been said by my hon. friends opposite, has had some effect in this country, my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) read into the record last Friday a directive of the communist party of this country which showed very conclusively the length to which that party was prepared to go in defeating these agreements. In commenting on that statement of my colleague, the hon. member for Regina City, reflecting a sensitiveness in this matter which I suggest is almost morbid, saw fit to say this. First, Mr. Speaker, I had better read exactly what the Minister of National Health and Welfare did say. I quote from page 434 of Hansard. He said:
I think the people of the country should know-

North Atlantic Treaty
I am making a horrible mistake. I am reading from the statement of the hon. mem-oer from Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). I will come to him in just a minute.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare said this, as reported at page 420 of Hansard:
1 would suggest that if there is no enthusiasm on the part of the people of Canada, it could be because this directive has already been acted upon.
That is the communist directive. I continue with the quotation:
But we are not unfamiliar with this technique,-
He was talking about the members of this parliament. He goes on:
-and none of us in this house is going to be in any way influenced except, as the hon. member who has just spoken has said, by the dictates of his or her own conscience.
That seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, to be a perfectly proper observation to make, but it did not seem proper to the hon. member for Saskatoon, because this is how he described it at page 435 of Hansard:
I refer to the rather snide remark-I do not like the word but I cannot think of a better one at the moment-of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who suggested that there might have been some softening of our opinion or the opinion of the country in this regard on account of certain propaganda from the handful of communists in Canada. It is true that the minister immediately withdrew that inference in so far as members of parliament were concerned. I have heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare do that sort of thing before. I believe, however, that inferences, accusations or slander once indulged in can never be completely withdrawn.
In view of what the minister did say and the careful and courteous way in which he put it-and he was applauded by hon. members opposite when he said it-I suggest that that commentary on the minister's remarks by my hon. friend was unfair and unwarranted.
I approach these agreements, and this proposal in particular, in no defeatist or defensive attitude at all. Like hon. members, I regret, indeed I lament, the circumstances which make this kind of agreement necessary; but I am happy that this kind of solution has been found to meet those circumstances and I rejoice when I think what might have happened and what nearly happened last autumn when we were in danger of not finding any such solution, when we were in danger not so much of losing 12 divisions but of losing NATO itself, and when we were in danger of seeing the disintegration quickly rather than slowly of the coalition for peace which we had been building up. It has been repeated over and over again that nobody wants these agreements. Well, Mr. Speaker,

this government and the people of Canada want these agreements. The government of free Germany wants these agreements which, quite incorrectly, are characterized as being forced on them. That of course is quite absurd, because the agreements themselves merely give the Germans the right, if they so desire and accept these agreements, to rearm up to a point. They can accept-and I hope they will, notwithstanding what has been said in this house-or they can reject them.
It has been said over and over again by my hon. friends opposite-I am sure they are quite sincere-


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege. My hon. friend keeps referring to his hon. friends opposite. He looks in the direction of the C.C.F. but the record does not show that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am grateful to my hon. friend for giving me a chance to correct the record in that regard, because when I talk about my hon. friends opposite who are opposed to these agreements I am referring not to his own party but to members of the C.C.F. party, not all of whom have spoken against the agreements, as they have every right to do.
Now, I would like to know the evidence, which they have not yet produced to my satisfaction, to support the statement that the German people are opposed to these agreements. Certainly, the German people, through their elected representatives, accepted EDC by a vote of 224 to 165 in the Bundestag. They have said that the leader of the socialist party, Herr Ollenhauer is unalterably opposed to these agreements and the rearming of Germany; but this German socialist democratic leader said at Dortmund in 1953, and I am quoting from his speech, and I believe he was speaking for his party:
We believe that co-operation in a shape which is acceptable also to Great Britain and the Scandinavian nations and associated with NATO will provide better conditions for the effective security arrangements than the EDC treaty. The S.P.D. would accordingly welcome new negotiations on this basis.
And that is the basis on which we have been negotiating. Furthermore, in the social democratic conference late in 1954, the same leader said:
Nor does our rejection of EDC signify the refusal of a military contribution to the defence of the free world in all circumstances so long as Germany remains divided.
It has been said that France is opposed to or accepts these agreements with the greatest

reluctance. I know what the vote was in the French lower chamber a few weeks ago: 287 for and 260 against. I also know-and this was pointed out by others who support this agreement-I also know that 99 communists voted against it. But, more significant-because communist votes in these matters have only a kind of significance- more significant is the fact that 53 members of the M.R.P. party who voted against this agreement did not oppose rearmament when it was introduced in EDC. Indeed, they were the chief supporters of EDC.
Also I know-and this has been pointed out-that 86 socialists in the French house voted for the agreement. I would also like to mention now that so much has been made of the way these agreements have been forced on European parliaments that the legislature of Norway, which incidentally has a socialist majority, approved them by 126 to 7. Three or four of the seven were communist members.
I note that the socialist government of Denmark has signed these agreements and is submitting them to its parliament for approval. I note that the lower house in Belgium, in which also the socialist party is the largest, voted-and there was a considerably bigger majority than that which they gave EDC a couple of years ago-last week to approve these agreements by a vote of 181 to 9. And in the 9 were 4 communists.
Mr. Speaker, these socialist parties and socialist governments are led by men who are very close to the danger from Germany and the danger from Russia, who have experienced that danger, who have an understanding of these European forces which are moving now *-an understanding which may, I suggest, be greater than that of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). And these men and parties did not hesitate to express their approval in the way I have mentioned for these particular agreements.
I know that much has been made in this house, by those opposing this resolution, of the vote in the House of Commons in London. That vote was 264 for and 4 against. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden), and indeed also the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis), said that this constituted a silent protest by a majority of members who could only signify their protest by not voting for it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a complete- though I am quite sure unintentional-misrepresentation of the political situation reflected in that vote. And I suggest to my hon. friends that they look up the circumstances of that vote. Indeed, to save them the trouble I shall tell them. In the United Kingdom the small vote-and it was a small vote-registered in support of the agreement
North Atlantic Treaty
was the result, as I am sure some hon. members know, of a last-minute refusal on the part of six pacifist Labourites-and I honour them for their views in that regard- to support the agreement made between the two parties that there would not be a division on this matter. The Labour party leadership had realized that if a vote were taken notwithstanding the support of these agreements by their leaders and by their front bench and by a majority of their members-indeed Mr. Morrison, Mr. Attlee and others spoke in favour of them-the Bevanites and perhaps some others would decide to abstain. And therefore for the purpose of the public record they did not desire such a vote.
To avoid it the Labour leaders decided that the party as a whole should abstain since the agreement that there should be no division was made null and void when these six Labour members forced a vote. But a great many of the members in that house who did not vote on that occasion, including the bulk of the Labour party, by the speeches they made and the decisions they had reached, would have supported it. And indeed there were also 40 Conservative members absent from that vote because they assumed there would be no division. That is the correct situation in regard to the United Kingdom vote, and it is not the same as that which has been put forward by some hon. members opposite.
Now, my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in a very sincere contribution to this debate, said that he opposed it because, among other things, it meant an irrevocable step-because it meant, as he put it, I think, that we would reach the point of no return.
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), and some others who feel as he does about these matters, said that this agreement is futile, if not worse, because it will be met by increased arms on the other side, and that because of that competition we will end up in a worse condition than when we started.
On the basis of that logic, Mr. Speaker, we would never have built up NATO, about which exactly the same arguments could have been but were not used in the house at that time. I suggest that this step is not irrevocable at all, in the sense that it will determine the path to war. On the contrary, I think it will give us a chance to find a better path than the one we are following now, which might indeed lead to war.
It has been said that there is lots of time, that time is on our side in these matters. Well, time is on our side only if we

North Atlantic Treaty
use it. It has been said, "What's the hurry?" Well, Mr. Speaker, we began trying to make an arrangement with the Soviet union on these matters affecting Germany years ago, and only after repeated attempts in that direction had failed did the western powers, reluctantly, decide that this was the only course and the best course.
Why do the opponents of this resolution keep on forgetting, or misrepresenting, the Berlin conference which was held a year ago? Why do they go on with the tendentious and one-sided interpretation which we heard last night in the statement of the hon. member for Nanaimo? I am not trying to prove that everything that was put forward by the western delegates at that conference was perfect-or at any other conference with the Soviet union-but I do know, and I have read the record from beginning to end, and I hope my hon. friends have too-that at that time the western leaders pleaded for free elections. And, more important, when they were pushed by the Soviet union they agreed that any all-German government which might result from such elections could contract out of EDC, and that it would be free to accept or reject the arrangements of EDC. That is something that the Soviet delegates, Soviet representatives, indeed Mr. Molotov at the conference itself, deliberately refused to recognize. The other day in the House of Commons in London Sir Anthony Eden gave us the assurance that the position in that regard is exactly the same today.
He said-and I am quoting from his speech on that occasion, in answer to a question:
Of course, the federal republic, as long as the federal republic exists, is bound by these agreements as long as these agreements are in force. There is no doubt about that at all. But we did make it abundantly clear during the Berlin conference . . . that if a new unified German state were to take the place of the German republic she would have the right either to assume, or not to assume, the previous obligations of the federal republic.
And he went on to add that the converse also was true. We all hope of course-that is, those of us who support these agreements- that that would not happen if all-German free elections took place. But we have to take our chances in that regard.
And so, Mr. Speaker, the question, then, is not that these agreements are being forced on Germany as something irrevocable. That is not the case at all. The question is not primarily one of German rearmament, and whether she will or will not have the right to arm up to 12 divisions. The question is whether she will be given back her sovereignty. I believe we all admit that this must include the first right of sovereignty, the right to defend oneself. The question is whether she will be given permission to

associate herself with the west as one of a defensive group, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, and in the process accepting certain limitations and controls.
In view of that I ask the hon. members who are opposing this agreement how they can possibly argue that the situation now is exactly as it was in the twenties when the nazis were working their way to power?
The hon. member for Saskatoon, at page 436 of Hansard for January 21, made what I thought was an extraordinary statement in view of the arguments he had been putting forward. He said:
If conditions do not change, Germany is going to arm herself. Let us make no mistake about that. She will rearm, and that rearmament will be limited only by her own desires. But we need not thrust arms upon her.
But no one is thrusting arms upon her. She has the right of decision as to whether she will accept this agreement. The alternative, however, in the words of the hon. member, is that if she does not accept the agreements "she will rearm, and that rearmament will be limited only by her own desires."
Is that a better alternative than the controls which are embodied in these agreements? I suggest that if he and others who feel like him believe that rearmament will be limited only by Germany's own desires and that it is inevitable, then they have no basis for opposing this resolution.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) echoed similar views when he said, at page 411 of Hansard:
. . . Germany is going to be rearmed in any event. I believe that to be the case.
Why then does he not support us in this matter? He gave us a reason and I hope I will be able to remove its validity. He said we had not gone far enough in the political and economic integration outlined under article 2 of NATO.
But, Mr. Speaker, if that is his only argument I ask him, and others who think as he does in this matter, to consider what would happen if these agreements were rejected. What would happen to the European union? What would happen to NATO? In my opinion, both would go. What chance would there then be of realizing the ideal which I share in this regard with the hon. member for Winnipeg North, of a closer Atlantic community and union?
The hon. member states, and others who oppose this agreement have echoed this sentiment, that, and I quote from page 410 of Hansard:
Germany must be brought back within the comity of nations and as rapidly as possible, though not on Russian terms.

I could not describe our objective any better than that. I say in all sincerity that that is what we are trying to do, namely bring Germany back into the comity of nations, but not into the cominformity of nations. There is very little chance of doing that if we scorn her now; if we reject her offer of association with the west, or if we treat her as a second-class nation, and refuse her the first right of sovereignty, which is participation in her own defence.
This will never be done if we think only of -and it is hard to forget it-German savagery and her misdeeds. I suggest that the hon. members on the other side of the house from the C.C.F. group who are opposing this resolution are adopting a purely negative attitude in this matter. They are looking back only and they are filled with fears that this course will lead to war and will stop negotiations. I do not share those fears. I think this course if it is operated in the right manner will lead away from war, and I think it will make our negotiations more effective.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in dealing with my point that we had made 16 efforts to negotiate German unification, said, "Let us make 16 more if the alternative is war." I agree, but as I see it the alternative is not war, and I am quite sure that if these agreements go into operation we will be able to negotiate as we must with those whom we have some right to fear.
I deny these agreements will stop the process of negotiation and bring about war. I think the experience of the last four or five years, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) said last night, bears this out. The Economist put it very neatly in this manner:
Russia wastes no concession on the weak and a policy of negotiating from strength-however fiercely denounced by the Russians-is the one thing that gets results.
As I see it, it is far more dangerous to peace, far more likely to provoke ultimate conflict, if we refuse to accept these agreements.
I wish to conclude by summing up the reasons why I say that, and I hope my remarks will make some impression on those who are opposing these agreements.
My first reason is well expressed by Sir Anthony Eden when he said:
The only alternative to the Paris agreements would be to plunge the world into confusion and despair.
Would that be a good basis for negotiation? Would it be better to negotiate now and abandon or drop our policies as the Soviet union is begging us to do? We were asked last night, and indeed during the debate on Thursday and Friday, to look at new Soviet offers 50433-36
North Atlantic Treaty
and particularly at Mr. Molotov's of January 15. I have looked at it, like the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) and others, and I find it a very stale carrot indeed. I am quite sure I am correct in saying that it is a transparent and rather clumsy effort to bring pressure on the Germans on the eve of their debate. It has not deceived the German people, but it may have deceived some hon. members in this house. The hon. member for Mackenzie at page 488 of Hansard referred to this matter. I checked with the text of the proposal and I would like to give a translation of the paragraph on elections which I think, and he agrees, is most important. The translation is as follows:
"The Soviet government deems it possible in the event of the consent of the government of the German democratic republic and the federal republic to come to an agreement on appropriate supervision.
This has been interpreted by some as an advance on the part of the Soviet union. But I would point out that it reads ". . . in the event of the consent of the government of the German democratic republic and the federal republic . . .", and one is a communist state.
It might give some indication of what German communists and the Russians mean by "appropriate supervision" in this connection if I state what Herr Ulbricht, the communist leader in East Germany, had to say on this issue, almost at the same time. I think it is a lurid commentary on the January 15 offer. He described how the elections should be conducted if they ever got around to holding them. He advised the communists in East Germany to carry out:
The setting up of joint lists of candidates for the national front as a preparation for what we wish to extend to the whole of Germany later.
That has a very ominous ring, Mr. Speaker. We have had experience with that kind of procedure in East Germany, in Korea, and in other parts of the world where the communists have been in control or have been trying to get control. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson)-and he quotes the London Times in this respect-feels that this new offer has created a great deal of confusion. I think it has done so; but I think it has created more confusion in some minds in this house than it has created elsewhere.
Then the second reason why I asked for unanimous support of these agreements is that if they were rejected they would be a rebuff to the peaceful democratic forces in Germany which now form a great majority of the members of that legislature. In this respect I cannot refrain from saying that I have been amazed at the attack made on these governing forces in the Federal Republic of Germany at the present time. My friend

North Atlantic Treaty
the hon. member for Yorkton, dealing with this matter, talked about nazi leadership. At page 493 of Hansard he is reported to have had this to say:
I refuse to support a nazi German army forced upon a reluctant German people who know the real nazis.
The same feeling was expressed by the hon. member for Regina City and the hon. member for Nanaimo. Let me quote from someone who knows this government in Germany and these people probably better than most of us know them in this House of Commons. I refer to an experienced and responsible journalist, Mr. Theodore H. White. This is what he has to say-and it was written last week-about the Bonn government:
There are certain important points to note about Bonn. Here, in the Bundestag, sit 487 representatives of the people, put there by an election in which 86 per cent of all Germans eligible to vote went freely to the polls. . . Yet among all these elected representatives of Germany there is not one latter-day nazi, not one communist. These men of the Bundestag, together, have given Germans the freest, most decent government in their history.
This is the government that asks to be admitted into our partnership. This is the regime against which remarks are aimed when some of my hon. friends opposite talk about nazi leadership. If we rebuff these forces in Germany and if we discourage and make cynical Herr Adenauer and the men around him, I suggest we shall play right into the hands of the right and left extremists; and there are some of those in Western Germany today.
Who are these so-called nazi leaders responsible for German defence who would organize the German army at this time? They would be under the leadership of a great European, as I have characterized him, namely Herr Adenauer, a man who was on the SS blacklist and was arrested by Hitler. The four top men who would have charge of the defence organization they are permitted would be Herr Blank, a trade union leader; Adolf Heusinger, never a nazi; Hans Speidel, a German general who was in the plot against Hitler and who was tortured in nazi prisons; while the officer in charge of military education and indoctrination has been described as a man of "glowing conscience" who truly wants to make a new democratic army that belongs to the people.
My third reason, Mr. Speaker, is that if we defeat this measure, the move toward European unity would be stopped and France and Germany would once again drift apart. My fourth reason is that NATO, on which our hopes depend for so much more than defence,

would be seriously, indeed I think fatally, weakened. I am absolutely convinced of this and not merely, as was suggested last night, because of United States policy in this matter. How could NATO forces remain in Germany indefinitely without that country being a member? How could that country be a member without sovereignty, unless it became a second-class member? And it would rightfully not accept that status. How could it exercise sovereignty if it were refused any share in the collective defence? These, Mr. Speaker, are the imperatives of the situation and not, as I say, United States pressure.
This is not an act of war but of faith; faith in the better forces in Germany, and that includes the social democratic party in Germany; faith in our own increasing strength, under increasingly collective controls, used for pacific defence purposes; faith in our ever-widening system of collective action; faith in European union and the Atlantic community. It is also an act of faith that the Soviet union, when it faces the reality of our determination to proceed steadily on this course, will decide to negotiate realistically for a solution of those European and world questions which will help to heal some of the ills and evils that now plague our distressed world.
Before I left Paris at the last meeting I had a conversation with a leader of one of the NATO countries, one who had suffered such cruelties from the nazi forces in his country during the war that it would make the blood run cold to hear about them. As we parted I said to him, "In the light of your experiences, it is not going to be easy for you personally to support these agreements". His reply was more or less in these words: "Not at all. Indeed, it makes me more anxious than ever to get these agreements through, because I believe they can help to bring about a European and Atlantic unity in which national madness and cruelty of this kind will be prevented and which will give us a better chance for peace".
Mr. Speaker, a vote against this resolution will not defeat it in this house but it will be a declaration of support for such defeat in other countries as well as in this country, with all the unhappy and dangerous consequences that would, I am certain, flow from that defeat. There may be risk in the course we are advocating. There is risk in every international action. But there is more than risk involved if this were defeated; there is a very real and immediate danger to European unity, Atlantic co-operation and peace in the rejection of this course to which we have set

The Address-Mr. Cannon
our hand. I therefore hope that no member in this Canadian House of Commons will vote against this proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) 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. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, we shall now descend from the high level of international politics to the lower plane of domestic issues and the needs of the Magdalen islands.
50433-36i
5$6	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cannon
When I adjourned the debate on Wednesday last I was suggesting that the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) should state in this house where his party stands on the issue of whether armaments should be reduced in Canada in order to increase family allowances. This is what I said at the time, as reported at page 356 of Hansard:
I should like the leader of the Social Credit party to tell the house and the country-because I say the country is entitled to a declaration from the man who is leader of a party that claims to be a national party-whether or not he is in favour of Canadian armament, whether or not he is in favour of Canada living up to the obligations it undertook with the rest of the western European nations to resist communism, whether he is in favour of Canada living up to the obligations that it undertook under NATO. I say that if he is in favour of these things the Social Credit party cannot in good faith tell the people of my county or of any other county that this country ought to reduce military expenditures in order to double family allowances.
I say that if the Social Credit party is in favour of our living up to our obligations under NATO and our obligations to the other free countries allied with us, its leader should denounce in the house and repudiate what has been done in my constituency in the name of the Social Credit party. I shall look forward to hearing him make a statement on that point.
I am pleased to be able to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and to tell the people of my county that at the first opportunity that arose after that, the leader of the Social Credit party made the following statement in the debate on the motion to admit Germany into NATO, as reported at page 387 of Hansard:
I say to him, the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon), that I have supported NATO right from the beginning, because I have felt that Canada must be strong, and that Canada must stand with the other free nations of the world to resist communism. I believe we must continue to spend for defence purposes and keep ourselves strong and, certainly so long as the present situation continues, we must give high priority to defence. That is where I stand.
He goes on to say:
I took a note of what the hon. member said last night and I felt that under the circumstances I was obligated to state where I stand. And by the way, I am speaking at this time for the Social Credit association of Canada, of which I have the honour to be leader. I am sure all the members of that association, and those affiliated with it, will stand by what I have to say.
That was a very satisfactory answer for me to get, and I ask the people of my county to take particular note of it. I ask the people who have been telephoning me during the last few days to protest against the remarks


I made last week, who state that they are members of that party, to take note of what their leader said in the house. I hope that will settle the matter.


Ernest George Hansell: May I say for the record that the Social Crediters my hon. friend refers to are not affiliated with the Social Credit association of Canada. Therefore the leader of this group is not their leader in that sense.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I am not familiar with the internal organization of your party. I can assure you they use your name in their propaganda.


An hon. Member:: So does Bennett. (Translation):


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I want to call your attention and that of the members to an item which appeared in the Vancouver Province, reporting a statement of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) which aims a blow at the rights of Frenchspeaking members of the House of Commons as well as the rights of all French-speaking electors. This article, which appeared in the said paper on September 15, was sent to me by a friend of mine in British Columbia. It is entitled:
(Text):
Winch hits use of French language in the house.
(Translation):
The article goes on:
(Text):
"I have yet to meet a French-Canadian M.P. who does not understand or speak English," he explained. "Yet this minority group insists on using French in the house. We have to wait twenty-four hours for a transcript to find out what they said."
(Translation):
The hon. member for Vancouver East said at a meeting held in Vancouver North: "I have yet to meet a French-Canadian M.P. who does not understand or speak English. Yet this minority group insists on using French in the house. We have to wait 24 hours for a transcript to find out what they said."
He also said:
(Text):
It is their God-given right to use the French tongue but why do they Insist on it when they know the majority of the members are Englishspeaking and can speak it themselves?

(Translation):
He also said:
It is their right, he says-how nice of him! -to use French, but he wonders why they do so, when they know the majority of members are English-speaking and cannot understand French.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: That is socialistic fanaticism.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I could not let this attack go unchallenged. I deem it my duty to register a strong protest against what the hon. member said in North Vancouver. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of thing that hurts national unity in this country.
Vigilance, we are told, is the price of freedom. So it is, and it is also the price of the safeguard of our rights. We must ever be on the watch, especially when certain people make statements of that kind three thousand miles away, in the hope that no one will ever hear about it in our province. But we did hear about it in the province of Quebec because a former Liberal member, a friend of mine-Liberals can always be counted upon to defend Quebec-sent me the article in question just in time so I could bring it to the attention of the house.


Mr. Langlois (Berihier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: That is better than the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne).


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Speaker, members from both sides of the house, including the member for Quebec West, will certainly join me in this strong protest against this denial of the privilege of the French-speaking minority in this house and in the country.
And so, Mr. Speaker, French-speaking members would be penalized for having had enough brains and gumption to learn English. Because they are able to express themselves in the language of the other members of this house, they would be penalized and prevented from speaking their own tongue in this house?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Besides, French is an official language in this country. Maybe he does not know that.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: He probably did not. In any case, we will let him know about it, and French-speaking members of this house will continue, in future, to speak French. Not only will they continue to speak French as they have in the past, but I think they should, in
The Address-Mr. Cannon protest against this unwarranted attack, speak French more often than they have up till now.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You can count on the member for Quebec West.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: I wondered if I should continue in English my remarks in connection with the needs of my constituency, but I need not tell you that after such an attack, and to mark my sincere indignation at this attack, I shall speak French.
Mr. Speaker, the people of the Magdalen islands are always in need of federal help in the field of air services. At the present time, for instance, we need a new airfield at House Harbour. Ever since aircraft have been coming to the Magdalen islands, they have been landing on the beach. However, this beach cannot be used as a landing strip.
The weather is at times severe, specially irr winter, and when ice accumulates on the" beach, aircraft cannot reach the Magdalen islands. In fact, quite often and for long periods of time, our aircraft cannot land on the beach.
Only yesterday, I received a letter from one of my constituents stating that at the time of writing it was a week since the aircraft had come to the Magdalen islands. I point this out to show that we are in need of an airfield in the Magdalen islands. I am happy to tell the house that, before his resignation as minister of transport, the Hon. Lionel Chevrier had agreed to the building of an airstrip at House Harbour. I mentioned this to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and I am sure that the electors of my constituency of Magdalen islands can count on him to fulfil the promise given to me by his predecessor.
We should not forget, however, that, in order to permit construction of this landing strip, the municipality has to purchase the required land. It had therefore to present a private bill in the Quebec provincial legislature and, as a lawyer, I personally undertook to introduce that bill in the provincial house. I am glad to be able, through you, Mr. Speaker, to tell my constituents that I am assured that the authorities to whom I presented the bill will pass it, and every obstacle will thus be removed.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: With a co-operative provincial government.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: In this case, yes. We need something else too, with respect to air com-
558	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cannon munications. At present Magdalen islands enjoy a tri-weekly air service with Charlottetown. However, if we want to travel from Moncton to Quebec city in T.C.A. planes, we have to go via Montreal, because those planes do not go directly to Quebec city. With a delegation from the chamber of commerce of Quebec city, I asked the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who have control over T.C.A., that steps be taken to provide us with a direct air service between Quebec city and the islands. I feel that the citizens of Magdalen islands are entitled to direct connections with the capital of their province, without having to detour through Montreal. I will not insist overly on that point since the delegation was well received and I am confident that our request will be granted fairly soon.
We should have a direct air service with Gaspe. At present, when the sick from Magdalen islands have to go to the hospital at Gaspe, they have to travel by way of Charlottetown, Moncton and Matapedia, and then come back to Gaspe. Our need of air transport service in the area is evident. This time I am suggesting to the provincial government that it make a grant to the airline operating at Rimouski, for example, to enable the company to establish an air service linking Magdalen islands more directly with the province of Quebec, of which they are part, as you know.
We also need fishing harbours. For some time, the fish have been going farther and farther away from our shores, and we have to use larger ships to go farther offshore. To use those boats, we need deeper fishing harbours and proper wharves. Two places in my constituency have been brought to my attention: the bay of Portage-du-Cap and . the bay of Bassin-aux-Huitres. In those two bays, water is deep enough and those ships which have a much larger draught than the ones we use now could come in and stay anchored when there are great storms. However, a channel should be dredged to enable the ships to use those bays. I am submitting this request to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), and I am sure it will receive full attention.
Now I would like to see an extension added to the wharf at Etang-du-Nord and the construction of a slip to serve as a shelter for fishing boats of lie Brion. The breakwater at Aurigny should also be lengthened.
Mr. Speaker, it was announced in the speech from the throne that supplementary benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act were to be provided. I am pleased to note this, and I want to thank the government on behalf of my constituents who draw benefits under the act. Unfortunately a great 

number of my constituents do not benefit therefrom, because the fishing industry does not come under the act.
I have mentioned more than once in this house that the fishermen should benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Act. In England and in the United States fishermen benefit from that act and I cannot see why it should not be the same here in Canada. It is said that there are certain administrative difficulties, but, Mr. Speaker, difficulties are there to be overcome by a good administration. As the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Labour are in charge in this case, I am sure that they will be able to overcome these administrative difficulties.
I would suggest, as a first step, that fishermen drawing wages should be allowed to benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act. True, a small percentage of fishermen work for wages but their case is particularly difficult from two points of view. First, the personal point of view, since they are the only people working on a salary basis who do not come under the Unemployment Insurance Act and, secondly, from the point of view of their prospective employers. The latter have great difficulty in finding people who will work for wages, since those day-labourers refuse to take up work which deprives them of unemployment insurance benefits. And so, the owner of a fishing vessel who has no grown-up son to help him has a hard time finding helpers. The obvious result of all this is that we have a very valuable natural resource which is very inadequately developed, while if those owners of fishing craft were in a position to employ the men they need, they could bring back a lot more fish.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before going any further, may I ask how much time I have left?
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time expires at 4.53.


William Earl Rowe: About 15 seconds.
(Translation):


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I had more to say but, as my speaking time is running out,
I shall immediately come to a part of my speech which I should not want to omit.
This year will mark the bicentenary of the dispersion of the Acadians in 1755.
I wish to join with the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) in mentioning this event.

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
Ninety per cent of my electors in the Magdalen islands are of Acadian descent. They have preserved the customs and traditions of this valiant people. They are hospitable, hard-working and respectful of religious and civic authorities. One of their most touching traditions is their devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Their national day is celebrated on Assumption day and it is truly touching to hear them sing "Ave Maris Stella" at the end of their meetings.
One hears of the miracle of French survival in America, of the remarkable fact that the 60,000 Frenchmen who remained in Canada in 1759 have left millions of descendants who remained faithful to their tongue and to their religious beliefs in this land of America. But I believe that the survival of the Acadians is even more remarkable, more worthy of mention, because they were not only conquered and separated from their mother country, but also dispersed in foreign lands from which the ancestors of the ones now living in Canada came back after overcoming obstacles that would have disheartened men of lesser courage and perseverance.
I join with the hon. member for Gloucester in expressing the wish that, not only the federal government, but also the government of the province of Quebec, will make a substantial contribution to ensure the success of the Acadian celebrations.
(Text):


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, following the pleasant custom which obtains in this house I would like to begin by congratulating the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and by expressing the hope that they did not feel as apprehensive about their maiden speeches as I did about mine. Why we should feel so apprehensive I am not quite sure. It is not the custom to hang on our words. It is not because there are surging crowds waiting to hear what we say. But there is something about the first speech in this house which has an alarming effect, and I hope they came through with less wear and tear than I did.
Being of a pacific turn of mind and fearing that during the long recess I might lose whatever offensive spirit I have, I decided it would be a good thing to take the Winnipeg Free Press daily in order to keep myself alive, shall I say, to irritating things. I was greatly interested when I got the issue of October 4 to read the first editorial, which began "Mr. Drew is right and Mr. St. Laurent is wrong". I thought this surely was "something for the book". I read further and found
that the issue on which Mr. Drew was right and Mr. St. Laurent was wrong was on the time of the meeting of parliament. I shall read briefly from the editorial.
Mr. Drew is right and Mr. St. Laurent is wrong about the time lor parliament to meet.
Later it continues:
By starting the session next month, ministers would from their point of view merely be giving themselves more work sooner: and they would risk grumbles from their back-bench supporters, many of whom probably prefer to stay at home and tend to local political fences or other business.
To state these motives should be enough to make the government change its mind. They are poor motives.
The Free Press goes on to use words which are interesting and I think sound a little bit surprising if we reflect on what actually takes place:
The business of a parliamentary government, under our constitution, is to govern through parliament, subject to the public discussion for which parliament is the only satisfactory focus.
Let us consider what has happened in the light of these words. We have had six months' recess, six months during which matters of tremendous importance came up, six months when parliament was ignored. The Free Press goes on to make the point that there were vital issues:
There are plenty of issues-foreign policy in both Europe and the east, the seaway, foreign trade, the state of business at home, employment prospects, labour relations, immigration, parliament's own procedures-
And so on. I stress again that what has happened is an almost complete negation of this principle. It is a kind of erosion of parliamentary rights. If we look at it clearly it is really a conspiracy against the principles of our constitution, and the Free Press is quite correct in what it states.
We are told there is to be a further invasion of the rights of the minority. We are told that the rules are to be amended so that the rights we have had in the past will be drastically cut down. If this is attempted I can only hope that every member of the opposition, to whatever party he belongs, will resist to the utmost. I agree with facilitating the business in a sensible manner, but I think we should be astute to resist strongly anything which savours of merely cutting down the rights of the opposition, and I think we should do our very utmost to make the general public feel how important this is.
It is interesting to observe that even in Britain, which we always recognize as the home of parliamentary democracy, they are beginning to worry about this issue. In a book on parliamentary procedure edited by Campion at page 120 this is stated in an
560	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell article by Sir Arthur Salter, who I believe should be regarded as a great parliamentarian:
Our destiny turns largely, I think, upon our ability, without making the executive impotent or ineffective, to restore the traditions and the authority of parliament so that it can be once more the effective guardian of our liberties.
It so happens that in the motion we have just discussed we have before us crystal clear evidence of the evils which have followed from this six months' recess. In the debate which has just been concluded it was made painfully clear that because there had been no parliamentary discussion the public had not been educated, and the field had been left open to the most insidious propaganda.
I shall not take up the time of the house to dwell on that, but it must be clear to all of us. We might even have voted unanimously on that resolution if it had not been for the fact that a great many people were undoubtedly led away by this propaganda. It was quite within the truth for members to say that many in Canada were not in favour of the resolution. That is quite true, but it need not have been nearly so true if parliament had been in session last autumn.
As regards unemployment, it has already been mentioned that the measure of relief which we passed since the house came together has been delayed for months because this house was not in session and the unemployed have suffered accordingly.
A most important matter which has not been discussed and which could have been discussed before Christmas, and could be even now if there were any desire to do so, is the question of the commonwealth conference. With respect to this we have been denied any discussion, and we have been denied any information. A pamphlet issued the other day by the Canadian Institute of International Affairs says: "As the date for the commonwealth conference on January 31 approaches there is a deepening silence on the plans and prospects, and some of the prospects seem to be clouded in an almost surreptitious air".
I think that is a fair statement. It is almost as though the government wished no one to know about it. The attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on this matter has been perfectly astonishing. I would like to read a brief extract from what the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 34 of Hansard of January 10, in answer to


the suggestion that there might be a discussion on trade with regard to the commonwealth conference. He said:
Those are not things which can be achieved by agreement between any two individuals. They are things that must be the result of the operation of economic factors that depend upon a multiplicity of different shaping trends.
There may be some truth in that, but surely we would also say that these events have to be shaped by the actions of men in public life.
There has recently been a certain amount of information emanating from Great Britain as to what is taking place. In the Ottawa Journal of January 22 there appeared in a Reuters dispatch the following:
Full sessions of the commonwealth meetings presided over by Prime Minister Churchill will be devoted mainly to international affairs and a review of the prospects for peaceful east-west coexistence. Other topics to be discussed at the full sessions are the economic, financial and trading problems of the sterling area, to which all of the commonwealth countries except Canada belong.
We now find that this meeting is going to take place, and that we are to know nothing about it. It was suggested that there might be an opportunity for discussion here. At one stage the Prime Minister almost seemed to go along with that suggestion, but no action has been taken with respect to it. I wish to point out that on a previous occasion, in the year 1930, when a former prime minister went to London, a completely different practice was followed. There is a certain similarity about the situation we were facing then and that which we are facing now. The sale of wheat was in question then as it is in question now. As reported at page 600 of Hansard for the special session of 1930, Mr. Bennett said:
During the last week I have communicated also with western premiers and indicated that it was thought desirable that those who might be able to speak with some authority in connection with the great wheat branch of our industry should be represented. It is thought perhaps Mr. McPhail who represents the pools of the three prairie provinces . . . Professor Swanson, of Saskatchewan university, and Mr. John I. Macfarlane , , , should proceed to London at this time.
Then he adds:
The gentlemen I have named, who are specialists in their lines of business, will be able to speak with some definite authority in connection with these matters, not only in London but on the continent of Europe.
Mr. Speaker, compare that situation with what we have here, naught but impenetrable mystery. Our commonwealth relations can be more important than ever because, if GATT fails, we may be back in a trading

situation where the whole relation of the commonwealth will assume an importance it has not had for years.
We have got past the time when people are ready to write off the commonwealth as a second-class association of nations. Not only did the commonwealth save the world in 1914 and in 1940, but last summer we had Sir Anthony Eden coming to the rescue of a distracted Europe. Again we owe it to the commonwealth, and in this case particularly to the United Kingdom, that the situation was restored. There is now no talk about Britain being a second-class power.
When we look at the commonwealth, we see that it spans the world. It bridges the gap between east and west. India is to come to the commonwealth conference; India, which can have such a great influence on the east as well as on the west. India is most important. We remember the help which India was able to give in the Korean matter when it came to the question of the truce. We remember that while the southeast Asia treaty organization -SEATO as we call it-is in the course of development, India can be of great help there.
Happily the fear of colonialism-the almost inferiority complex-that we used to find occasionally in Canada is entirely a thing of the past. Owing to the work of Sir Robert Borden and those who followed him our autonomous position is well understood. It had its beginning with the signing of the peace treaty in 1919. We have gone on and established it, so there is now no question whatever as to our position.
Trade organization in the commonwealth can also be of great importance. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has warned us that GATT is in danger. We are not accustomed to regard the Minister of Trade and Commerce as a prophet of evil. He is the professional optimist usually. When he tells us that GATT is in danger, we should believe it is in danger. Yet at this time the Prime Minister goes off without any mandate and without telling us anything about what he is going to do, having refused to entertain any suggestion of discussion.
What a world of difference there is between the situation as it is and the situation as it might have been. What we should have had is a vigorous approach to the question from our own point of view, so that instead of leaving trends to shape themselves we should have had vigorous statesmen shaping the trends. After all, years ago in this country there was a great trend to the United States in our economic development, but we decided that we wished to be ourselves, and by strength of statesmanship events were moulded to that end.
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
This time are we going to be merely an onlooker? Are we going to do what we were reported to have done at Colombo, namely be a kind of friendly gadfly? It does not seem to me to make sense. Yet so far as we can discover from the Prime Minister there is no reason to believe that our Department of Trade and Commerce has taken an active interest in this forthcoming conference. The communication apparently has been, according to the Prime Minister's statement, purely between the external affairs department and, in London, the commonwealth relations department.
Are the Canadian people too juvenile to be consulted about this matter? Are their representatives too unworthy to be allowed to express their views? The news we have from England indicating that the sterling bloc members of the commonwealth are going to discuss their trade relationships makes us keener than ever to take a prepared part in the conference, but we have seemed to have little interest in it in spite of our vast moral and material resources. By maintaining this strange detachment I would fear that we may have far less influence than we might otherwise have. You get out of anything only what you put into it. If we have not prepared carefully and thoroughly, what can we expect from this hesitating, mysterious, unco-operative and unexpectant attitude? As I say, we may get only what we put into it. How can we expect results to accrue when we seemingly have so little to put into it ourselves?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Would the hon. member permit me to ask one question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. member really consider it unco-operative for the Prime Minister to go off for two weeks at the very beginning of what is going to be an extremely busy and difficult session of parliament in order to take part in this conference?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What I am complaining about is that the Prime Minister will have gone off having completely neglected parliament; having refused to allow parliament to discuss the matter at all; having refused to give it the slightest indication of what his own attitude is to be. Having appeared earlier in the session to get near the stage where he was going to allow discussion, he then entirely backed away from that position. That is what I complain about.


Walter Edward Harris: What is this debate for, except for hon. members to express their opinions about things?

The Address-Mr. Macdcmnell


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am suggesting that we might have had a debate on this subject.


Walter Edward Harris: You are free to do so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Prime Minister has not granted it. That is what I am complaining of.
I now come back to consider the question of, as I say, the neglect of parliament. I refer to the Free Press which speaks about the ministers not wanting "more work sooner".
I ask what the ministers have been doing. It is interesting to follow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill). He has been down in his constituency. It is a good thing sometimes to let your constituents see you. He gave a charming picture to the Rotary club, I think it was, in St. John's, of a pleasant political family party which they had in Newfoundland. According to the St. John's press:
He gave full credit to Premier Smallwood for his decision to enter the political field. He had not the remotest intention of entering it until the premier persuaded him to do so. One of his constituents remarked that while it was nice to see Mr. Pickersgill visit his riding, he might as well have stayed in Ottawa. He would be elected anyway if Joey supported him.
That is an extremely pleasant relationship.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I make just a slight correction? What he said was: "so long as you are Joey's man".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is even more interesting. I was going to say that one was delighted to see this picture of personal relations at the dominion-provincial level, and I wondered whether there were perhaps equally intimate and pleasant relations between other members of the cabinet and other provincial premiers. However, I will leave that particular point just there.


Mr. Harkness:: Pocket borough, Canadian
style.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I must say it is very
interesting to hear the minister describe himself as "Joey's man"; nevertheless-


Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: It is a
wonder he did not say "Joey's boy".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not
like to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) interrupted and said something about a pocket borough.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I did not. Mr. Speaker, I said no such thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg the hon. member's
pardon. It was the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). I just thought the
IMr. Harris.]
house ought to know that the opposition had a Conservative candidate in my riding, and since the election he has joined the C.C.F.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member did not hear me. I said, "pocket borough, Canadian style", and I meant "pocket".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I go on now, Mr. Speaker? I am able to qualify the statement the minister made in St. John's because I followed him farther west, and in Manitoba he divided the credit for his being in the house. He said it was because Prime Minister St. Laurent was prime minister that he was in public life, and that he would not have accepted the career under other circumstances. When I read that I could not help wondering whether the former prime minister, if he by chance interests himself in the small affairs that go on in this house, might have thought that perhaps he could have done the persuading job himself if he had got around to it, but after all that is something we will never know.
I had hoped also to follow the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), but he is not here today and therefore I do not think I shall. We are all delighted that the minister is back addressing the house in his ringing tones and nursing his glass of water. I often wonder what the minister would be like if instead of a glass of water he had what the great Disraeli used to have, a glass of gin; what the tones of the Minister of Agriculture would be like if in fact he were permitted to have gin instead of water. I can only imagine; but in any event I am sure it is water.


Walter Edward Harris: None of you would be elected.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to say a
word about the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), though he is not here either. We are all delighted that he was honoured by the medal which was given to him for his services to aeronautics. I always like to think of the minister as a strong, silent man. I like to think of him as coming into his office in the morning, selling 10 or 12 million bushels of wheat, going on to build two or three pipe lines, then perhaps buying some super aeroplanes for Trans-Canada Air Lines before lunch, and then coming in here and telling us how foolish anybody is who thinks there is the slightest flaw of any kind in the ministry of trade and commerce.
I like to think of him that way, but that is not the whole story of the minister. During the course of the autumn when speaking somewhere he mentioned that at that time

he had 11 speeches facing him which he was to deliver. So we can see that ministers are not entirely tied to their desks while we are away. They do get around a bit, and it is difficult for them, of course, to have us here. I am sure that life is much easier for them when they keep us away, and it will need all our efforts to make them change that attitude.
My time runs on, Mr. Speaker, and I want to stay well within my time today. I want to say a word about unemployment. If you read the speech from the throne carefully you will find that unemployment is mentioned. It says:
Some unemployment of a regional and seasonal nature is being experienced.
These words should not have been put into the mouth of the Governor General. They are so unequal to the situation that they might have choked him. In a narrow sense I suppose everything is seasonal and regional. I would imagine, for example, that the people of the maritimes would be very ready indeed to agree that there is regional unemployment down there far worse than in most of the rest of the country.
I am going to deal with this matter very briefly by making one comparison. I have here figures showing unemployment in Great Britain during 1954, and I shall refer to them very briefly. In January, for example, unemployment in Britain was 1-6 per cent. In Canada unemployment of unplaced applicants amounted to 10 per cent, and of persons without jobs and seeking work amounted to 5 per cent. I shall not put the whole statement on record. It is taken from a recent number of the London Economist, and shows that our percentages of unplaced applicants are roughly five times greater than the percentage of British unemployed, and our percentage of persons with jobs and seeking work is roughly three times greater.
That seems to me a very poor record for us to show. After all, Britain has only her skills to sell and we have not only our skills, of which we are so fond of talking, but natural resources in a big way. Our unemployment would have been much worse if it had not been for the fortunate speeding up in the base metals last year.
What is the government's attitude in the face of this situation? There are really three schools of thought. There is first of all the Minister of Trade and Commerce who, speaking of unemployment in the neighbourhood of 200,000, said he thought that was getting down to the "hard core" of unemployment. It will not be very comforting to the people unemployed to know that they form part of the hard core. In other words the situation is
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell really taken almost as normal. Then we have two different attitudes taken by the Prime Minister. The first is what one might call the attitude of unlimited liability. The Prime Minister is reported to have said in September:
We have a country where there should be work for everybody and if we are not smart enough to organize the economy of the nation to provide work for everybody we are incompetent.
That is a strong statement, but the Prime Minister made it; and certainly on the basis of that statement there is every evidence that they are incompetent at the present time. There is another approach which the Prime Minister took the other day and which one might describe as the "let nature take its course" approach. After agreeing in his speech on the address that unemployment is deplorable and expressing small faith in expenditures on public undertakings-how different from the shelf of projects we used to hear about-he said, as found at page 33 of Hansard of January 10:
What is required is something that stimulates the economy generally and does not to any unnecessary degree interfere with the display by our Canadian citizens of their own initiative and skills.
There you have three different views. "You pays your money and you takes your choice". Surely we can fairly expect the government to help reduce unemployment by creating a climate favourable for business, and in particular to do something in the way of decreasing taxes. I shall also have something to say later on the failure to economize. I should like to say in passing that it is still extraordinarily unsatisfactory to have two entirely different unemployment returns, one from the Department of Labour and the other from the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Unemployment is of course closely associated with overseas trade, and I wish to say a word at this point about GATT. The Minister of Trade and Commerce told us the other day that GATT was going badly, and according to the Winnipeg Free Press when the minister uses any but the words of optimism we should treat them very seriously indeed. The Free Press of December 29 last contains the following:
Few things in Canadian politics or business are more stable than the optimism of Mr. C. D. Howe.
No one expects him ever to talk gloomily. And Mr. Howe is not quite a Cleopatra; custom has somewhat staled the variety of his ways of looking on the bright side.
Later in the paragraph it says, after commenting on his outlook for the year:
And his restraint about next year may therefore be read almost like a cry of despair . . .

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
Now I want to come to GATT. I want to remind the house that we in this party welcomed GATT, and supported it. As we look back over seven years we realize that GATT has made a substantial contribution to the creation of a world in which goods move with some degree of freedom, the kind of world in which an exporting country like Canada can prosper.
It is true that we have had to take the bitter with the sweet. It is true that of late there seems to have been more bitter and less sweet, especially in our relations with the United States. The sweet has been in what I have indicated; that is, that GATT, particularly in its early years, did do something to create that kind of world in which an exporting country can prosper. But we have found more and more evidence, as time has gone on, that the escape clauses lurking in GATT have been used more and more, particularly by the United States; that it has played false to its own child by running away from the spirit of GATT.
Canada, on the other hand, has supported it and has had an almost unique record. We must face the fact that in our support of GATT we have injured some of our own people. I feel it is reasonable to hope that our negotiators will take a firm stand in the matter of these escape clauses. I hope we shall not get, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce seemed to indicate the other day he expected, a weaker agreement. There is one encouraging sign. There is a sign that a less restrictive trade policy may be adopted by the United States. Unfortunately that is in the government area, and perhaps has not yet reached congress itself.
I want to say a word about economy. But first I want to say just a word about the speech delivered in Montreal by the Minister of Finance. There are two schools of thought on this speech, as set out in the Free Press. One is what you might call the barefoot boy school, which would indicate that the minister went down to Montreal and talked out of turn because he did not quite understand what he was saying. I do not subscribe to that school. The other school of thought, also expressed in the Free Press, is that he did not say anything at all; he just said what any reasonable man would say. I do not subscribe to that school, either, because I think it is true the minister did raise hopes of a reduction in taxes. I want to say that while the speech, whatever else it was, was good', clean fun, taxation is a dreadfully serious business to a lot of people. I feel it is not really the proper place at all for fun.
IMr. Macdonnell.]

There has been much talk in this house of economy. We were told by the ex-minister of finance that the duties of a minister of finance consist largely of a continuous search for economies, and that the effort to achieve economy and efficiency is never relaxed. In the light of that, Mr. Speaker, I want to read a statement in the Winnipeg Free Press, from its Ottawa correspondent. I ought to be very grateful to the Winnipeg Free Press for helping me so much with this speech. I want to read what he has to say about the government efforts at economy. It is an astonishing statement. It reads:
Careful study of the federal civil service indicated that the cause of the hitherto uncontrollable growth was simple. Whenever there was a need for expansion, the departments expanded. They did not search within themselves for surplus personnel and meet the need for expansion by making better use of their existing staff. They invariably added to it.
To illustrate: if a bridge is built across the St. Lawrence, there would nave to be a customs house at the Canadian end of it, staffed by customs and immigration officers. The opening of the bridge would greatly reduce the number of people entering the country by ferries. But instead of transferring men from the ferry ports to the bridge, the tendency would be to add to the payroll by appointing additional staff at the bridge.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would that not depend on whether the ferry was still there?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am reading from the Free Press. The article continues at another point:
Hitherto, the treasury board has only dealt with proposals for increases. There has never been, until now, a consistent effort made to employ the existing staff more efficiently or to reduce the civil service.
That seems to me to be a most astounding statement. If private enterprise were run in that way it would not last any time. There are two great evils in it. It not only wastes the money of the people, but it wastes the efforts of the civil servants. If this report is correct, and it is written by a man who certainly does not go out of his way to criticize the government, we are not only wasting money but we are wasting the efforts of civil servants because good new jobs are not going, as they should, to the men presently in the service.
The writer says the present Minister of Finance is turning tough, and things are going to be better. This leads me to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a cartoon in the Winnipeg Free Press. It depicts the Minister of Finance as Hercules, and a very fine Hercules he makes. It depicts the civil service as the many headed serpent known in mythology as Hydra. The minister is wielding his sword and has just cut off the head of the Department of Justice, shown as quite small, but that is the only one. I do not

know why the Department of Justice has had its head cut off. Perhaps it is because it does not spend much. This one head has been cut off and is on the ground. But the Department of External Affairs with three heads, reaching up very high; the Department of Transport with three heads and the Department of Agriculture with one enormous head, are depicted as having their heads still in place. Up to the moment, therefore, the minister has made very little progress, according to this cartoon. According to the fable, as some hon. members may know, in the end Hercules did kill the Hydra. I am not able to tell you how many years he took to do it.
I have tried to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have had a very unsatisfactory opening this session; that it is quite clear that much has been lost by the long delay; that the unemployment situation is entirely unsatisfactory and that the government took two or three different attitudes but pursued none with any vigour; and finally, that in the realm of economy we have this fantastic situation which I have disclosed to you by reading the extract from the Free Press. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote for the amendment with enthusiasm.
(Translation) :


Mr. R. E. Reinke (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, on the very day the session opened, the member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In an admirable speech, which we listened to with the greatest attention, he, among other things, asked Providence to grant us peace, happiness and justice. Even though this is no easy task, as far as I am concerned, I do wish to congratulate him in his own tongue on what he said and on the way in which he said it, even though, hearing me, he might have some trouble recognizing the lovely tongue of Racine and Moliere.
(Text) :
Now, Mr. Speaker, having congratulated the mover (Mr. Leduc) in his own tongue, I shall now revert to my own. I have too much respect for the French language to continue murdering it for another half hour or so. I should like to extend congratulations also to the seconder (Mr. Carrick). While I know this is customary, I do it with sincerity, not of course suggesting that those hon. members who spoke before me were not sincere. But I can assure hon. members that I have very carefully read their speeches, and appreciate the thoughtfulness and eloquence of each speaker.
Although I had the privilege of piloting through this house at the last session of parliament, on behalf of my friends of Slovak origin, a bill to incorporate the Canadian Slovak League, I still consider this to be my
The Address-Mr. Reinke maiden speech, and that being so I should like to refer briefly to my constituency of Hamilton South.
There is no doubt in my mind that you, sir, and other hon. members have heard of that garden spot of Canada and the hub of Canada's industry, the city of Hamilton, If you have not, it is no fault of my friend the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross), who has sat in this house since 1940 constantly extolling the virtues of this wonderful city. Hamilton has a population of approximately 220,000 people. The riding of Hamilton South was first established at the last redistribution of parliamentary seats, and I have the honour and privilege of being its first member. On the escarpment rising some 250 feet above the level of lake Ontario, which we call our mountain, we find a city within a city of approximately 40,000 people. From this vantage point we can look out over all that part of the city lying below with its fine residential sections, commerce and heavy industry. Then farther to the north one may view Hamilton harbour, which ranked second only to Montreal in tonnage shipped in 1953 and third to Montreal and Vancouver in tonnage shipped in 1954. Finally farther north are the Burlington canal and the blue waters of lake Ontario, and on a clear day we can see Toronto about 30 miles in the distance.
This mountain portion of the riding comprises about one-third of the population. The other two-thirds begin at the foothills and reach from Hamilton bay. In this portion you find residential and commercial sections, and near the bay front we have such well-known firms as Canadian Westinghouse, Dominion Foundries and Steel, C.I.L., National Steel Car, Firestone and others too numerous to mention.
You will realize from my description of the industries there, Mr. Speaker, that our prosperity depends upon the existence of many industries which employ thousands of people. Hamilton is a workingman's city. It is gratifying to know that Canada is governed by a party that appreciates the cause of the workingman, just as I do, having been associated with the steel industry for a number of years. I am proud that our government enacts legislation with a view to improving the conditions of the people as a whole, giving them security, improving their health and living conditions, not infringing upon their right to be free citizens nor infringing on the system of free enterprise which is part of our democratic way of life.
Although no reference was made to a tax reduction in the speech from the throne, we shall all look forward to the day when reductions can be made safely. Up to the present
566	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Reinke time there has been no final agreement on the Korean issue. Our preparedness program must go on to act as a deterrent against communist aggression or until that ominous cloud which hangs over our head has been dispelled. The Canadian people would want to pay taxes, knowing that any reduction would have to come from our defence budget, which consumes nearly 50 per cent of our tax dollar, or from our welfare program which accounts for approximately 25 per cent of our budget.
My congratulations, sir, go to the government for the fine start we have made on the St. Lawrence seaway. The appointment of such a capable man as the Hon. Lionel Chevrier to head that authority is to be commended. In passing, I would like to pay my respects to the late Robert Saunders, who was the chairman of the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission. I am sure the St. Lawrence seaway power authority will miss his help during the days ahead. We are proud to live in Hamilton. The completion of the seaway will further strengthen our prosperity and renew activity to build up our wonderful land-locked harbour.
Although the legislation was passed at the last session, I am happy to make reference to the change in the Unemployment Insurance Act which permits the payment of benefits to those who become ill while unemployed. Many of my constituents had advocated that this legislation should be introduced, and were very pleased to learn of its adoption by this parliament. My friends in Hamilton representing labour will be pleased to know that the representations that were made to us in Ottawa last year did not fall on deaf ears. Responsible groups asked for an increase in the scale and duration of winter benefits, which measure has already passed this house this session. In addition local governments, labour and other agencies have asked for greater financial support to assist unemployed workers. I am pleased that our government will take action on this matter through an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
A great deal has been said in this house about unemployment. The Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe), that great prophet of gloom, has said that before 60 days have passed 600,000 people will be unemployed in this country. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said in his speech, at page 93 of Hansard:
We are in tremendous need of the production of wealth to provide an adequate base for a proper, full-fledged social security program.
I am wondering what the hon. member referred to. Did he mean that the Bank of Canada printing presses should put on an


extra shift at the mint? Then the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) said, at page 315 of Hansard:
I am positive that those who sit on the treasury benches today know that the big problem is to equate consuming power with producing power. If there is an equation of production with consumption in terms of purchasing power and prices you will have no dififlculty, and you will solve the very grievous problems that are facing the people of Canada today.
I do not think Einstein himself could have given us a more comprehensive statement than that. "Equate consuming power with producing power." There again I am wondering what the hon. member has in mind.
I could go on quoting speeches made by hon. members of all the opposition parties. "Blast our way into world markets." "Injurious fiscal policies." "Waste and extravagance." In all these speeches I have listened to I have not heard any good, constructive advice. Their one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. They compliment the government on the public works program, the building of the causeway to Cape Breton island, the removal of Ripple Rock, the St. Lawrence seaway development; then in the next breath they suggest that taxes are choking industry and the workers of this country.
Responsible labour, or the people of Canada in general, are not advocating tax reductions. All they ask is the chance to earn a decent living. All they ask is that when taxes are levied everyone should pay his or her rightful share. I am sure the opposition would not suggest cutting the corporation tax on profits which is close to 50 per cent, and raise the tax on the smaller wage earner. I am sure they would not suggest cutting the excise tax at the expense of the small wage earner.
I hold in my hand a clipping from the Hamilton Spectator of January 22, 1955. In it I find that those seeking work in Hamilton numbered 11,361 men and 3,902 women. A year ago the figures were 8,652 men and 3,410 women. There is an increase; but the total claims paid for men and women are less than 100 higher than in the same period a year ago. As the Prime Minister explained, there is no cure-all for unemployment; but everything possible must be done to relieve the situation. I refer to another clipping from the Globe and Mail of January 24, in which the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) is reported as having said:
Is it any wonder that the government offers no adequate proposals to meet the problem of unemployment when they know and care so little about it?
If that is not an irresponsible statement I do not know what it is, to suggest that this government knows and cares little about unemployment. It is entirely untrue. The

British North America Act leaves responsibility for welfare with the provinces. After all, the federal government must consider the needs of all ten provinces. It is a provincial responsibility to heed requests made by municipal governments and welfare agencies. I do believe that the responsibility of this government is to reinforce the ability of the provinces to meet their constitutional responsibilities. The provinces must develop public assistance for those in need who are not covered by other measures. Our responsibility is to assist the provinces by helping them pay for the cost of administering these measures.
I am pleased that it is proposed in the speech from the throne to ask parliament to consider amendments to the Blind Persons Act to lower the age of eligibility and raise income ceilings. While this measure will not entail too heavy a burden upon the taxpayers of this country, nevertheless it will be a godsend to those seriously handicapped people. I am looking forward to the day when the means test will be removed entirely. Its removal would not be too much of a burden, as the recipients of this pension number somewhat less than 8,300.
I was greatly amused to hear the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, when enumerating these proposals by the government in the speech from the throne, giving credit to each of his colleagues in turn. He suggested that at last the government had heeded the pleas of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) regarding war veterans allowances. I would like my hon. friend to know that all of us to your right, Mr. Speaker, have advocated amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act to raise the basic rates as well as the ceiling on permissible incomes of recipients. I have made several personal appeals to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), as have my colleagues.
I think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was right when he suggested that it was more important to the health of the Canadian economy to have things done, rather than to discuss in the House of Commons who was the promoter. However, there is no group more deserving than these burnt-out pensioners. I am sure they received the news with much rejoicing.
I should like now to refer to the last clause of the amendment offered by the official opposition. It is as follows:
(f) in co-operation with the provinces to develop an effective contributory plan which will assure that every Canadian will have adequate hospital and medical services.
The Address-Mr. Reinke
I am quick to admit it would be very difficult not to support an amendment of this type. I personally will rejoice the day a workable health insurance plan is introduced in this House of Commons. Most hon. members on this side will support such a plan; and you may rest assured that when health insurance legislation is introduced and presented, it will be by a Liberal government. When the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King, as prime minister of Canada, announced the beginning of the health program in 1948, he indicated that before health insurance could be established on an adequate basis another development would be essential. He was referring to a nation-wide health program. Let us then glance at the picture after six years of operation.
Since the inauguration of the national health program in 1948, no less than 650 individual hospital construction projects have been undertaken. Twenty-five per cent of these are in Ontario. Then, $60 million in federal grants have gone toward hospital construction projects, and have assisted to provide new accommodation for 61,453 patients. I do not have the figures for 1954, but in 1953 there were 300,000 chest X-ray examinations given to Canadians. I could go on and enumerate specific achievements under the national health program as they affect Canada as a whole; new services established, special drugs provided free of charge, scientific equipment purchased for hospitals and public health units.
I feel it is somewhat significant that of all the moneys allotted under the national health program for Ontario, only a little over one-half has been used by that province. As hon. members know, the province must apply for these grants. As an example, in the six-year period $958,000 was allotted for crippled children, but the province has applied for only $517,440. For professional training in that six-year period $1,233,000 was allotted, but the province has applied for only $831,862. For hospital construction the amount allotted was $23,981,816, and Ontario has applied for $15,024,099. For mental health the amount allotted was $9,789,911 and Ontario has applied for only $5,201,715. So the picture goes, and a similar situation applies in connection with tuberculosis control, public health research, general public health, cancer control and so on.
This is what the national health program has meant to the city of Hamilton:
568	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Reinke Hospital construction grant
1.	Hamilton General hospital:
A grant of $672,000 was made for the construction of 189 active treatment beds and 322 chronic beds to this existing active treatment hospital.


Mr. Palleii:: How big was the grant from Ontario, as well?


Russell Earl Reinke: I am not suggesting that the province has not helped.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The province gave the same.


Russell Earl Reinke: To continue with the information I have been giving to show what the national health program has meant for the city of Hamilton in the matter of hospital construction grants:
2.	St. Peter's infirmary:
A grant of $132,000 was made for the construction of 88 additional chronic beds to this existing chronic hospital.
3.	St. Joseph's hospital:
A grant of $9,500 was made for the construction of 19 additional nurses' beds to the existing nurses' residence of this hospital.
4.	Mountain sanatorium:
A grant of $110,961.12 was made for the construction of 64 additional tuberculosis beds and 42 nurses' beds to this existing sanatorium.
5.	Norah Frances Henderson hospital:
A grant of approximately $506,000.
Mental health grant
1.	Mental health clinic, Hamilton:
Extension of services to this clinic-
Expenditure 1948-53, $35,887.65.
2.	Assistance to Ontario hospital, Hamilton: Technical equipment-Expenditure 194953, $18,504.48.
Tuberculosis control grant
1.	Streptomycin and P.A.S. for all Ontario sanatoria including Mountain sanatoria.
2.	Under hospital admission chest X-ray program, X-ray equipment has been purchased for the Hamilton General hospital and St. Joseph's hospital in Hamilton.
3.	Chest clinic services were provided through the purchase of equipment for the centre in Hamilton.
4.	Technical equipment has been purchased for the Mountain sanatorium. Expenditure 1951-53, $27,597.49.

Research
1.	Study of diagnostic procedure at the Mountain sanatorium-Expenditure, 1948-52, $13,413.76.
2.	Limnobiological study of Hamilton bay- Expenditure, 1950-53, $13,547.95.
Venereal disease control grant
Maintenance of a clinic at Hamilton.
Crippled children grant
1.	Orthopaedic services for crippled children through the employment of a nurse at Hamilton.
2.	Cerebral palsy training centre, Hamilton -Expenditure, 1951-53, $19,350.
Professional training grant
Grant to nursing school-Hamilton College -McMaster University-Expenditure, 194953, $44,710.30.
General public health grant
1.	Equipment for arthritic clinic at Hamilton.
2.	Respirators for Hamilton General hospital.
3.	Vision-testing services in schools for Hamilton.
Cancer control grant
Maintenance of a cancer clinic at Hamilton General hospital, $39,000 for installation of cobalt 60 beam therapy unit (cobalt bomb).
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the remarkable achievements he and his department have accomplished. His genuine concern for the health of every Canadian is apparent, and progress has been swift and orderly. I believe Canadians generally realize that this plan has brought us nearer to our objective, the highest possible standard of health for Canadians.
Since the vote on the speech from the throne constitutes a vote of confidence or lack of confidence in the government, this amendment has been introduced to embarrass private members on this side. The opposition know that we on your right, Mr. Speaker, are anxious for national health insurance; but I can assure hon. members of the opposition that we on this side have the utmost confidence in our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his government.
This brings me to a point which I believe should be brought to the attention of the house at this time. On July 27, 1954, I had the privilege of speaking at a rally to which

all ethnic groups had been invited, sponsored by the Ukrainian Canadian committee. It was organized under the slogan "Independence for Ukraine." The object of the manifestation was to inform the public about the underhand work of the Kremlin with respect to the exploitation of the Ukraine and its enslavement. This enslavement has been referred to by other speakers in this house on previous occasions, and reference has been made to the fact that in 1919 the Ukraine, having escaped the czarist yoke, proclaimed a free, independent, and democratic republic. Then the bolshevik government in Moscow declared war, the red army invaded the Ukraine and along with the fifth column succeeded in its conquest.
Then followed the terrible famine of 1932-33, which took about 5 million lives. The Russian communist leaders were responsible for the destruction of Ukrainian science, tradition and learning. Both Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholic churches were destroyed. Priests were imprisoned, subjected to forced labour, or killed. To sum it all up, the Ukraine was "liberated". The truth is that communists first create chaos and prepare the groundwork for a puppet government by international and internal upheavals. That is their method in every country.
However, getting back to my story, the rally was attended by hundreds of Canadian Ukrainians who openly showed their true feelings toward Russia by displaying anticommunist banners. A few weeks later while driving from Hamilton to Toronto through a small town called Palermo I noticed a huge crowd assembled on a large picnic ground. There must have been four to five thousand people. I drove into the grounds, stopped the car, and inquired about the reason for the huge picnic. I was informed that this was a large international Ukrainian picnic, and people had come to it from all parts of Canada and the United States.
In one part of the ground set aside from the actual picnic area I noticed a rather large and impressive looking monument with well kept paths leading up to it, and upon getting closer I found it to be a large bronze statue of a man. There were two inscriptions on the monument, one in English and one in Ukrainian. The one in English read:
"T. Shevchenko-in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of Ukrainians in Canada (1891-1951)".
For the information of hon. members I might mention that Shevchenko was a famous poet of the Ukraine greatly revered by the people and representative of the culture of the day. He is regarded much as Shakespeare is regarded by the English. He was born in 1814 and died in 1861. Then
The Address-Mr. Reinke I inquired about the Ukrainian inscription. Normally one would assume the translation would be the same as the English version, but this is how the translation read:
From the Ukrainian Soviet people to Ukrainians in Canada-Kiev 1950.
The English inscription was put there simply to mislead English speaking Canadians. This is nothing new to those who know communists. The monument was not sent to Ukrainians in Canada by the Ukrainian people. It was sent to communists in Canada of the labour progressive party, and was sent by a communist government. The communists have laid claim to the United States poet Walt Whitman and the Scottish poet Robert Burns, as they have with Shevchenko.
As far as the Ukrainian national federation is concerned, it was the first organized body in Canada to fight communists and to draw the attention of Canadians and the Canadian government to the dangers of communism. As a matter of fact Saturday, January 22, was the 36th anniversary of the proclamation of the independence of the Ukraine.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not criticizing that group of loyal Canadians or any other loyal group of Ukrainian or other origin. Nor am I embarking on a crusade of McCarthyism or trying needlessly to alarm this government and the House of Commons. But we do have a situation which requires a great deal of consideration.
This 22-foot bronze and granite monument was sculptured in the Soviet union. For their work the two sculptors each received Stalin awards, one of the highest awards of the Soviet union. This was reported in the Moscow Literary Gazette of March 27, 1951. It was forwarded to the national executive committee of the association of united Ukrainian Canadians from the Ukrainian society for cultural relations with foreign countries. These communists own over $1 million in property with 100 assembly halls across Canada, and they operate a $3 million insurance company and a $1 million cooperative. At Palermo they have 18 acres of parkland for rallies, picnics and camping. This is a serious affair.
We are fairly certain that an all-out atomic war with the Soviet union is not imminent. We also know that communism is sworn to world domination. This is what Stalin had to say in "Problems of Leninism" published in Moscow in 1941:
The victory of socialism in one country is not a self-sufficient task. The revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself

The Address-Mr. Reinke
not as a self-sufficient entity but as an aid, a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in all countries. For the victory of the revolution in one country, in the present case Russia, is the beginning of, and the groundwork for world revolution.
That is a statement by Stalin himself. How can all this be brought about? Only by affecting small groups here and there, all under innocent sounding names. They speak about the great depression that has hit the United States and Canada. They constantly sow seeds of unrest. They capitalize on unemployment, and they capitalize on the misfortunes of their fellow men. One man in my riding, having received what he felt was unfair treatment at the hands of a government board- not necessarily this government-told me, "I am turning to communism."
Did he know what it meant? I dare say some who are in difficulty due to unfortunate circumstances might be inclined to say "Communism is better than this." But is it? Do they know they will be subservient under communism to the worst possible government domination? Do they know they will not be able to worship as they please? Do they know they can vote only "yes" or "no" for one candidate on the ballot? Do they know they cannot voice opinions against the state or its leaders? Do they know they will read only that which the state allows and listen only to what the state-operated stations broadcast?
In Canada we are spending nearly 50 per cent of our tax dollar on a defence preparedness program to stop aggression. That aggression could come tomorrow or it could come ten years from now. But rest assured it will not come from the free nations, but will come when the communists think it will be to their advantage. This has been stated very clearly in the writings of both Lenin and Stalin. When will they feel they have the advantage? Only when the communists in their insidious way have infiltrated into our governments and societies. I realize we are a long way from that situation now, but let unemployment or hardship spread and this evil would spread with it.

I am not suggesting that we outlaw communism in Canada and by so doing drive communists underground. I am not saying that we should round them all up and send them to their Russian paradise, though sometimes I think it would be better to do so. But I would like to suggest this to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), whose duty it is to administer the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickers-gill), whose department is responsible for the national film board and for the education of new Canadians in some aspects. Could we not provide money in our budgets to bring to the attention of the Canadian people the purpose, effects and results of communism? Surely if we can spend $2 billion for the defence of our democracy, we can spend some money for preventive purposes. The Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission, which now employs 104 persons in a public relations department, has a budget of $996,314 to keep the public informed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Russell Earl Reinke: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I shall be through in a matter of one minute, probably.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Earl Reinke: I am not criticizing or condoning this expenditure, but how much more important it would be to remind Canadians to guard their freedom. Under our democratic freedom you are at liberty to come and go as you please; there is no iron curtain. Freedom is like a bag of sand. If there is a hole anywhere in the bag, all the freedom will run out.
On motion of Mr. Holowach the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 27, 1955