Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, at this time I should like to raise a question of privilege relating to the proceedings yesterday, and to say to Your Honour that if you will turn to page 22 of yesterday's Hansard, near the bottom of the second column, you will find there these words-and it is with respect to these words that I want to raise the question of privilege now:
Mr. Graydon: When you consider the point of order raised by the hon. member for Temis-couata, Mr. Speaker, will you please advise the house how you are able, under any of the rules of the house, to bring in at page 2 of the order paper a motion which appears at page 12, without the unanimous consent of the house?
I must say I was greatly concerned over that procedure. Then Your Honour said, according to Hansard:
Notices of motions standing on the order paper under the head "government notices of motions" can be moved under the head "motions" in routine proceedings on the order paper. I would ask the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Temiscouata, to turn to page 219 of Bourinot where it states:
Routine motions includes only motions relating to the business of the house.
Then you go on to say you feel that would be a sufficient answer.
My question of privilege is this. I listened to you, very carefully and intently, yesterday as you read the words:
Notices of motions standing on the order paper under the head "government notices of motions" can be moved under the head "motions" in routine proceedings on the order paper.
Those words, as we understood here, certainly as I understood them, listening very intently, were read directly from Bourinot, and when I heard the authoritative words of Bourinot, as I sat in my seat, I felt, as I usually do in the shadow of the great Bourinot, somewhat eclipsed, with the result that I then sat down and discontinued my argument. It is no reflection upon Your Honour, Mr. Speaker, if I say that I do not feel quite so
much eclipsed now, because these words apparently do not appear in Bourinot. All that appears in Bourinot is:
Routine motions includes only motions relating to the business of the house.
Obviously, unless there is something in Bourinot which actually gives this precedent, then we are entitled to some explanation of the position of both the government and Your Honour with relation to the changing of the whole program of the house, as was done yesterday, and the moving of proceedings from page 12 to page 2 without the unanimous consent of the house.
I want to raise that point because I think all members will want a clarification of it, since it goes to the very roots of our rights as members.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I will take into consideration the remarks made by the hon. member and they will be answered in proper time.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, is it asking too much of you to consult the record of Hansard originally to see if those actually were the recorded words?



FAR EASTERN COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF COriES OF REPORT
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): On July 4 the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), in the course of the debate on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, raised several questions relating to the far east and, in particular, suggested that a report on the work of the Far Eastern commission should be made available to the Canadian public. I undertook at that time to inquire whether such a report might not be prepared, pointing out that since the negotiations which are carried on by that commission are confidential, it could only be done with the consent of all members of the commission. Upon inquiry I found that the Secretary General had prepared a report, and it was, in fact, released to the public with the consent of all the members of the commission on July 17. It was made available to all the newspapers of all the countries concerned, including Canada, but it did not get very much publicity in the Canadian papers. I received
Reports and Papers
[Stage Direction]
copies of it too late, of course, to table at the last session, but because of the importance of the matters involved I think it might be well to have copies available. Therefore I beg leave to table copies of the report now to July 10, 1947.
Mr. GREEN:: May I ask the minister whether copies of the report will be distributed to the members?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, we had not secured a sufficient number for distribution to hon. members, but i't is a mimeographed report and I am sure that we can obtain copies for those who may be interested in having one. I shall immediately see that one is forwarded to the hon. member for Vancouver South, and if we get requests from others I shall endeavour to make copies available to them.


Howard Charles Green: Arising out of the tabling of this report will the minister give the house a statement with regard to the present position of the proposals for Japanese peace treaties? I realize that he may not be in a position to do so today, but I think it is of the utmost importance that we be given a statement of Canada's stand on that question before the house adjourns.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall see what information can be given to the house at this time.



REPORTS AND PAPERS

Mr. W. E. HARRIS (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to lay on the table of the house the following documents:
Second report of the atomic energy commission to the security council, September 11, 1947.
International agreement on North Atlantic ocean weather -stations, done in London, September 25, 1946.
Final act of the conference on German-owned patents, held in London, July 15-27, 1946.
Protocol for the dissolution of the international institute of agriculture, signed at Rome, March 30, 1946.
Protocol amending the international agreements, conventions and protocols on narcotic drugs concluded in 1912, 1925, 1931 and 1936, signed at Lake Success (New York) December 11, 1946.
Exchange of notes with Australia amending for the period August 13 to December 31, 1946,
the trade agreement between the two

countries of July 8, 1931, as regards duty on oranges imported into Canada, signed at Canberra, July 19 and August 13, 1946.
Supplementary exchange of notes with the United States of America regarding the disposal of the Canol project, signed at Ottawa, November 7 and December 30, 1946.
Exchange of notes with The Netherlands regarding compensation for war damage, signed at Ottawa, December 3 and 30, 1946.
Acts of the international whaling conference, held at Washington from November 20 to December 2, 1946.
Exchange of notes with the United States of America relating to the disposal of surplus property owned by either of the two countries, signed at Ottawa, January 9, 1947.
Report of the security council to the general assembly of the united nations covering the period from July 16, 1946 to July 15, 1947.
Report of the fifth session of the economic and social council of the united nations covering the period from October 3, 1946 to August 17, 1947.
Report of the secretary general of the united nations on the work of the organization, July 14, 1947.
Report of the united1 nations special committee on Palestine, September 3, 1947.



LOAN TO UNITED KINGDOM, 1946 INQUIRY AS TO AMOUNTS DRAWN, BY MONTHS, TO DATE

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: Yesterday the leader of the
opposition asked me how much had been drawn by Britain to date, by months, on the Canadian loan granted in 1946. I now beg leave to table a statement giving this information.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
That on and after Tuesday, the 9tli December, 1947, and every sitting day thereafter until Tuesday, the 30th December, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Stand.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I ask if this motion is allowed to stand how we are to proceed tomorrow? Tomorrow is private members day. I think the procedure that the house adopted yeslerday, as the hon. member for

Business oj the House
Peel (Mr. Graydon) has already pointed out, was largely accepted by hon. members under a misapprehension. I think we all understood that the statement Your Honour read to the house was from Bourinot.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Yes, it is.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I did not rise to dispute it. I was looking up authorities at the time, and as the house will remember, I queried-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say just a word?


Major James William Coldwell: Let me finish.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The quotation was from Bourinot, page 219.


Major James William Coldwell: Not the whole thing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: I am wondering how we are to proceed tomorrow, because obviously the motion which was passed yesterday related only to that day. It was in the usual form. Had it been in any other form it would have stated, "and for the rest of the session". In this case if we accept the motion as governing the entire session it seems to me that all private members days are wiped out for the remainder of the session. Surely that was not the intention either of the government or of the house. I presume that some motion will have to be passed with the unanimous consent of the house today if the government wishes to proceed with its own business tomorrow and does not intend that tomorrow shall be private members day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will recall that I endeavoured to have the last two lines of the motion that I brought before the house yesterday deleted so that it would make plain that all that we would take up yesterday would be the speech of the mover and the seconder on the address, and that we should proceed from there with the leaders speaking on the address. The official opposition did not agree to the deletion of the latter part. The latter part carried with it the right to the government to proceed thereafter under government notices of motions and government orders. At the end of the discussion my hon. friend who has just spoken asked me a question about the motion applying to yesterday only. I replied that that is what I hoped to have it do when I proposed striking out the latter part, but as hon. gentlemen objected to the latter part being struck out, the motion passed in the form and wording in which it appeared on the order paper; that is to say, it covered the entire period.
I was careful to ask the Clerk of the House in advance his interpretation of the motion in full, and he agreed with me that the intention was that if the motion stood in its original form the government would be able to exercise from then on its right of giving precedence to government notices of motion. For that reason-


Major James William Coldwell: To the end of the
session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. May I say I spoke yesterday on that very point. The government can always, with the approval of the house, rescind a motion or substitute another. The motion as it stood and was subsequently passed was intended to apply up to the end of this year, that is to say, up to the Christmas season, or if we do not get through by that time, up to the end of this year. It certainly would not be allowed to apply when we come back after the adjournment. For that reason I see no need to proceed with the motion that stands in my name as the first order today. I think all that is in it has been covered by the motion which was passed yesterday.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) that in view of the fact we are anxious to get this matter of Bourinot cleared up, he might continue with what he was about to say.


James Horace King: To please the hon. member for Peel I shall clear up the situation right away. I said yesterday that notices of motion standing on the order paper under the head "government notices of motions" can be moved under the head "motions" in routine proceedings on the order paper. Then I went on to say:
I would ask the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Temiscouata to turn to page 219 of Bourinot where it states:
"Routine motions includes only motions relating to the business of the house."
The motion before the house yesterday was a routine motion regarding the business of the house. If the hon. member will look at page 219 of Bourinot, under the heading "Order of Business" he will see in the fourth paragraph:
The routine is next taken up in the order prescribed by rule 25: "Presenting reports by standing and special committees: Motions (s)
Then if the hon. member will look at the letter (s) at the bottom of the page he will see:
(s) This includes only motions relating to the business of the house.
Business of the House

I believe the motion we considered yesterday was a routine motion regarding the business of the house. That was why the leader of the house had permission to call it when we reached the order of motions on the order paper. That is according to Bourinot, according to Beauehesne, and according to a precedent established by Mr. Speaker Lemieux.


Gordon Graydon: That just leaves us in the position we were in before I raised the question of privilege. I do submit to Your Honour that the point I was trying to raise has been completely missed, and I am quite sure that must be my fault rather than yours. If I may clarify it, the point I want to make
is,	were those words in Bourinot or were they not? These are the words:
Notices of motion standing on the order paper under the head "government notices of motion" can be moved under the head "motions" in routine proceedings on the order paper.
I listened to you very intently and I took
it,	as many other hon. members did. that this was a direct quotation from Bourinot. According to Hansard it is not. Now, Mr. Speaker, you say that is not in Bourinot, that it was a ruling of your own. That was the point I tried to make because, as I said, I was eclipsed by the shadow of the Bourinot I did not have.


James Horace King: I am sure the hon. member will not expect me to enter into a debate on the point, but to clear up the situation I may tell him that what I said yesterday was read from the paper I have in my hand now, which is absolutely the same as the Hansard report, in which I am quoted as saying:
Notices of motions standing on the order paper under the head "government notices of motion" can be moved under the head "motions" in routine proceedings on the order paper.
That was the expression of Mr. Speaker. I said further:
I would ask 'the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Temiscouata to turn to page 219 of Bourinot where it states-
Then Bourinot is speaking and says:
Routine motions includes only motions relating to the business of the house.
I think, the incident is closed.


Gordon Graydon: If I may say just one word further, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to act on the suggestion I made previously; that is, to let the original Hansard report be the arbiter between us as to what was said. I should like very much if that could be done.



FOODSTUFFS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, which I do not expect him to be able to answer now, but we would like this information as quickly as it can be made available. Will the minister make available to the house as soon as possible a statement showing shipments to Britain to date, for the current contract period, under each of our contracts with Britain for: (a) bacon and hams; (b) cheese; (c) beef; (d) evaporated milk; (e) eggs; (f) mutton and lamb, and indicate as well in each case the total quantities called for and the specific periods of each contract?


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: I shall give the information as soon as possible.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: In view of Canada's appointment to the security council of the united nations, and since our representative will be expected to take his seat at the meeting commencing January 2 next, has the government decided who will be Canada's representative? If so, will the government state who it is?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): A decision has not yet been made. As soon as it is made it will be announced to the house.



IMPORT RESTRICTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Will the Minister of Finance provide members of the house with a list of commodities the import of which is prohibited from the United States, and indicate to what extent the prohibition applies to imports from other countries? Will he also provide a list of articles manufactured in Canada which are subject to the new 25 per cent excise tax? I, at least, have had a great deal of correspondence in

Inquiries of the Ministry
regard to these matters, and I think I could deal with them better if I had a little more information.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The position is that the articles prohibited and those under quota are listed in a schedule to the order in council which for the time being governs the prohibition of certain imports and the placing of others under quota. On Thursday I hope to introduce a bill which of course, if it is enacted, will replace the provisions of the order in council, and which will have detailed schedules annexed setting out the articles prohibited, the articles under quqta and the ^ articles which are subject to permit, classified by tariff items. The articles which are subject to excise tax are set out in a draft resolution of the customary type, which will be considered in committee of ways and means. The resolution is of the same type as is tabled in connection with the budget. I understand that the draft resolution is available and has been distributed to members. When I move to go into committee of ways and means to consider these resolutions they will be laid before the house, brought up to date to include the amendments I indicated yesterday.
I do not know whether that gives my hon. friend the information he desires. If not I will get anything else he may wish.



WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Has the Department of Finance given any further consideration to allowing the chartered banks of Canada to cash war savings certificates, thus saving the taxpayers the cost of registration and so on


Douglas Charles Abbott: The whole question is still under consideration, Mr. Speaker, but no final decision has yet been reached.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to ascertain under what act or regulation Canadians crossing the United States boundary are being searched, and in some cases stripped, with a view to ascertaining whether or not there are any infractions of the foreign exchange control legislation. What authority is there for this procedure?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will have to answer this question offhand and subject to correction, but I think that is done in accordance with the provisions of the foreign exchange control legislation, in which are incorporated certain provisions of the Customs Act. I shall have to verify my understanding on that point, and will give my hon. friend the information later.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Has the Minister of Finance made any provi-siqn for the population living along the border-line to exempt them, so far as the new regulations are concerned, from the exigencies and the scrutiny that apply to travellers who come from a distance?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot say as to specific cases, but coming from the same part of the country as my hon. friend, I would expect that the officers on the Vermont-Quebec border would use their customary discretion.


John George Diefenbaker: They are not using discretion, that is the trouble.



SUPERANNUATED CIVIL SERVANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg. North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance concerning a matter consideration of which he has already promised. Can he indicate what action will be taken in response to the request of superannuated civil servants for a cost of living bonus or other supplement?


Douglas Charles Abbott: In contradistinction to the other questions, I was given notice of this one. I am sorry to say I am not yet in a position to indicate what if anything will be done in these cases.



FEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: May I ask the Minister of Finance if there is actually an embargo on the ship-
74
Inquiries oj the Ministry

ment of feed grain to the United States, especially oats and barley? If there is, how long will that embargo be enforced?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is such an embargo, although perhaps the question might more properly have been directed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). However the minister points out to me that one must get a permit in order to export to the United States.



EFFECTS OF INCREASED PRICES-REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. STEPHENSON (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Owing to the frustration in my district and, I presume, throughout Canada, brought about 'by the increase in the price of feeds, will the minister make a statement. as to whether he intends or the government intends to do anything to compensate the livestock and poultry producers for this increase?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement last week to the agricultural conference held in Ottawa which contains all I would be able to say at this time in connection with that matter. My statement was to the effect that action would be taken which would result in increases which have taken place in connection with feed grains being covered by prices which may be obtained for commodities fed by feed grains. I am not yet in a position to say just what method will be followed in order to bring that about.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Meantime the farmers are selling all their breeding stock. I suggest that the statement should be made at once.


Mr. D. S. HARKNESS (Calgary East):: Will the minister tell the house how soon he may be in a position to make a statement in reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson)? This is an extremely urgent matter, because unless something is done our supply of breeding stock will be dissipated rapidly.


James Garfield Gardiner: * It will be made just as soon as possible.



EXCISE TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. SMITH (Calgary West):: 
Douglas Charles Abbott: Excise taxes; it has nothing
to do with duty.
Air. SA1ITH (Calgary West): I was wondering if the reason was that we are running short of pig bristles owing to the destruction of the hog industry by the Minister of Agriculture.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, it is purely.to encourage that most desirable habit of brushing one's teeth three times a day.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And seeing your dentist twice a year.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, December 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Dion 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. Bracken.
Major James William Coldwell: Air. Speaker, my first word on behalf of the party associated with me is one of congratulation both to the mover and to the seconder of the address in reply. May I congratulate the mover upon his most excellent speech delivered in French, and the seconder upon his well phrased observations.
We would also associate ourselves with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bracken) in extending to the Prime Minister (Mr. Alackenzie King) our congratulations upon his receiving the distinction of being invested with the OrHer of Merit. I believe that this was not only a recognition of the long service the Prime Minister has rendered our country, but also a recognition by His Majesty of the contribution made by Canada to the allied cause during the second great war. I congratulate him most sincerely.
I should like first to deal with the question directed to me yesterday by the hon. member for Peel (Air. Graydon). He made a statement which, upon thinking it over, I believe he will consider as having been somewhat beneath his dignity. He made an accusation against this party which, in view of the record,
I believe could have been levelled with more consistency and with more authority against the party with which he is associated-because at least we have been consistent in resisting

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
the removal of controls and subsidies. These are the matters under discussion today. I have no hesitation, however, in answering the hon. member's questions, and I will deal first with the one regarding farm prices.
Ever since the C.C.F. came into existence we have fought for orderly marketing with producer control and parity prices. Unlike my hon. friends we did not criticize the wheat agreement because in the words of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) on August 15, 1946, as reported on page 4822 of Hansard:
This, Mr. Chairman, is the end of the government's policy of selling cheap wheat to the hungry nations of the world other than Britain, and it will be a handicap to us in trying to build up a market in all these other countries which so interpret this arrangement.
On the other hand on the same day I said this:
In the event of costs of production rising, as they will do largely because of the government's failure to maintain the price ceilings, any difference there may be between what the farmer receives for his wheat and the increased cost of production should be made up out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
I repeat that parity prices negotiated by the producers with representatives of the government are the keynote of our policy; not prices set by speculators or prices set arbitrarily by the government.
I believe the leader of the opposition was present when committee No. 2 of the united nations was sitting last year and when the late Mayor LaGuardia of New York, appearing before that committee as secretary-general of UNRRA, made the statement that the farmers will never get a square deal, nor will the consumers of the world get their food at proper prices, until every gambling grain exchange, whether it be in Chicago, Liverpool or Winnipeg, has been closed forever. Last evening we listened to the leader of the opposition state that he was in favour of open-market trading, as well as in favour of the wheat board-two conflicting statements, may I say.
Then, when the hon. member for Peel asked me his second question he resorted to a trick. He and his friends have demanded that parliament shall not invade provincial rights. Parliament has handed back to the provinces control of labour conditions, including wages. We have retained jurisdiction over prices, and hence the C.C.F. has devoted its attention to that phase of our economy over which the house has control. In other words we are minding our own business strictly within our rights, as the Tory party is insisting the house should do. When we have the national labour code which we desire it will be proper for the house to discuss the best means of obtaining 5849-6J
decent wages and living standards for those who work in industry. Meantime rising prices over which we in parliament have control are bearing heavily upon hundreds of thousands of people existing on substandard incomes in this country. Let me say that the C.C.F. will never agree to the freezing of wages at substandard levels, which is what my hon. friends mean when they talk of immediate wage controls.


Gordon Graydon: Do not smear everybody when you are talking. That is not right, and you know it is not.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not want to leave the matter there without making a positive statement on behalf of this party. When this parliament has jurisdiction the C.C.F. would establish minimum standards of wages and of living, adequate to maintain a decent Canadian standard of life. Next, we would establish proper relationships between wages, prices and profits in a balanced and planned economy. That, of course, involves democratic controls, this to be achieved through properly constituted boards representative both of government and of labour. Next, the objective in mind would be to increase production and consumption, thus progressively raising the standard of living of all our people.
Having stated the C.C.F. position, may I ask my hon. friends, particularly the hon. member for Peel, a question? This is our policy, but will the Tory party declare its policy in equally unequivocal terms? I listened yesterday with great care hoping to hear an outline of the Tory policy, but there was none. There was a great deal of talk about Jeremiah, and of the fact that perhaps the Canadian people were not getting the goods they required because there was too much money in supply for the goods that were available. The hon. member went on to say something about keeping more in this country. The world is starving, and I remember also something that Jeremiah said in Lamentations:
They that be slain with the sword are better than they that be slain with hunger: for these pine away, stricken through for want of the fruits of the field.
My hon. friend should remember that when they talk about keeping more goods in this country and in that manner trying to keep down prices.
I want to turn to the address for a moment.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: If my hon. friend will just keep quiet he will have an opportunity to speak later.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
The Address-Mr. Coldwell


Major James William Coldwell: He seldom speaks, but when, he does speak he does not say anything that is worth listening to.
Shorn of all talk of general and unprecedented levels of employment and of national income, of which the speech from the throne reminds us, the fact is that this country now faces an economic crisis of the first magnitude. I take it that that is why parliament is in session now. We are called upon to recognize the fact that the war did not end in August, 1945; neither did wartime conditions end at that time. But just as in 1919, in 1945 the cry went up from big business for a return of what they called "normalcy". The same cry went up; the same interests demanded freedom from all controls and the immediate return to what they were pleased to call free enterprise.
When parliament met after the last general election all the parties except the one which I have the honour to lead were committed to the removal of wartime controls. True, the Liberal party had qualified its promise to remove controls with the phrase "as rapidly as circumstances would permit," but so great was the pressure from the vested interests that "the circumstances" was interpreted to mean the removal of large groups of controls within a few months of the election. -


Gordon Graydon: Do you consider the farmers as being vested interests?


Major James William Coldwell: The farmers did not ask for the removal of controls. Every one of the farm organizations wanted the grain exchange closed and the continuance of trading through government boards. The C.C.E. alone warned that just as shortages after the first war created high prices and grave economic and social difficulties, so in the post-war period with the need of the world greater there would be similar shortages. The government believed that in 1944. I have in my hand an advertisement published by the authority of the government of Canada on November 23, 1914. It reads:
The Road Back Without Price Control
The worst inflation came after the war the last time ... to be followed by disastrous deflation, unemployment and confusion. For Canada to manage successfully the change back to peace, maintain employment, and meet the world's competition . . . we must continue to have stable economic conditions. To protect the individual from rising costs of living and later unemployment we must continue to prevent inflation.
To prevent a repetition of the conditions following the last war price control must be maintained as long as inflation threatens us.

As soon as the election was over we found controls being thrown into the discard, with the result that we have the conditions we have today. The annual reports of our chartered banks now appearing in the newspapers warn us that the present economic trends are heading us in the direction of disaster. It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the presidents of our chartered banks, but I do agree with the warnings that they are now giving to the Canadian people in their annual speeches and reports.
Eighteen months ago we should have taken heed of what happened in the United States when congress refused to sanction the continuance of controls. More particularly we should haven taken heed of the sharp increases that followed the removal of controls, except rent controls, in the United States a year ago last September. Indeed we should have been warned by what happened in our own country. Because of the early removal of some basic controls, not only did the prices of decontrolled commodities rise, but followed as they were by permitted increases of So per ton for steel ingots and 12^ per cent increase on farm machinery, costs of production and cost of living rose and this accounted for a growing demand for wage increases and better farm returns in the months that followed. But neither wages nor average farm income ever catch up to rising prices and corporation profits in an inflationary period in a capitalistic economy. Of this I shall have more to say in a few moments.
Suffice it to say that in addition to the purchasing groups I have mentioned, pensioners, whether they be veterans of the first or of the second great war, whether they be persons with old age pensions, fixed incomes, or low wages, suffered reductions in an already painfully low standard of living. At a price of 17 cents per quart for milk, the present price in Ottawa, to provide the three quarts per day which government nutritional experts tell us are needed for a couple with three children, would cost 51 cents a day, or $3.57 a week.
In order to provide that a family with an adequate supply of butter, again at today's price in this city of 68 cents per pound, and an adequate supply of bread at 15 cents a loaf; in order to pay for rent and provide fuel, it would take practically all the income of a low income family. In 1942, which is unfortunately the latest year for which we have official figures, according to the government's own bureau of statistics it is estimated that there were 756,300 income recipients in Canada with incomes of less than $500 a year.

The Address-Mr. Caldwell
Of this number, 127,400 were married men. These figures do not include those engaged in agriculture, and in some parts of Canada incomes on the farms are lamentably low. Of course since 1942, a fairly prosperous war year, our total income has risen about one billion dollars this year, or by some ten per cent, but the maldistribution of wealth is still just as great as it was then.
Last week the figures indicating the increase in the cost of living up to the end of October were released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. They indicated a rise of over 43 per cent since the war began and over 20 per cent since the war ended. That was before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) announced the prohibition of imports from the United States three weeks ago last night. None of us will deny that the prohibition of luxury imports and luxury travel in the United States in view of our dollar shortage was long overdue. But to prohibit the importation of health foods and of necessities, or to place them on a low import quota, if not ill advised, was entirely wrong when the prohibitions were not accompanied by some measures of price control. Of course prices jumped immediately; for under so-called private enterprise scarcity gives the golden opportunity for high profits. That is what powerful monopolies and cartels have always plotted to achieve. That is why, when basic commodities were about to become in short supply recently, prices rose at once. How they jumped our daily newspapers recorded. Onions, cabbage, carrots, parsnips, spinach and celery rose from 50 to 75 per cent in price on the Toronto market, so the Canadian Importers and Traders Association reported. Potatoes in the hands of jobbers and retailers rose from two to three dollars a bag-and may I add that the producer got none of these price increases. In Montreal the increases were even higher. The Montreal Gazette reported that a Toronto survey showed that the price of general canned goods stood on the average 100 per cent higher than a year ago. Who got these increases? The Toronto Star reported on November 25 that official surveys had been made of how the price increases on various canned vegetables and fresh fruits and fresh vegetables were made up. Generally speaking, so they said, the producers got actually less in 1947 than in 1946. In one case the producer's share was 60 much reduced and the retailer's so much increased that the retailer got almost as much for selling the article as the producer got for growing and harvesting it. As another sample of profiteering by jobbers, the price of British Columbia apples jumped one dollar a box.
The producer did not receive a penny of the increase. Generally speaking, as I said before, the grower did not benefit by these sudden and spectacular price increases.
What did the government do? The Minister of Finance announced the re-establishment of price ceilings on canned tomatoes, corn, peas and peaches. Corn syrup had not yet been decontrolled. These are five, and only five, out of a total of forty-six food items in the bureau of statistics food index, making all together 3-29 of the food index, which makes up only 37 per cent of the present general index cost of living. In other words, the re-establishment of price control on these few items, including corn syrup, which had not been decontrolled, affects about only 1*2 per cent of the prices in the cost of living index.
The government's policy of premature ending of the major activities of the wartime prices and trade board has made the immediate reimposition of price ceilings almost impossible. Only five of the 128 regional offices of the board now remain open. So much for the effect of the government's decontrol policy on fruits and vegetables where the effect was felt immediately by consumers.
Still more disastrous was the removal of price ceilings and subsidies from coarse grains. H. H. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, on November 2 of this year, ten days or so after the ceilings and subsidies had been removed, said:
Nothing that has happened in many years has stirred farmers and dairy farmers throughout Canada to such a high pitch of resentment as has the recent action of the dominion government in removing ceilings and subsidies from coarse grains at this particular time.
The government's action has cut the feet from under the best live stock program we ever had in Canada-a program that not only achieved the greatest production of live stock, dairy and poultry products in our history, but what is more important, established some degree of stability in the whole agricultural program and offered hope for some permanency to this stability in the future.
In any event why were the ceilings removed toward the end of October, when except for grain delivered to the pools, and not yet marketed, barley and oats delivered by hundreds of farmers had passed into the hands of private interests who proceeded to make a killing on the open speculative market?
How does the government propose to compensate the farmers who marketed their grain early, at the request of the government agency, may I say; for they are clearly entitled to recognition and to adequate compensation? Farmers, both those who sold
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

grain and those who bought it, were entitled to believe that the subsidies and ceilings would be maintained for the current crop year. Coming on the heels of the partial failure of feed grain crops in no fewer than five provinces, with resultant shortages, the government's action is all the more reprehensible.
On the other hand the prices of the farmer's bacon, eggs, and livestock, governed by prices under the British contracts, left them at the mercy of grain exchange speculators in the pursuance of their purchases of essential feeding materials. Prices of feed grain jumped- thirty to forty per cent in a week, and the farmers reacted immediately. I was in the west at the time, and I heard hog raisers declare that they were going to kill young pigs as they were farrowed, and ship the sows as soon as they could to the abattoirs. Weaned pigs, which heretofore were worth five dollars or more, were offered for sale by western farmers in certain parts for fifty cents, with no buyers. In Ontario, farmers were going out of hogs and dairy cattle because they could not afford to buy feed; for, as Mr. Hannam said:
The government's action cut the feet from under the best livestock program we ever had in Canada.
Not that we believe it could not have been a lot better than it was.
The city man does not yet realize what this will mean to him in the near future. Now that ceilings have been removed from feed grains the demand that barriers against the unrestricted sale of live stock and dairy products shall be removed is an understandable result. And the granting of that demand would mean that the Canadian consumer and our hard-pressed overseas customers would become still more the victims of government policy and United States inflation.
Decontrol-decontrol, I repeat-is leading us to inevitable disaster. United States prices without United States levels of income and wages will work hardship and cause endless unrest. As prices rise steeply the organized worker will demand and take legitimate and understandable steps to get more wages. But the packing and processing monopolies will not suffer. Here is a golden opportunity to fill their depleted storage facilities with cheap meat, perchance for export to the United States, or for sale at higher prices to the Canadian consumer, who will be denied protective foods because of high prices. Young and old in Canada will inevitably suffer, and I say that the government must take the full responsibility for its failure to protect the

people's health and interest. But condemnation must be shared by all those who urged these policies upon the country, and not the least of the burden must be shared by the Progressive Conservative party, who now cry aloud about high food prices and at the same time urge policies which would further inflate the general price level for farmers and workers alike.
I have before me the record of some of their statements. In fact I have a number of records, but I will take two or three. In May of this year the party's chief financial critic, the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), said, as reported at page 2799 of Hansard:
At the moment it is particularly unfortunate that we here-
That is, I presume, in the Progressive Conservative party.
-who believe in removing controls, and I am one of those, at the present time are at a most unsatisfactory moment, as you might say, from the point of view^ of the people of the class of which I am speaking.
Equally clear was the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), himself a farmer and a Progressive Conservative member of this house, who said, as reported at page 1698 of Hansard of March 24, 1947:
As of November 30, 1946, these freight assistance and feed grain subsidy payments amounted to $105,081,627.62. That is quite an item which the taxpayers of the country had to account for in connection with that system of controls, which to me is not a sound economy for this country.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: In other words, he opposed the subsidies-


James Arthur Ross: You did not read all the story.


Major James William Coldwell: -which assisted the Canadian people in their time of need. The hon. member can take it up himself. I am giving an accurate and sufficient quotation from the records of this house. May I say that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) made the statement that for every $200 million we have spent each year in subsidies and controls, the people of Canada had been saved $2,500,000,000 annually. In other words, for every dollar we spent in controls and subsidies, the Canadian consumer, or the government, who was also a very heavy buyer, had been saved $12.50; and when the government was saved under that policy, the taxpayer of course also saved. So great were the benefits that only blind adherence to the ideology of private

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
enterprise can account for the removal of these beneficial controls at a time when postwar inflation was upon us. In spite of all the gibes levelled against us by our political opponents and some sections of the press, our determined stand against the removal of beneficial controls and subsidies has been thoroughly vindicated-and, may I say, unfortunately vindicated-by the results.
So far I have dealt with the increased prices of basic foods, but tire effect of the prohibition or curtailment of other necessities will further increase the cost of living. Drastic cuts in the importation of textiles, particularly those which enter into the manufacture of overalls, denims for example, children's clothing and the cheaper grades of cloths and dress goods, will send prices up sharply. The promised effect of tariff reductions will not lighten the burden in this time of rising prices when we need relief. The prohibition of the importation of luxury goods from the United States because of the dollar shortage is intelligible but the prohibtion or the adoption of quotas in the importation of goods from sterling areas at this time is incomprehensible.
We are told that this is because w-e are bound by the non-discriminatory provisions of the Geneva tariff agreements which become effective on January 1 next. But there is an escape clause in this agreement which people seem to have overlooked, designed surely to meet an emergency like our own. I believe it is under section 14, but I did not make a note of it. We have until at least the first of January, 1949, before we need to apply the non-discrimination provisions. I say, at least until that date, because under certain circumstances that time can be further extended.
Why then are we prohibiting the importation of automobiles and other goods from the United Kingdom when she needs our food and we need her goods? It simply does not make sense. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the light of what I have said, I wish to move an amendment to the amendment that was moved last evening. I move:
That the following words be inserted in the amendment, after the word "motion" and before the word "we":
This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to use the powers provided by parliament to control prices, and by their actions have caused alarming increases in the cost of living and a dangerous lowering of the living standards of the Canadian people.
The crisis has jolted the government into action for the planned utilization of our resources. Planning may be good or it may be ill; it depends' on the purpose of- the plan. As outlined, the government's policy will, I believe, place our country more completely under the control of those monopolies and price-fixers who have exploited our people and our resources for generations. Such a plan must be resisted; for, taken in conjunction with prohibitions and price controls, it will deliver us lock, stock and barrel into the hands of the profiteer and the domestic exploiters, who have been exploiting the country for years. Moreover, it may have the further effect of delivering our economy more completely into the hands of big business and big industry than ever the old-fashioned Tory policies would have done.
If we are going to develop our resources as we should, then it should be done under public ownership and public control in the interests and for the welfare of the Canadian people. No other policy will meet the needs of our time or be sufficient. The cost of living has been going up for the past eighteen months. In the last few months it has been going up faster and faster, and in the next few months it will go up faster still. It has now reached the point where practically all the wage increase which the Canadian workers have gained since the spring of 1946 has been wiped out. At the same time profits are reaching new highs. The Nesbitt-Thomson dividend index, the oldest index in Canada, indicates a twenty per cent increase in profits over last year's figures, and last year's profits were the highest on record.
As it is, die government's policies have played into the hands of the profit-taking organizations in the past year to an almost incredible extent. It is all very well for the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) to go on the radio and describe such a statement in unparliamentary language as "a large lie." Let him or anyone else in this house deny the figures published recently by the Financial Post in its survey of corporate securities, 1947, which indicate the progressive rise in the profits of many essential industries. I have in my hand profit statements in dollars taken from the Financial Post of November 15, 1947. From the Financial Post survey of corporate securities-I shall not weary the house with a long list-I shall pick out a few. If the house desires I shall put the whole list on the record.
so
The Address-Mr. Caldwell


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put them on the - record.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I shall put them on the record if I have the unanimous consent of the house.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
(The tables follow):



PROFITS OF SOME ESSENTIAL INDUSTRIES

[Stage Direction]
Companies
Simpsons	
Zellers	
Dominion Stores	
Loblaws Groceterias Inc.
Companies
Canada Bread	
Canadian Bakeries .. Consolidated Bakeries
George Weston	
Purity Flour Mills ... Canadian Canners ...
Borden Co	
Silverwood Dairies ..
Burns & Co	
B.C. Packers	
Canada Packers	
Merchandising
....	1,425,858
....	374,043
....	304,804
....	407,138	.
Food Companies
___	287,641
		83,708
...	383,290
		850,350
		287,597
		980,894
		12,093,972
212,063
		297,546
508.546
____________ 1,816,781
	Percentage
1946	increase
3,656,851	156%
60"6,010	62%
760,920	150%
973,806	139%
1946	Percentage increase
317,922	11%
155,377	85%
499,044	30%
1,198,731	41%
460,971	60%
1,678,038	71%
19,581,006	62%
425,817	101%
472,269	59%
650,084	28%
2,059,644	13%
Textile Companies
Companies
Tooke Brothers	
Canadian Celanese Ltd.. National Hosiery Mills.
Bruck Silk Mills	
York Knitting Mills.... Monarch Knitting Mills Regent Knitting Mills. .
36,890
1,389,932
44,491
87,075
178,884
76.042
85,387
1946	Percentage increase
118,893	222%
2,027,381	46%
276,723	522%
309,319	255%
305,371	71%
311,355	309%
426,737	394%
Companies
Canadian Western Lumber. H. R. MacMillan Export Co,
Lumber Companies
459,619
1,213,790
Percentage
1946	increase
1,019,428	122%
2,310,865	90%
Farm Implements
Companies Massey-Harris Cockshutt Plow
1,588,480
266,159
Percentage
1946	increase
2,125,570	34%
315,079	18%
An hon. MEMBER:: How has the box factory in Saskatchewan done?


Major James William Coldwell: That is an interjection that is surely a very feeble attempt to be funny.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a good one.


Major James William Coldwell: Only a feeble attempt to meet the charge that the friends of my hon. friends are making profits out of a policy that they have so long advocated.

Who is benefiting by the removal of these controls? Not the workers whose wage increases have not kept pace with prices; not the salary employees who remain an unorganized and exploited group in our society; certainly not the veteran whose gratuity and subsistence allowance at university dwindles, or who cannot find a home, or if he does, he pays through the nose for it; not the pensioner, whether of the first or second war, or any other form of pensioner whose meagre

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
gratuity buys less and less; not the underpaid civil servants whose average salaries are a national disgrace, and a disgrace to this house; not the person on a fixed income who saved and planned for the rainy day and invested in government or victory bonds-not any of these, but most of all the exploiters, the gamblers on the grain exchange who financed the Trestrails, the Gladstone Murrays, and who succeeded in defeating the people's candidates at the polls in 1945. They are tire beneficiaries of the mounting prices and the exploitation of the producers of this land, whether they farm, work in factories, mines or forests, go down to the sea in ships, or perform any other useful service in our society.
My time does not permit me to deal with the position of the wheat growers, except to say this. When the agreement was before this house, speaking on behalf of this group I made it clear that we supported the agreement with the understanding that I have already placed on the record this afternoon. We demanded that out of the consolidated revenue of Canada compensatory adjustments should be made if government policy allowed the costs of production to rise. We did not criticize it because the government's policy was a desertion of a low wheat price policy-


Angus MacInnis: And then vote for it.


Major James William Coldwell: And then, incidentally, vote for it. Wre supported it because we wanted parity prices and a stabilized market. Today there is no parity and an uncertain market due to government action in removing the controls except for those on certain farm commodities, the principal one of which is wheat.
In conclusion I want to say that this is no time for half measures. I therefore want to place before this house and the government the following proposals:
1.	We ask for the re-imposition at the earliest possible date of price controls on all the basic necessities of life: food, clothing and fuel.
2.	The renewal of the subsidies on milk, butter, bread, feed grains, cotton and wool.
3.	The closing of the Winnipeg grain exchange and the elimination of all speculation in foods.
4.	Reconstruction of the wartime prices and trade board in such a manner that it can adequately administer the price controls.
5.	Continuation of the excess profits tax after December 31, 1947.
When I say "the excess profits tax" 1 realize that some changes must be made in the tax because it was a rough and ready war measure, and it should be re-considered in the light of the circumstances we now face.
6.	The rationing, if necessary, of any essential commodity which is in such short supply that some Canadians may not get their minimum share.
This is what we ask; this is what we have been asking, and, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is what the people of this country are asking at the present time. In countries where they have retained price control-and I have the figures in my hand-the cost of living has not risen, or has risen only slightly.


James Arthur Ross: What a living they are getting!


Mr. PROBE:: What is the hon. member doing to help them?


Major James William Coldwell: Quite right; and what a living they are getting!


James Arthur Ross: 1 produce a lot more food than the hon. gentleman.


Major James William Coldwell: What a living they are getting! When we say that, we condemn ourselves for our self-satisfaction in the midst of a starving world.
When the Minister of Agriculture came back from Great Britain, he said that in spite of their austerity and their shortages the children of Britain were looking well fed. I do not think that the Minister of Agriculture should have left it just where he did, because he conveypd the wrong impression to the country, if I may say so, and did some harm to the cause in which I am sure he as well as the rest of us are interested. But I would point out that the reason these children are better than they ever were is that they are drinking more fluid milk than ever before in their history. Today every child in Britain gets his ration of milk whether he can pay for it or not. Every child is entitled to a free nourishing mid-day meal.
The outcry we hear from the kind of people who support my hon. friends to the right is because those who once got too much are now getting just a little too little, but that third or that half of the population of Great Britain who always got too little are now getting almost enough, but not quite enough. That is the reason for the outcry of the well-to-do and the wealthy today. The present policy in Great Britain, as in some other countries, is to redistribute the wealth of the nation so that all may receive a share at prices they can pay. In Great Britain butter


Major James William Coldwell: Does the hon. member know that Mr. Paul-Henri Spaak, Prime Minister of Belgium, is a socialist Prime Minister?


Mr. LOW:: Yes, but he has not introduced
socialism.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, a number of socialist principles.


Solon Earl Low: Not a socialist principle. To continue the quotation:
Belgium did not take chances on vast complicated experiments like nationalization and socialization in meeting her post-war living problems and rising from the disaster of the German conquest and German occupation. Belgium decided on only one thing-the need to work and get well after the war. Belgium is really working and is paying the people to work. Presumbaly that is why they are working. The result is phenomenal. Belgium, you know, has little more to go on than England. There are the same fundamental limitations, amazingly similar, in Belgium and England, when you stop to think about it. Like England, Belgium lives on her coal-and must live on her coal. She, too, has practically no other natural resources-no oil, timber, iron ore, bauxite, water power-just coal. Belgium must dig coal to live-must export products made from coal in order to import foods and raw material. 'Like England her entire economy is rooted in her coal mines.
And, Mr. Speaker, you do not find Belgium today carrying coals to Newcastle at the rate of 340,000 tons a month, as they are doing in England.
Belgium's African colonies are valuable, but not a fraction as valuable as England's. She has only a small merchant fleet. Yet while England faces one economic crisis after another today, Belgium's industries are humming, her people have more food than any country in western Europe, outside Switzerland and Scandinavia. Her stores are full of merchandise from all over the wrorld. Her export trade is growing by leaps and bounds.
As David Perlman wrote in a recent survey:
"Belgian leaders are convinced they have found the one recovery policy that pays off. They point to other European countries where they say 'tight government check-reins on individual initiative and on business are slowing down production, keeping supplies off the market and widening the gap between upward moving incomes and prices. 'Consistently and as rapidly as possible the Belgians have restored liberty to individual action in sector after sector of this nation's economic life."
While twenty per cent of the French population serve in non-productive places in government bureaux and must be carried by the productive workers of the nation and work at the taxpayers' expense-and while ten per cent of the British people work for the British government today, practically nobody in Belgium works for the Belgian government. Instead the Belgians are working for themselves. They get the results of their labour in better living, instead of having it drained off in government overhead and confusion. Accordingly, they are rebuilding this country. Belgium's coal production fell as low as twenty-five per cent of capacity at the end of the war under German occupation-lower than England's erer fell. Bel-
The Address-Mr. Low

gium's mining machinery is older than England's. Yet Belgium is producing coal up to ninety per cent of capacity today, while England's production remains far lower than pre-war.
Belgium didn't nationalize her coal mines. Belgium did not throw her economic problems into polities. She stuck with an incentive system and free management. And that is the basic answer.
Socialism means mismanagement. Mismanagement means lower living standards for average people. Belgium has avoided this-England has not. The beneficial results spread all through national activities here and make this country 'the envy of all neighbours except Switzerland where a similar program was followed. Belgium's thirteen principal industries are running at 107 per cent of pre-war production. A fine record, my friends, for a country deep in the heart of wartorn Europe! Her steel industry is not threatened by nationalization. Under private management the Belgian public is investing millions in personal savings toward modernization of the steel mills. Reinvestment of funds here, by the public as a whole, in Belgium's own enterprises is at a faster rate than at any time since before the war.
Nothing like that is happening in England. Britons who have saved any money, wage earners and others who have been thrifty, are not putting their money into the British steel industry. They don't know when the mills will be nationalized by the government; so the whole investment flow on the British isles dries up, and the British equipment goes from bad to worse. Here, on the other hand. Belgium's steel output is well above par. In fact, Belgium is exporting steel to England!
Again in contrast with hard-pressed Great Britain, where the socialist labour government experiment casts the same kind of pall over textile rehabilitation as over steel, Belgium's textile industry is pushing production upward month by month. Nearly half of the nation's cotton doth is sold abroad. The exports are now paying for imports from all corners of the world. East month Belgium's exports of all kinds were three times as great as her pre-war average and nearly equalled her imports, including the stock piles and the new machinery Belgium had 'to buy and which she paid for. There is no shortage of American dollars because she is making and selling the goods that create American dollar credit.
Meanwhile there is no program here for austerity living either. Along with Switzerland, the living conditions in Belgium approach those in our own country-in food and clothes and everything else. There is a good relationship between wages and prices.
Here, then, is a European nation at work- co-operating, producing, living, growing, prospering. Attacked, blitzed, battered and occupied by the Germans, Belgium nevertheless has been wise in its recovery-hard-working enough and eager enough to recover through its own self help under a system of free enterprise.
If further evidence is needed, there is plenty of it available. I shall refer briefly to an article which appeared in the issue of Time for September 22. If anyone wishes some really interesting reading I suggest that he get that issue and consider it caiefully. At

page 24 under the heading "Planned Agriculture", we find that the foreign correspondent of that magazine paints a picture of the bureaucratic set-up in England's agriculture today.


An hon. MEMBER:: What country'?


Solon Earl Low: Great Britain. He states:
Early one morning last week, Farmer Frederick Henry Dennis-
And hon. members will notice that this correspondent gives names, places, times and ages. I have watched carefully since that day to find out if those facts have ever been refuted, and I have seen no effort whatever made to refute them.


William Ross Macdonald: I did not interrupt the hon. member a moment ago when he read a long extract, but I would remind him that it is not in order to read long extracts from newspapers


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Ross Macdonald: Order-and I would ask him not to read long extracts.


Solon Earl Low: 
Mr. NICHOLSON:: From what is the hon. member quoting?


Solon Earl Low: Time magazine.


Major James William Coldwell: Who gave the orders?


Solon Earl Low: The orders came from a board composed of county agriculturists, and the ministry of agriculture which had at its head the Right Hon. Tom Williams who never had a bunion any place except where it was caused by sitting on a chair. He never saw a plow in his life.


Major James William Coldwell: If the local agricultural committee decided that, there must have been something more behind it.


Solon Earl Low: There was. Just one other point in connection' with this. The article says that the agricultural committee can prosecute a farmer for disobeying crop "advice" as it is called. Our C.C.F. friends, with their planned agriculture and 'with their planned economy, are only going to give "advice", but that advice will be made into law and when the law is laid down, people must obey it or be prosecuted before the courts. I quote briefly from the article as follows:
The committee might have ordered Farmer Dennis to plow in his buckwheat while it was green. But time passed and the committee did nothing. Instead it let the buckwheat ripen. Then it acted. Obviously the committee had bungled.
And again:
Meanwhile, Farmer Dennis faced prosecution, and hungry Britons would go without several thousand meals which the plowed-in grain could have provided in the form of ham, pork or chicken.
If any better picture could be obtained of so called "planned agriculture" and "planned economy" I should like to see it.


Mrs. STRUM:: A dumping policy.


Solon Earl Low: My friends the socialists are very adept in dealing in slogans, but may I remind them that slogans never put bread upon the tables of hungry people. Slogans have never at any time filled coal bins with coal, and slogans have never at any time provided new houses in place of old ones.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Vote for $25 a month.


Solon Earl Low: Let me suggest to the hon. lady member that if she had voted for $25 a month she would not have been forced to share the scarcity there is today. If other countries under socialist administrations had voted for $25 a month they would not have the scarcities they have today.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: And did not get it.


Solon Earl Low: I am quite ready to admit that there is much that we can learn from the countries of Europe, but in my judgment the greatest lesson that we in Canada can learn is not to make the same mistakes that they have been making in countries under socialist governments, particularly the mistake of thinking that there is any substitute for personal initiative and hard work and reward to the individual man and woman for individual accomplishments. I say that the freedom of opportunity for individuals is rapidly being lost to many people in Europe through the creeping paralysis of both socialism and communism.
I conclude my reference to this part of what has been said by declaring that it is my firm opinion and deep conviction that socialism is bound to fail everywhere because it is so radically contrary to economic truth, to law and to human nature. Human nature will always rebel against regimentation, but it will always respond to the proper inducement.
During the recess between the sessions I travelled extensively throughout western Canada and I found there widespread dismay about the skyrocketing costs of living. It was perfectly clear that the white collar class and unorganized labour were suffering and finding it most difficult to pay their way out of current earnings. They were dipping into their savings and liquidating their few bonds in order to make ends meet. Old age pensioners and veteran pensioners and their dependents are in many cases suffering from privation. Throughout the whole of Canada these people are finding that their pensions, which were all too inadequate to begin with, have shrunken to a point where they are no more than 70 per cent of their original value.
Yet these same people are still expected to carry a tax load which was burdensome even when the cost of living index was below 125. The latest figures I have been able to obtain indicate that the cost of living now stands at a figure higher than 145, and many predict that it will exceed 150, and that soon. The condition of organized labour is not quite so bad, but their predicament is bad enough.
Every thinking person is asking why this government has not taken action before this to remedy the whole situation. Quite clearly some relief should have been provided months ago, before things got out of hand. People generally are becoming aroused over the fact that the figures show that the government is piling up a surplus which promises to reach perhaps $700 million by the end of the fiscal year, and yet no move has been made to lighten the onerous tax burden and to prevent
The Address-Mr. Low

the ever-spiraling and increasing cost of living, either through the use of subsidies or compensated price discounts.
I know that prices in Canada are affected to some extent by prices in the United States, and that therefore considerable upward pressure in living costs is to be expected because of our proximity to the great republic to the south, but that fact does not excuse this government for failing to tackle the thing which is one of the major root causes of high living costs. I refer to hidden or indirect taxation. This year this government is taking from the people of Canada $1,100 million in sales, excise, turnover, processing and other indirect taxes. All of this has the effect of pushing the cost of living higher because these taxes are added to costs at different levels of production and processing. This same type of legalized robbery also affects adversely Canada's trading position and reduces materially the help we can extend to European countries to get back on their own feet. Surely, with a surplus of income over expenditure rising to three-quarters of a billion dollars, the government is going to find it impossible to explain satisfactorily to the people of Canada why some of that surplus has not been used to grant relief to the people in the form of tax reductions which would offset to some extent the high living cost. I am not surprised that I never hear from my socialist friends any suggestion that taxes be reduced because they believe in taxation; they want taxation to sta)' on.
Again, Canadians from coast to coast will not forget that the government proceded with indecent haste to abolish subsidies, which for many months had been the most effective means of price control. The Social Credit group in this house consistently urged and voted for the retention of subsidies. As a matter of fact we have taken the position that subsidies, together with the compensated price discount, which was so successful in milk price control during the war, must become a permanent feature of our national economy in the future if we.are to avoid a repetition of the hungry thirties and such crises as Canada now faces with skyrocketing prices.


Mr. LESAGE:: Does the hon. member propose the maintenance of price subsidies without price control?
, Mr. LOW: They could not possibly be maintained-*


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Without price control?


Solon Earl Low: Surely.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: What kind of price control does the hon. member propose?


Solon Earl Low: The kind of control that is exercised through the compensated price discount and the payment of subsidies.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: The payment of subsidies is not in itself price control.


Solon Earl Low: I did not say it was. I cannot stop at this moment to deal with the point but one of my colleagues at a later stage in this debate will take time to make abundantly clear what is meant by the compensated price discount plus the subsidy.
It is evident, Mr. Speaker, that this government has shamefully mismanaged the economy of this country by kicking out subsidies and declaring that they have no place in Liberal policy. At the same time their precipitate and unreasoned action has endangered the health of millions of our citizens who now find that they cannot afford to buy sufficient milk and fresh fruits and vegetables to maintain their diet at a healthful level. The government cannot be excused on the ground that the people were demanding the removal of subsidies and price controls. The overwhelming majority of the members of this house, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, declared their opposition to the removal of the milk subsidy in particular, and such others as were necessary to hold consumer prices in control; and the Social Credit group in this house did all in their power to preserve them at all costs.
In my travels this summer and autumn I talked to hundreds of farmers and listened to their problems and their difficulties. The farmers of the west generally are angry, and very angry, at the treatment they have received from this government. Not only that, but I found much discouragement amongst them which has affected adversely their will to produce. That is a serious situation. They say that the livestock situation as a result of government policy, or rather lack of policy, is little short of a national calamity, and I believe that. In the first place, the farmers as a class have been left to bear the major portion of the burden of assistance which Canada has given to the United Kingdom. In the main the farmers favour stabilization of farm income but, Mr. Speaker, they also think they are entitled to some reasonable stabilization of farm outgo. They think that the assistance granted to Britain by way of lower than world wheat prices for Canadian wheat should have been carried by all the people of Canada. We in this corner most certainly agree with them.

The Address-Mr. Low
We have consistently urged in past sessions the use of the compensated price discount to keep the prices of things the farmers have to buy in better relationship with the world prices of the products they have to sell. We have also consistently advocated the use of subsidies from the national treasury to bring the contract price of wheat and of livestock products up to world price levels. Action of this kind would have spread the cost of aid to Britain over the merchant, the professional men, organized and unorganized labour and industry as well as the farmers. The farmers do not mind carrying their share, but they will not soon forget that in the government's gamble with their wheat, they are the ones who thus far have had to take the burden of the losses.
I have already said that the livestock situation has become a national calamity. I received a day or two ago a telegram, amongst manj' telegrams and letters that have come to me, from the Fairview board of trade. Fairview is right in the midst of what I consider to be the greatest productive farming area in all Canada, the Peace River country. The Fairview board of trade calls the present livestock situation a national calamity, and they demand the action I shall shortly suggest, to rectify it.
The action of the government, in removing coarse grains ceilings, and doing it right in the middle of the marketing season, has thrown the whole Canadian livestock industry into utter confusion. How in the wide world [DOT]the government can possibly justify such stupidity is much more than farmers or anyone else can possibly understand. Something has to be done at once to correct the adverse effect which the government's policies have had on farm production. I fear it will take years, Mr. Speaker, to restore confidence amongst farmers generally; and positive, well-founded inducements will have to be held up to them before incentive to all-out production can be established again. But it can be accomplished by timely and proper action, action which will certainly have to be taken at once. It is a shameful and tragic thing that just now when the health, happiness, and well-being, perhaps even the very lives of millions of people depend upon our production of foodstuffs, government policies should be demoralizing agriculture and denying these people the opportunity to consume our foodstuffs.
Last night I listened attentively to the address of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and I felt with him some of the gravity of the world situation. I was able to get a glimpse of the grave world situation also in my experience at the United Nations
Assembly last autumn. I was grateful for the opportunity to go down to Lake Success and see for myself what went on there. I should like to spend some time this afternoon in giving some of my impressions but I shall have to refrain because my time is rapidly passing. Perhaps another opportunity will be afforded for me to do that. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that grave as is the world situation as painted by the Prime Minister last night, it certainly cannot be blamed for all of the crises now facing our country. Government policy must take its share and its rightful share of the responsibility for the crises we do face.
To deal with the dollar crisis just for a moment, it is our belief that the hasty action of the government in bringing the Canadian dollar to parity with the United States dollar has contributed as much as any other reason to the rapid dwindling of our dollar reserves, and to the impasse we have now reached. On the basis of that advice alone, the economic illiterates-for there is no other name for them-and pure theorists who somehow have been fastened on this government as economic and financial advisers, should be dismissed and sent back to the London School of Economics where they can give full play to the puerile effusions of their mentalities of scarcity.
I wish to remind the house that Social Creditere during recent years have consistently warned against bringing the Canadian dollar to parity with that of our neighbours across the line, so long as we were experiencing an adverse balance of trade. We have pointed out what the inevitable effects would be. I wish to quote from page 3045 of Hansard of July 2, 1946, what the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) said:
But on every occasion this matter has come up in the house, I have objected to the suggestion that the Canadian dollar should be placed on a parity with the United States dollar. My reason for taking that position is this: if that parity is established, either Canadian exporters will receive ten per cent less for their exports or the foreign purchasers will pay ten per cent more. In either case, Canadian exports will be discouraged; and in view of the fact that the United States is our main, or, perhaps I should say our only, creditor, the present need is to encourage our exports to that country rather than the reverse.
Mr. Speaker, our warning went unheeded just as did our warning about Bretton Woods in 1945. I say that if the government had listened to our arguments on both subjects they could have kept themselves out of a great deal of serious trouble and the Canadian public today might not be faced with an austerity program. Of course, austerity has become fashionable and Canada could hardly be expected to stay out of the swim when

The Address-Mr. Low
one realizes the amount of socialistic advice which the Canadian government has been receiving.
However, Mr. Speaker, now that we are in the mess we feel that as one means of correcting the whole situation we must support the government's temporary restriction of imports from the United States, especially of luxury goods. But we register very strong objections to limiting importations of citrous fruits and fresh vegetables. The Canadian people need these things to prevent the impairment of their health through our long, cold winter. We also register the strongest objection to the very heavy excise taxes on many things, domestic as well as imported, which have come to be looked upon as necessities of life in this day.
It must be evident to everyone that these taxes will have a great inflationary effect upon our economy in Canada, a thing we have been trying to avoid. If the main purpose of the government is to use these taxes to drain off purchasing power so as to minimize inflation, it seems a peculiar way to go about it using inflation to fight inflation. As one newspaperman put it, that is like creating chaos to meet crisis. I shall shortly suggest a much better way of draining off surplus purchasing power.
It appears that this government is beginning to realize that the sins of omission of past governments of Canada are catching up with them. When one examines the records of imports from the United States, it becomes plain that another factor contributing to the dollar shortage is the wilful neglect on the part of past administrations to develop our industries and resources right here in Canada.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he has spoken for forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Solon Earl Low: I promise I will not take much longer. I want to refer for a moment to some figures that show the total amount of money spent for various items in the United States during the year 1946. Canada purchased from the United States in that year coal to the value of $119,453,000. That required United States currency. In that year we also purchased petroleum and petroleum products to the value of $82,757,000; automobiles to the value of $31,120,000; sugar from the United States and other dollar countries to the value of $28 million in round figures; a total in those four items of $261,331,000. And then we wonder why it is that we are running into a dollar crisis! Such figures indicate that to a very great extent, in the essentials of living, Canada is dependent upon the United States;

and I say to you, sir, that such dependence upon uncertain sources, and they are very often uncertain, puts Canada in a dangerously weak position in times of crises. We should now be supplying many of them from our own resources. We can supply them if we develop our country as it should be.
I am pleased to note the government's intention to do something about correcting this situation, and particularly the whole dangerous situation of being utterly dependent, in the essentials of living, upon other countries. I hope that the program of the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) will be started at a -wartime tempo, to make Canada as nearly self-sufficient in the essentials of living as it is possible to make it. Let me warn him, however, not to expect success unless his program is based upon inducement and incentive rather than upon compulsion and high-handed government intervention in business. He must not live in the past with regard to a measure of economic nationalism.
Too many of our government people in past years have been completely afraid of any form of economic nationalism. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that any program of industrialization in Canada, to be successful, must be a dynamic one, designed to make Canada strong and independent. The necessity of becoming strong and independent is forcing every country, through the events of the present day, into economic nationalism more or less complete.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I believe that with the right kind of leadership and with a proper program of objectives, Canada can pull out of the bad situation she is in at present, and at the same time she can be enabled to extend substantial help to other less fortunate countries, notably Britain. I am going to propose a five-point program which I feel is the kind we must follow if we are to achieve the results we want in this respect.
My proposal is based upon the principle that whatever is physically possible and desirable can and should be made financially possible. I am glad to note that there is growing recognition of this principle which Social Crediters for twenty-six years have kept before the people of the world to make them conscious of the utter absurdities that have been demonstrated by a so-called financial system that breeds debt, scarcity, suffering and war.
I note with satisfaction that the president of the Canadian federation of agriculture, Mr. Hannam, recognizes the profound truth that is bound up in that principle. He so stated a few days ago. The starting point in our attack on the problem arising from the crisis now facing us has to be on the real bottleneck, and that bottleneck, I suggest, is Britain's inability to

The Address-Mr. Abbott
get to her underfed people the abundance of foodstuffs and other things which Canada can produce.
That whole preposterous situation arises from, and revolves around the fact that dollars are not available to Britain with which she can make necessary purchases in Canada. I say, then, why not begin our program by making those dollars available?
My first point therefore is this-a food-for-Britain loan. The idea is not by any means original. I must give credit to the Ottawa Citizen for reminding me that this is the right place to start. The government should go to the people of Canada with a national drive to raise-say-$2 billion to lend to Britain for food and other supplies from Canada. Bank reports show that as of August 1947 total deposits amounted to more than $7 billion; therefore there is plenty of money available. That would accomplish two things.
(a)	It would drain off redundant purchasing power and help to offset inflation in Canada, thus obviating the necessity of the new excise taxes, if any such necessity exists.
(b)	It would provide at once a market for Canada's production, and provide incentive for all-out efforts in our country.
2.	Call for an all-out agricultural production program.
In this connection, set about restoring confidence among farmers, and provide incentive and inducement, by:
(a)	Immediate tax reduction, direct and hidden.
(b)	Subsidies from the national treasury to bring wheat contract price up to world price.
(c)	Boost livestock returns by bonus or subsidy.
(d)	Compensated price discounts to consumers as a means of bringing cost of living under control.
3.	Introduce at wartime speed and urgency a national program of industrialization, with the object of making Canada as nearly selfsufficient as possible in the essentials of living. In launching such a program, we must avoid dictatorial methods, and rely upon proper inducements rather than on compulsion.
4.	Adopt a balanced trade policy based upon mutual benefit and contracredits, instead of upon the most-favoured-nation clause and Bretton Woods, about which we have warned this house.
We like and admire our good friends and neighbours to the south of us, but somehow United States traders and commercial interests must be brought to understand that the aggressive insistence by their country upon trade agreements based upon the most-favourednation clause, is one of the greatest reasons
for the present chaotic condition of world trade; for much of the fear of the mighty United States now manifest throughout the world; and for the alarming rate at which the British commonwealth is being dissolved.
5.	An immediate move to set our own house in apple-pie order: so as to ensure that every Canadian is made secure in his own rights and freedoms, which includes freedom to consume. Without going into further details in this regard, I should like to commend to you a nine-point program currently being circulated amongst Ontario members of this house by the Ontario social credit league.
All these things are physically possible. They must be made financially possible. I should like to say something about the Geneva trade agreements, but my time has more than expired. I shall therefore content myself to wait until these things are brought before the house to make any further presentation.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some diffidence to take part in this debate because I have an idea that over the next ten days or two weeks I may have to do rather more than my share of talking in this house. My apprehensions in that regard are more than borne out by the number of questions that were fired at me on the orders of the day today. However, there have been brought out in the course of the remarks of the speakers who have preceded me some points which I think call for some answer at this time on behalf of the government.
Before I do that, though, I wish to join with others in extending to the mover and the seconder of the address my most sincere congratulations on the performance which they put on, as to both form and content. In the manner of delivery both their addresses were excellent, and if I may interject a personal note, I think both of them were very generous and complimentary in their references to myself.
Coming now to the remarks which were made by the leader of the opposition, (Mr. Bracken), the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) and the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low), may I say that I do not intend to spend a great deal of time in dealing with the remarks made by the leader of the official opposition. He spent a considerable portion of his time in dealing with matters which relate more particularly to the emergency program, the dollar conservation program, and I think this can be mo'e properly discussed when the measures are introduced to put these proposals into effect. There were,
The Address-Mr. Abbott


James Arthur Ross: Will the minister permit one question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: Will the minister say why this subsidy was not taken off on August 1, at the start of the marketing year, if it was to come off?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, I will answer that quickly. It was not taken off on Auugst 1 because meat ceilings were not to be taken off until September 15. It was originally intended that the meat ceilings would be taken off on September 15 when the last major move in the decontrol program was made. At that time unfortunately the meat strike was on and the subsidy was paid for the time being, while the meat strike was in process of settlement. I do not believe that the great majority either of feeders or of growers ever thought the subsidy would be continued during the coming crop year.


James Arthur Ross: I think the minister misunderstood me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Arthur Ross: The minister is quite willing to answer if his supporters are not. I asked about the crop year which commenced on August 1. The strike began on September 12. The marketing year commenced on August 1. That is where the confusion has arisen among the producers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will concede to my hon. friend that there may have been some confusion in the minds of some producers. I make this statement again. The great majority of the producers were satisfied that this subsidy was not to be continued during the coming year. I make the assertion here that I do not believe this is a proper type of subsidy. If you are paying a subsidy at any time, that subsidy should not be paid to one class of producer while you discriminate against another class; and I doubt if my hon. friend would want to sustain that thesis in western Canada.

The Address-Mr. Abbott


James Arthur Ross: I have always advocated that on the floor of the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I made the point that this was a temporary subsidy to enable price ceilings to be maintained on meat and dairy products. That- is all I have to say about the subsidy question. I wanted to make clear to the house the history of the subsidy, to show that it was only introduced last March and was never intended to be permanent. It was unfortunate that the discontinuance of the subsidy should have coincided with a partial crop failure in eastern Canada, but that was one of those things that sometimes happen and certainly it was something over which the government had no control.
The second point I wish to refer to, arising out of the remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, was one I had anticipated; that is, his criticism of the action of the government in June, 1946, in revaluing the Canadian dollar and bringing it to parity from a discount of ten per cent, together with his further suggestion that it should be devalued again. The same point was raised by my hon. friend the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Low). When that action was taken in June of 1946 I do not recall that the leader of the opposition or any member of the Progressive Conservative party rose in his place to object to it. If they did I shall be glad to stand corrected, but I think I am right. It is quite true, as the hon. member for Peace River says, that his party did object. However, I say to this house now, as my predecessor, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) said in June, 1946, when that action was taken, that it was a step which was fully justified, one which was in the interests of the Canadian people, and one which the government has never regretted having taken.
What would have been the result over the last twelve or eighteen months if that action had not been taken? Our imports from the United States during the past year have run something in the order of $2,000 million. It would have meant that from our exchange reserves we would have paid out some $200 million more than we have paid out. It may be urged by hon. gentlemen opposite that we would not have bought as much in the United States if our dollar had been at a discount of ten per cent. Let me make this suggestion, as I did in my radio broadcast. Since June of 1946 the average price of our imports from the United States has risen forty per cent, and our imports have not diminished; they have increased. If any hon. member will suggest to me that an extra ten per cent would have slowed down those
imports I am afraid he is less intelligent than I give hon. members of this house credit for being. That is the position, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot get away from it. The average price of our imports has risen forty per cent, and they have not diminished; they have increased. On the other hand, by bringing our dollar to parity we have expended from our reserves some $200 million less than otherwise we would have spent. Currency depreciation is a device which may be resorted to, and which it may be desirable to resort to, if the value, either internal or external, of one's currency is above its real purchasing power; but that is not the case with respect to the Canadian dollar. We are not handicapped in a single export market of the world because our dollar is at par with the United States dollar. We are not losing a single sale in that market because our prices are too high. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in suggesting that we devalue the Canadian dollar now, said at page 58 of Hansard of yesterday:
The drain of dollars has been so great that the amount of depreciation permitted within the Bretton Woods agreement would not be sufficient to cure the worsened situation, but it would do something.
It certainly would do something. One of the things it would do would be to put immediately a ten per cent tariff right across the board on everything we import from the United States. It would add ten per cent to the price of the coal we import. It would add ten per cent to the price of the petroleum and gasoline we import. It would add ten per cent to the cost of the steel we import. It would add ten per cent to the cost of the thousand and one things we bring into this country. That is what it would do. I challenge anyone to contradict successfully that statement.


Mr. CASE:: Would you make your comparison on balance rather than just on what we spend? Would they not spend more with us if their dollar was worth $1.10?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We would not get any more in the United States. We would not sell any more. We would sell the same quantity of goods.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We rvould not bring in more United States dollars. We are selling every ton of newsprint we can produce; it is being sold in the United States market at a price in United States dollars. The only way we would get more money for newsprint in the United States would be to take that
The Address-Mr. Abbott

newsprint from Britain, or to take it from somewhere else, perhaps from our own newspapers; but we would not get any more dollars. We would still get the $90 or $100 a ton, whatever it may be. It is true that the newspaper producer would get, in Canadian dollars, $10 more than he is getting now. Any exchange depreciation gives a benefit to the individual importer, but it does not benefit the country as a whole. That is the point I make.
Mr. COCIvERAM: Would the minister permit a question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I like to answer questions; there is nothing I like better.


Mr. COCKERAM:: Does the minister not think that if our dollar were at a discount of ten per cent United States capital would once more flow into this country for investment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a matter of opinion. If United States capital came into this country and was invested permanently in plants, in bricks and mortar, I would welcome it. But if it came into the country to buy short-term securities or to buy stocks and bonds in the hope of making a quick speculative profit in the event of the dollar being brought up to parity again, then I say we do not want that kind of investment.
I am delighted that this question has been raised. I knew it would be, and I am glad to deal with it now. Another result of the suggestion of my hon. friend would be to make it more difficult for Britain, France, Czechoslovakia and other countries to sell their goods in this country. I can tell hon. members that in some of those countries costs are already so high that in some lines they have difficulty meeting price competition in this country. If by our own action we were to add, let us say, ten per cent or fifteen per cent or whatever you like to their costs, we would certainly not help them balance their trade with Canada.
I am perfectly well aware that in this country there is a school of thought that wants to take off exchange controls and let things rip. I quite realize that; but I am not one of that school. I say the policy the government has followed to date with respect to the value of the Canadian dollar is a sound policy and one that is in the interests of the Canadian people.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: How do you explain the plight we are in now?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will come to that plight business in a moment; I will come to the references to Jeremiah and all the rest of it.
[Mr. Abbott.1


Charles Elwood Stephenson: After all, facts are facts.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Then my hon. friend the leader of the opposition made another point with which I wish to deal. At page 59 of Hansard of yesterday he said:
The government's policies froze farmers' prices at the top and allowed the cost of the farmers' business to increase in some cases by nearly fifty per cent overnight.
I want to place some figures on record as to this question of farmers' costs and prices. These are the official figures of the dominion bureau of statistics.


Mr. JACKMAN:: The farmers must be awfully stupid if they do not know their own costs.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Farmers are not the only people who perhaps are not as intelligent as they may think. In 1939, at the outbreak of war, the index of farm prices stood at 84-3. Today, or at the last date available, which would be within the last two or three weeks, the index of farm prices stands at 181-3, or a rise of 115-1 per cent. That is on farm prices. During the same period general wholesale prices rose from 93-2 to 179-5, or 92-6 per cent, and the cost of living index from 100-8 to 143-6 or 42-5 per cent.
On these figures I think it is pretty hard to sustain the thesis that the farmers have not had a fair increase in prices. They have had the biggest; but I do not suggest it is unfair, for this reason, that farm prices before 1939 were depressed. They were unduly depressed. And I think the industrial section of the economy was being subsidized, if I may use that word, or was being benefited at the expense of the agricultural section.
That balance has been redressed. But I will not admit that the farmers have not had their fair share of increases in prices.


An hon. MEMBER:: Try to prove that to them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As a matter of fact the food index, as hon. members know, has risen far more than any other element in the cost of living.


An hon. MEMBER:: We were talking about feed prices.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You make your speech when you get a chance. I am sure it will be a dandy.


Gordon Graydon: When do we get the chance? We cannot have a chance; that is

The Address-Mr. Abbott
the trouble. Are you prepared to give us a chance? If you will let us have a chance, then that is all we are asking for.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, my hon. friend does pretty well.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: He talked all day
3'esterday.


An hon. MEMBER:: And said nothing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is about all I have to say, concerning the remarks of the. leader of the opposition. As I say, he made a number of observations respecting the so-called emergency legislation which I believe I might more appropriately leave over until we are discussing that legislation. I cannot see any real purpose in taking the time of the house to have two debates on the same matter.


Mr. McIVOR:: Jeremiah?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall refer to Jeremiah in my peroration.


James Arthur Ross: Before the minister leaves farm prices-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh,


James Arthur Ross: Well, he said he was finished with the farm part of his speech.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said I was finished with the leader of the opposition.


James Arthur Ross: Just a minute now. With respect to the lifting of the ceilings on oats and barley, will the minister state whether the producers who delivered those oats and 'barley will 'be reimbursed for the money they lost in connection with the ceiling?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not within my province to announce legislation that may be introduced. I will give my hon. friend the classic answer, that this is a matter of government policy and that it will be announced in due course.
I turn now to the remarks of the leader of the C.C.F. group. He answered a point made by the leader of the opposition with which I had intended to deal, namely, that we should leave enough in this country to prevent prices from going up, when he put the question to the leader of the opposition as to whether that hon. gentleman intended to take those quantities from the United Kingdom, or from where he intended to take them. I should think the answer to that is fairly self-evident.
With respect to the points raised by the leader of the C.C.F. group, I wish to deal, first, with his suggestion that we should
re-impose price ceilings. The way he put it was that we should re-impose over-all price ceilings on the basic necessities. I have forgotten his exact language, but I believe that is reasonably accurate. First, let me say that in persuing its program of orderly decontrol-


An hon. MEMBER:: You mean chaos.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In continuing its policy of orderly decontrol, the government was carrying out its pledges to the electorate. May I say that whatever stand may be taken by some parties in the house, at least the Liberal party is consistent in that if it promises something when it goes to the country it carries out those promises.
That is the first reason we pursued an orderly decontrol policy. And, despite what may be said by some hon. members, it has been an orderly decontrol policy. I was interested to hear the leader of the opposition during the campaign in York-Sunbury refer to the disorderly decontrol policy. But when I recall what he and his supporters have been advising us to do, I did not pay too much attention to it, and neither did the electors of York-Sunbury. I think it will be generally agreed that the government did a pretty good job of price stabilization during the war. As a matter of fact the job was so well done that the government is now in danger of being damned by praise of its own virtuous actions, and by the argument that we should be able to do now what we were able to do during the war. I have been told that there is a tendency among generals to fight the last war instead of the war ahead. I think that is the tendency of those who are urging now that we can continue over-all price controls instead of a peacetime policy. While we welcome the commendation we have received with respect to our wartime price control policy, I suggest that it would be a serious mistake for anyone to believe that a policy which was appropriate under wartime conditions could 'be carried into effect successfully under peacetime conditions.
It will be recalled that when the government imposed its over-all price ceilings policy in November of 1941, in effect it froze prices at their then existing levels.
It is true that adjustments were made from time to time in those prices, particularly in the direction of allowing farm prices to rise. Subsidies were paid in order to increase the returns for certain essential products and to stabilize the cost of living. But, by and large, the ceiling which was observed until decontrol started was the ceiling which preserved the general structure of prices existing at the end of 1941.
The Address-Mr. Abbott

This stabilization of the price structure was of immeasurable value in maximizing the country's war effort; and I think if I had the responsibility of recommending a similar policy, again under wartime conditons-which God forbid-I would suggest that we should adopt a similar policy. Nevertheless I think every hon. member would agree that the structure of the prices which existed in 1941 was not suitable to the very much altered conditions and circumstances of 1947.
For example, I do not suppose anyone would seriously suggest that we should go back to 77-cent wheat, or that consumers should be permitted to continue buying their flour on the basis of 77-cent wheat by subsidizing the present price on that basis. Nor would it be reasonable for the government to subsidize raw cotton, which is an essential and is used in so many ways, down to the prices which were just about one-third of the prices which prevail today on the world market. Yet, just as soon as anomalies such as these are corrected, others begin to appear and it is necessary to have a complete readjustment to the realities of present-day conditions. Let me give an excellent example in connection with decontrol. One of the later things to be decontrolled was the charges for trucking services. On account of the fact that those charges enter largely into a number of things, we held the level on charges for trucking services until almost the end.
Well, I wish hon. members could have heard the bitter complaints from the trucking contractors. They came to us and said, "Everything we have to buy is going up in price. Gasoline is going up; the wages we have to pay are going up. The grease we have to buy has gone up, as has the cost of our vehicles." All these, they said, had increased. Then they said, "Yet, you do not let us charge more for our service."
That is an excellent example of how the fixing of a single price involves costs which spread out, throughout the economy. Someone will suggest, "Why not impose over-all price ceilings today? Why not start again in 1947 and impose the ceilings on 1947 prices?" Well, those who suggest such a policy have not worked out all its implications. In the first place, my belief is that over-all price control cannot be put into effect unless there is real and effective control over salaries and wages.
I am convinced1 that that is the case. I do not believe that those who favour the reimposition of price control would advocate such a policy. The control of salaries and wages is within the jurisdiction of the provinces today, and, I believe, properly so under our constitution as it exists.
Our experience during wartime leads us to the conclusion that price control is likely to

break down at vital spots unless the government is in a position to enforce its direction upon producers. There is no use in our saying to a manufacturer of textiles, "You have to sell shirts at X dollars per shirt", unless we are prepared to force him to do it. He will not produce shirts at $3 per shirt or whatever it is and go into bankruptcy as a result. What will he do? He will simply stop producing.
If you are going to enforce over-all price control of that kind you must be prepared to carry through and to impose directions upon producers. I am glad to say that during the war the government received widespread co-operation in carrying out some of its directives. Very seldom did we have to wield the big stick, but the authority was there. I think it would have to be there again if we are to introduce over-all price control.
Finally, the application of any form of general price control, particularly if it were accompanied by a roll-back of prices as is suggested in some quarters, would involve the allocation of scarce goods, rationing and so forth. I know that is what my hon. friends of the C.C.F. advocate. In short, let me emphasize this point. Any system of over-all price control involves over-all detailed direction of the Canadian economy.


Mr. MILLER:: Would the minister hazard a guess or estimate as to what the cost to the country would be if there were a rollback of prices?


Stanley Howard Knowles: And also what it would save?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is one of those calculations which it is almost impossible to make. Say there is a roll-back of prices of ten per cent. W'hat is the total value of goods and services? Would you then take ten per cent? Would you take ten per cent off the fellow who drives a truck? It is hard to know where to stop.
You can have an over-all price control and rationing system, but one point I should like to make is that Canada is one of the greatest trading nations in the world. We import and export more per capita than almost any other country in the world, and perhaps it is fair to say, more than any other country in the world. What does that mean? It means inevitably that we cannot have our price level too far away from world price levels. There is no use in our trying to fool ourselves about that.
I know that this appeal for over-all price ceilings and controls is a plausible one and has a great deal of popularity, but I for one am not going to indulge in what we used to call in the army, "trying to kid the troops". I say that unless this country is prepared to embark upon a completely controlled and completely

The Address-Mr. Abbott
directed economy, then we cannot go back in peacetime to over-all price ceilings. That is entirely apart from whatever our rights might be under the constitution as it exists.
I realize that there will be an opportunity later on to discuss this matter when the motion for an address to extend the powers for another period comes up, but I have attempted briefly to give the reasons why I believe it is impossible to reimpose over-all price ceilings in Canada. However, I do not want to leave the impression with the house or with the country that the government is prepared to adopt a hands-off policy, because it is not. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has indicated, we are going to ask parliament for a temporary extension of our authority.
Hon. members will have seen that certain proposals are pending before the United States congress for authority to impose some measure of control in that country. I am not going to go into the details, but inevitably any action that we take here must be influenced by what action is taken in the United States. The present intention of the government is, as hon. members know, to ask for an extension of the powers which now exist to impose and maintain price controls for a further period. I would hope that during that further period it will be possible for us to get a clearer idea of just what can be done in this field in the interests of the Canadian economy.
I should like to say just one more word on the question of price control. The charge was made by my hon. friend that the decontrol policy was dictated by what he referred to as vested interests. I deny that without any hesitation. It was not dictated by any group. It was a policy which we announced before the election. It was the policy which we believed was the only policy which could be enforced. It is the policy which we have carried out in accordance with our prearranged program, and I deny emphatically that it was dictated by any interest, vested or otherwise.
Another point which he raised was in connection with the new emergency measures. I only want to touch on this. He referred to what he termed the discriminatory clauses which prohibited things from coming in from the United Kingdom. I intend to discuss this in more detail when the measure is before the house. The United States in particular attaches great importance to the non-discrimination principle. While it possibly could not be called a fetish with them, it is a principle to which great importance is attached. The success of this emergency program and the smooth functioning of our economy depend
upon the whole-hearted co-operation of our friends to the south. That has been evidenced by their willingness to make us a loan of $300 million.
We wish as far as possible to make our program non-discriminatory, because I for one believe that that is a most desirable principle. But it is not as non-discriminatory as it seems. The choice of the particular articles which are prohibited was very carefully made in order to cause as little harm as possible to those countries from which we wish to get imports in order to help them in their dollar position. May I state to the house that during the twelve months ended June 30, 1947, the total imports of prohibited items from what we call the non-scheduled countries, that is, countries other than the United States and dollar countries, amounted to only $13,500,000. Of that total, at least $7,500,000 came from countries other than the United Kingdom, so that there would be only five or six million dollars worth of goods which would otherwise have come to this country. I make the statement that the restrictions which have been imposed will cause no real difficulty to the United Kingdom in exporting goods to this country. Under the quota system they will have an almost unlimited quota. I do not intend to go into details, but I did want to deal with that point which was raised by the leader of the C.C.F. group.
There is another point which he raised and with which I should like to deal. He said that prices were going up faster than wages and I should like to give some figures in connection with that. The cost of living index stands at 143.6. I should like to give the figures provided by the dominion bureau of statistics for average weekly earnings. I shall give the October 1 figure as compared with the average for 1939, which was 100.1. The figures I am giving can therefore be compared directly with the cost of living index, which was 100 in 1939. The figures are as follows:
Average
weekly
earnings
Manufacturing industry	 163-6
Logging industries	 223-3
Coal	 157-6
Mining	 151-5
Metals	 148-9
Communications	 139-2
That is the only one so far below the index figure. The other figures are:
Transport	 150-1
Street railways	 146-3
Construction and maintenance	 163-5
Services, hotels, restaurants, etc...	161-0
Trade	 137-2
Finance	 129-6
Finance is the lowest of the lot, a splendid example.
The Address-Mr. Abbott


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Can the minister give the figures in dollars?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Those are the average
weekly earnings as compared with the cost of living.


Major James William Coldwell: Those are percentages. Can the minister give the percentages in dollars?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not those figures but they are readily available. I am comparing like with like. The suggestion made was that prices had risen faster than wages. Whatever the wage level may have been in 1939, my point is this, that wages have risen just as rapidly and in many cases much more rapidly than prices.


Major James William Coldwell: I should have said that they have not risen sufficiently to meet the increased cost of living.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I do want to refer to the Jeremiah charge which was made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition yesterday. He said, at page 48 of Hansard:
In about fifteen minutes after the Prime Minister had finished, the new Jeremiah came on the air.
He was referring to myself. He went on:
I am not an authority on Biblical affairs-
He might have extended the scope of that statement.
-but I understand that Jeremiah was the man who wrote the Book of (Lamentations. He was a prophet of gloom who prophesied, among other things, the coming of Nebuchadnezzar, the King.
The modern Jeremiah-
That is myself.
The modern Jeremiah went on the air and said, "We have been telling you that Canada was in splendid shape, but we are finding now that that was all a mistake, that as a matter of fact she is in pretty bad shape. I am appointed to tell you what the decrees are that we have prepared behind closed doors to fix everything up."
I did not say any such thing and I did not convey that impression of the Prime Minister's address to which my hon. friend referred.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!


Douglas Charles Abbott: All right. With the indulgence of the house, I will quote exactly what I said in the concluding paragraph of my radio address. I said this:
The truth is that we in Canada have been living somewhat beyond our means during the last year or more-not beyond what we could afford if the rest of the world was restored to economic health, but beyond what we can afford

in the world as it is today. We cannot expect to be completely prosperous when much of the rest of the world in which we live and on which we depend for a large part of our trade is just beginning to recover from the terrible destruction and dislocation of the war.
So we have to make adjustments to bring our national living standard within the limits of what we can afford in the difficult conditions that surround us. For most of us, this moderate measure of austerity-
May I interject to say that was the only reference I made to austerity, and I am sorry I used the word at all because it has been picked up and the government's program referred to as its austerity program, when no such impression was intended to be conveyed. I went on to say:
For most of us, this moderate measure of austerity will mean inconvenience and for some it will create difficulty. But a problem of this magnitude cannot be solved painlessly.
At the same time, let us keep our difficulties in their right perspective. In comparison with most of the rest of the world we are a very fortunate people. Our trouble arises from the misfortunes of other countries, not from any basic weakness in our own economy. Our basic position is sound. Our level of employment is at the maximum. We have a great and expanding capacity to produce. We are producing at a high level and at a relatively low cost. This country of ours has had a notable record of achievement during and after the war-a record which has given us a self-confidence and raised Canada's stature in the eyes of the world. Let us keep up that record in surmounting the present emergency, conscious of our responsibilities and confident of our great future.
Mr. Speaker, if that is the speech of a Jeremiah my knowledge of the Scriptures is less than that of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. No, Mr. Speaker. We are living, of course, in difficult times and have difficult problems, but I was struck by a statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made in reply to a press man in Montreal the other day, as reported in a Montreal newspaper. The press man asked the Prime Minister if this was going to be a difficult session and the Prime Minister replied, "One of the joys of public life is trying to overcome difficult problems." May I add that the record of the Liberal party in solving difficult problems under the distinguished leadership of the right hon. gentleman who sits before me has been a very successful one, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that the government has the confidence of the people of this country to continue doing so.
I now move the adjournment of the debate.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to the adjournment of this debate, and were it not for the fact that it is now six o'clock and a recorded vote would take

Tariffs and Trade
considerable time we would call for a division on the motion. But we are prepared to let it go through now, on division, on the understanding that we are definitely opposed to being cut off at this time from our constitutional right to speak in this debate.
Motion agreed to on division, and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVILEGE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon at three o'clock I addressed a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) with respect to superannuated civil servants. I think the question was clearly understood and certainly was clearly answered, though unfortunately in the negative, and it is clearly reported in Hansard. But one of the evening papers, the Evening Citizen, carries a main story based upon that question and answer, with the heading, "Civil service salary boosts not sanctioned." This heading and the story are so completely in error that I feel it should be corrected, and perhaps the Minister of Finance will confirm what I have just said.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not seen the paper but my hon. friend is quite right. His question and my answer related only to superannuated civil servants and had nothing whatever to do with possible increases in civil service salaries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will answer that later?



TARIFFS AND TRADE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the house will return to government notices of motions so that we may take the second motion that appears under my name on page three.


James Horace King: Mr. Mackenzie King
moves, seconded by Mr. St. Laurent:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve the general agreement on tariffs and trade, including the protocol of provisional application thereof, annexed to the final act of the
second session of the preparatory committee of the united nations conference on trade and employment held at Geneva from April 10 'to October 30, 1947, together with the complementary agreements of October 30, 1947, between Canada and the United States of America and between Canada and the United Kingdom; and that this house do approve of the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, before I begin to discuss the Geneva trade agreement, I might say a further word with reference to the question that has been raised by some lion, members as to why parliament was not called at an earlier day, having regard to the foreign exchange measures that have to come before it. That question has been answered in large part already, but I should like to leave, as part of the record, something in more exact terms.
The government has been giving serious attention to our foreign exchange problem for some time. However, that problem is basically a trade problem. Its long-term solution depends upon the development of multilateral world trade on a large scale. The government accordingly felt that it would be most unwise for any action to be taken with regard to our immediate problem without knowing, in a broad sense, what the longterm picture would be. That picture could not be known until the Geneva conference had concluded, since its decisions will have a more far-reaching influence on future trade than any other factors we may devise. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said on November 17 last, "the government felt it would be unwise to reach a final decision in regard to its program until it knew the results of the difficult and far-reaching trade negotiations which were being carried on at Geneva and until the prospects for implementation of the Marshall plan became more definite." Once these conditions became known, the government was able to complete its plans for rectification of our present exchange difficulties. Further time has, of course, been needed to get these emergency measures in final form for presentation to the house. The task has been a very large one, and the time that has been available has been less than would have been desirable. I think, from this, it will be clear that the session has been called at as early a day as it was felt it could effectively be called. I might add that, apart from the necessity of having some time after November 17 to put measures in final form, there has been an added advantage in that, since November 17, the country has had time to study the decisions that have been taken and to gain some clearer understanding of what is involved. This will be
Tariffs and Trade

of substantial assistance in the effective consideration of the legislative measures that will be presented.
As hon. members will recall, I took advantage at the outset of the session and before the introduction of any of these measures to indicate the program -and proposed procedure for the entire period between its opening and the adjournment for the Christmas of New Year recess. It might be helpful if, in a similar way, I were to indicate at once the procedure that it is suggested might be followed in the consideration of the Geneva agreement.
Broadly, there are three stages. First, there is the stage we have already entered upon, a consideration of the resolution for the approval of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. This resolution will afford an opportunity for the discussion of general principles; it will also serve -as an approach to the consideration of the large problem which the approval of the agreement itself involves.
The next stage proposed is a resolution seeking approval for the tariff provisions set forth in the schedules of the agreement. This resolution will be referred to the committee of ways and means where there will be opportunity for examination in detail of the provisions.
Finally, there will be the introduction of :he necessary legislation to give effect to the general agreement.
This procedure is the same as that which was followed in 1936 and again in 1939 in giving approval to the trade agreements between Canada and the United States. It will not be possible before Christmas to conclude these three stages, but consideration of the resolution now before the house will help to give to hon. members a pretty complete picture of the agreement, and of what will be involved or may be advisable in further discussions.


John Bracken: Will the Prime Minister state again what the second stage is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The second stage is a resolution to approve the tariff provisions. That resolution will be referred ;o the committee of ways and means where the various tariff provisions that are set forth in the schedule to the agreement will be considered in detail.
I might now say a word as to the origin of the Geneva agreement. It is some little time since the subject was first brought up in this house. It might revive the memories of hon. members were I to quote what I said when I first* made an announcement to the house concerning the proposed agreement.

The Geneva agreement had its origin in proposals by the United States government in December, 1945. In tabling the proposals in the house on December 12, 1945, I said:
The government of the United States has proposed that all countries should concert their efforts in the sphere of their international economic relations, with a view to expanding the volume of world trade and maintaining high and stable levels of national employment. The specific suggestions for achieving these ends, set forth in the document which is now being tabled for the consideration of members of parliament, deserve our most careful study, for no country has a greater interest than Canada in the realization of these objectives.
At all stages since, this government has maintained close and constant interest in this vital problem. At Geneva, Canada played a very important part, indeed a part of major importance, in the consideration of the agreement itself. The result of our efforts, in conjunction with those of other countries, is a crowning achievement, giving new hope and encouragement for the future.
Hon. members have, I believe, received copies of the final act of the Geneva conference and also copies of the press release of November 17 and of the schedule to the agreement. There -may be some who have not received copies of the press release, it will be available to any who have not thus far seen them. May I add a further word as to the background of the agreement. I have sought to bring this statement into as concise form as possible that it may serve as a ready reference to hon. members in considering the matter.
In December, 1945, at the signing of the financial agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, proposals were set forth for "an expansion of world trade and employment." In February, 1946, the economic and social council of the united nations adopted a United States resolution constituting the preparatory committee of the international conference on trade and employment. On May 31,	1946, arrangements were
announced by the economic and social council for the preparatory committee to meet in London in October. From October 15 to November 26, 1946 the first session of the preparatory committee was held in London. Eighteen states had been named to the committee : Australia, Belgium, Luxemburg, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France, India, Lebanon, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Union of South Africa, the United States, the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. The UJ3.S.R., however, did not attend.

Tariffs and Trade
From April 10 to October 30, 1947, the second session of the preparatory committee was held at Geneva. Twenty-three governments were represented, and the negotiations resulted in the conclusion of the general agreement on tariffs and trade now before the house. Further developments are at the present time under discussion at the conference that is being held in Havana. The agreements may be modified somewhat as a result of the Havana conference, but the government has thought it advisable to have the agreement approved as it is; and if modifications should be made at Havana, these modifications can be brought before the house, at a subsequent time, and the agreement itself amended as may be necessary.
I wish again to point out that, from the nature of the agreement and of the extensive tariff revisions which are included in the schedules, it is obvious that consideration cannot be completed for some time and by no chance before the Christmas adjournment. This will not affect the protocol by which Canada has agreed to bring parts I and II of the agreement along with the tariff provisions in schedule V into effect provisionally on January 1, 1948.
Schedule V can be brought into effect by action of the governor in council under section 11 of the Customs Tariff Act. Part II of the agreement will come into effect only in so far as it is not inconsistent with existing legislation. The countries with which the agreement will come into effect on January 1 are Australia. Belgium. Canada. France. Luxembourg, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States.
I wish now to say a word in regard to the character of the general agreement. The general agreement on tariffs and trade is what its name implies, a document of a comprehensive nature which embodies the widest measure of agreement on trading practices and for tariff reductions that the nations of the world have ever witnessed. It represents the culmination of several months of negotiations on questions of tariffs and trading practices at Geneva. It is an accomplishment of the most far-reaching importance for this country and for the world. Together, the agreement and the charter of the proposed international trade organization represent a balanced and inclusive effort to promote world peace by prosperity and economic co-operation. For Canada the importance of the general agreement can scarcely be exaggerated. The freeing of world trade on a broad multilateral basis is of fundamental importance for our entire national welfare. Let me- say a further word on the importance of international trade for Canada. On February 14. 1939, in moving the 5849-74
resolution for approval of the trade agreement of November 17, 1938, between Canada and the United States, I spoke as follows with regard to the importance of international trade for Canada:
A policy of national self-sufficiency is out of the question for Canada, which is peculiarly in need of international trade because of its enormous production of primary commodities and its relatively small population. Thus we cannot, like some other countries, pursue a policy of producing all that we consume and consuming all that we produce. Our whole economy, the prosperity of our vast wheat areas, our mines and forests and fisheries, and our far-flung transportation systems, are based upon the continuance of international exchange of goods on a great and growing scale. The restriction of international exchanges involves a declining standard of living, as -the totalitarian nations have found to their cost. The increase of international exchange of goods involves a rising standard of living, not for ourselves alone, but for all peoples that are ready to join with us in removing -the obstacles which at present obstruct the free course of international trade.
Canada, then, on both political and economic grounds, is committed to a policy of peace and good will, and of freer exchange with countries which will meet us half way.
May I now say a word about the developments since 1939. They have not altered the basic situation. The industrial productivity of Canada is much greater. There is a somewhat increased diversification of the industrial base, but the fundamental position of Canada in relation to trading is unchanged. We still have vast production and small population; we still have emphasis on an enormous output of a relatively small number of commodities. We still rely mainly on production and processing of primary products. We cannot for one moment contemplate the possibility of becoming self-sufficient and consuming all we produce, or of producing all we consume. The level of external trade is the fundamental determinant of the prosperity of Canada, of our level of employment and of our standard of living.
A word next as to the importance of multilateral trade. Fundamentally we are concerned not only over the level of our own external trade, but we have also a fundamental concern for the level of external trade of other countries. The character of our trade, with surpluses of exports to certain countries, and excesses of imports from other countries, requires a condition in which surpluses on one account can be converted to offset deficiencies on another account. This means that a bilateral approach to trade is not enough. We cannot prosper on the basis simply of reciprocal agreements with single countries. Perhaps more than any other country we stand to
Tariffs and Trade

prosper from the prosperity of others. We are interested in the welfare not only of our customers, but of our customers' customers. A high level of multilateral trade on the broadest possible basis is what we seek. The Geneva agreement is the most important and most hopeful development toward this goal that has yet been achieved.
. I should like to say that it is a source of particular gratification to me that the present agreement should be so completely in line with what has been the policy of the Liberal party in Canada from the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier down to the present time, and that it should be my privilege to present it to our parliament. The Liberal party has always been in the van in the struggle for greater freedom of trade. Throughout its history, it has always believed that without multilateral trade on a broad basis Canada can never be really prosperous. We have always seen the implications of our economy based upon abundant but highly specialized resources. The party has always acted on the belief that prosperity is inevitably associated with extensive and general international commerce. There has been full recognition of this important fact by the Liberals in government, in parliament and in the country as a whole.
Here I should like to draw attention to the significance of preferences as they have been viewed by the Liberal party since they were first introduced in 1896. Tariffs, when applied by Liberal regimes, except in very special cases and in difficult, disturbing periods, have been for revenue purposes, with protection only incidental. Preferences, when applied by Liberal governments, have had the basic purpose of stimulating trade through the reduction of duties rather than by increasing them. The whole Liberal policy with respect to tariffs and preferences has been formed with a view to increasing world commerce and enlarging opportunities of trade.
The so-called imperial preference policy was inaugurated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It was associated with a general lowering of tariffs, and under the administration of Sir Wilfrid there was a general lowering of tariffs, with the reductions made gradually to avoid any disruption of industry, together with an attempt to achieve reciprocity with the United States. Before the Liberal administration under Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power, there had been a period of depression and stagnation. The country grew prosperous under the stimulus of ever-increasing trade.
Again from 1921 to 1930, during the first years of the present administration, there were reductions in the duties on many imported

articles. As it was in the 1890's so it was at the beginning of the 1920's. The country was in the throes of a depression. Changes in tariffs were made with the view of helping the country by reducing costs of production in agriculture, mining, forestry, fishing and other industries. The rates on articles of general consumption were reduced, and, with expanding external trade made possible by reductions in tariffs, our country reached the most prosperous era in its history up to that time.
This may not be so pleasant for my hon. friends of the official opposition; nevertheless it is true that when the Conservative party came into office in 1930 there developed again a period of depression. We cannot blame any one person or any one group for this world condition.


Howard Charles Green: It was here before the Conservatives got in.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment. My hon. friends have not yet seen the point I am coming to, which is that, however the depression may have started, the trade policies adopted by the administration of that time intensified its dire effects in Canada from 1930 to 1935. The budgets of 1930 and 1931 brought substantial increases in duties against both British and foreign goods. The preferences were not maintained by reducing duties, as they were under the Liberal administration, but by increasing duties. This severely restrictive policy made trade far more difficult than would otherwise have been the case. These practices, with which the house is familiar, aggravated unemployment and led to stagnation in the primary industries, while increased costs made recovery exceedingly difficult. The entire approach to trade under the Conservative administration placed the emphasis on protection and high costs, whereas the Liberal administration placed its emphasis on the free flow of trade and low costs.


Mr. FLEMING:: And unemployment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I come now to what was set forth in the Liberal platform in the general election of 1935-the position the Liberal party took at that time. We appealed to the country on the basis that the restoration of Canadian prosperity depended on the freeing of our external trade.


Donald Methuen Fleming: King or chaos.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The country, as a consequence of accepting our policies, escaped the chaos and got the trade. Canada's need for trade was emphasized because it meant increased production, increased consumption, increased distribution, increased

Tariffs and Trade
transportation, increased employment, an increase in the standard of living and, consequently, increased prosperity. The Liberals promised to abolish the extravagant boosts in tariffs made by the Conservative government, which had the effect of strangling trade, exploiting consumers and depriving the railways of business. The Liberal party promised to promote trade with all nations and to negotiate trade agreements with any countries willing to trade with Canada on a reciprocal basis.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Would the Prime Minister permit a question?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Which way are you going to vote this time?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the Prime Minister will permit a question I would ask him if he thinks what he has said describes the Dunning budget in the spring of 1930?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it describes the position of the Liberal party during the period to which I have referred, and that is all I intended it should do.
I would now draw attention to Canada's trade from 1935 to the beginning of the war. Hon. members will recall that during that period the present administration negotiated two trade agreements with the United States, the agreements of 1935 and 1938. Those agreements were considered at the time, and will always be considered, as of outstanding significance.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I promise hon. gentlemen opposite that they will have full opportunity to speak later on; perhaps they would let me make my speech now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You will give the opposition a chance to speak on this and not cut us off again?


James Horace King: Order. I would remind hon. members that they should not interrupt any hon. member or minister who has the floor without asking permission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. I did not expect that my hon. friends of the official opposition would like this, but I hope that for a little while they will be able to take it.
As I have said, the agreements of 1935 and 1938 with the United States were of outstanding significance. As far as the producers of this country were concerned, there -were great benefits secured on a wide variety of goods. Consumers likewise were greatly benefited.
The duties chargeable under the British preference were progressively reduced. They reached the point where the average rates were lower than they had been at any other time.
The entire history of the Liberal party on tariff and trade matters has emphasized a policy of reducing restrictions, of lowering tariffs and stimulating Canadian prosperity by stimulating the trade of the world.
One aspect of Liberal policy I wish to make clear is that the basis on which the Liberals have acted for fifty years in the matter of giving preferences has been by lowering tariffs and reducing restrictions, or through the British preference. Imperial preferences originated in a resolution in this parliament in 1897, as I have said, under the regime of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The preference, as it relates to the customs tariff, is a means whereby the country to which the preference is accorded is given the right to have its commodities enter a country at a rate of duty less than that imposed against countries generally. LTnder the British preference in 1897, it was provided that goods coming into Canada from Britain should enter this country at 12i per cent less than the generally prevailing rate. By 1900 the preference had been increased to 33-j per cent. In 1907 the British preferences were completely overhauled; entirely new schedules of rates were established with individual margins substantially below most favoured nation rates.
The nature of the preference, as originally conceived and applied under the Laurier administration, was that preferences were granted, let me repeat, through reduction of duties on British goods, not through increases in the tariffs on the goods of other countries. The original basis and approach of the British preference continued until 1932. Changes in preferences were effected by reduction in duties or by placing commodities on the free list. The Liberal approach to the British preference as well as the Liberal approach to tariffs in general were set forth by me in an address to the house on May 23. 1923. It constantly emphasized the importance of looking toward reductions in duties. Referring to the further features of the budget for 1923, I stated:
' In the first place, there are in it. so far as tariff matters are concerned, a very large number of reductions in duties. I have in my hand a list of tariff reductions in which some 21 different items have been affected by considerable reductions, apart altogether from the general reduction made through the British preference on all articles. Twenty-one different articles, which I will not detain the house by reading, have been affected by an immediate reduction of duty. Then, as respects all com-
Tariffs and Trade

modifies, the British preference has been increased. This is equivalent to a reduction in the customs duty on articles coming from Great Britain of a 10 per cent discount on all goods coming in through our Canadian ports. There again is a further general reduction of duties. But let me point out to hon. gentlemen that this budget must be considered not only in relation to what we are doing at the moment but in conjunction with what we did last year. Last year we made some material reductions in customs duties, some of them with respect to the British preference; and if one takes occasion to study carefully the items that were affected, one will find that as regards goods coming from the old country there has been a very considerable reduction in customs duties through an increase of the British preference. I have here a list of items that have been affected by the British preference in a very direct way and to a considerable degree by what we have done this session combined with what was done last year. In some 40 cases which I might cite there have been reductions ranging anywhere from 2 to 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 per cent increase in the British preference.
In addition to regarding the British preference as a process of tariff reduction, Liberal governments have also regarded preferences as purely a voluntary undertaking, not as something contractual.
I think it is important that hon. members should see the difference in the point of view of hon. gentlemen on this side and some on the other as to a consideration we regard as all-important in the matter of granting preferences. We have never, at any time, intended that preferences should prejudice, in any way, our trading with countries other than those within the British commonwealth of nations. We have always intended that the preference should give us all the advantage which might be gained by trading with nations of the British commonwealth, but at the same time that it should not deprive us of every opportunity of freely entering into agreements with other countries.
Our preferences were entered into in a broad spirit of willingness to become, in ever-increasing measure, good customers to those who treat us in a like manner. The method is one of voluntary concessions arrived at after negotiations aiming to discover what is of mutual interest and mutual benefit, and not through hard bargaining.
The governing principles in granting preferences have been mutual benefits to the countries concerned; the stimulation of competition by keeping costs down; the reduction of eosts for exporting industries, enabling them to enter foreign markets more successfully, and generally the promotion of increased trade.
With the preferences of 1932, the whole princip'e was changed by the so-called Ottawa

trade agreements. The general schedules of tariff rates, were by those agreements substantially increased. Even the British preferential rates were raised in many cases against commonwealth products. The preference was accorded through raising duties against all other nations to unprecedented heights. Within this framework, the countries of the British commonwealth granted certain preferences to each other.
In 1932 Canada and the other countries in the commonwealth adopted a protectionist policy. Under the 1932 agreements, the result of the new form of preferences was a decrease in the total trade, rather than an increase.
After 1935, and up to the beginning of the war, various trade agreements resulted in a major reconstruction of the Canadian tariff. Under the British preferential tariff the rates of duty chargeable against the United Kingdom were once more adjusted in a downward direction. There was a renewed effort to free the channels of trade by returning the preference to a basis of tariff reduction rather than a basis of tariff increase.
Now, in regard to the part played by preferences at the Geneva conference, I would say that margins of preference, as well as rates of duty, played an important part in those negotiations. The general approach was in favour of equality of treatment and of general tariff reduction, through a diminution of margins of preference.
The basic principles of agreement at Geneva on preferences were:	No new preferences
were to be created; no existing preferences were to be enlarged; preferences remaining in effect w'ere to be negotiable; that is to say, they were to be capable of being reduced or narrowed by negotiating with foreign countries in return for concessions to one, or other (or both) of the preference parties.
Canada wras involved in two directions in the negotiations with respect to preferences at Geneva. First, there were demands by foreign countries for reductions of preferences enjoyed by Canada in other parts of the commomvealth and, second, there were demands for reductions of preferences granted by Canada to other countries of the commonwealth.
Canada followed at Geneva the basic principle adopted in the origins of the preference under Sir Wilfrid Laurier. We strongly opposed any narrowing of preferential margins by the device of raising preferential tariff rates. In all the provisions in schedule V there is only one instance of raising a duty under the British preferential tariff. In all other cases, where the preference is narrowed, a reduction was achieved by reducing the tariff rate applicable to non-British countries.

Tariffs and Trade
Canada was prepared to see the same principle applied with regard to preference for her products in other countries of the commonwealth. Canada agreed in several cases to the reduction of preferential margins previously enjoyed.
In addition to reduction in duties applicable to non-British countries and to reduction in preference margins, there were a large number of cases of absolute reductions in duties against British goods.
The policy of tariff reduction runs through the entire agreement. While the basis of the British preference has been altered by agreement, which restricts the preference to items set forth in the schedules, these have been drafted so broadly that neither Canada nor any other commonwealth country has given up any preferential position which it regarded as important. The schedules were most carefully scrutinized and worked out in minute detail. Schedule -XIX establishes the preference position for all items in which Canada is seriously interested in the United Kingdom market. Schedule V does the same for all items in which the United Kingdom is seriously interested in the Canadian market. The same applies, on a reciprocal basis, in these and other schedules with regard to other parts of the commonwealth.
At this point I should like to make reference to the exchange of notes with the United Kingdom under date of October 30, 1947, which establishes the present position with respect to preferences between our country and the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom and Canada mutually recognize the right of each to reduce or eliminate preferences remaining after the conclusion of the general agreement. But favourable tariff treatment is assured by agreement against raising rates against the others' products in schedules V and XIX of the general agreement above the level in force before the war. The effect of the exchange of notes is to give freedom of negotiation and to make it possible to return to the original basis of preference.
I made a statement from London on this matter, and perhaps I might be permitted to repeat it at this time. My statement was made on the evening of November 17. At that time I said:
In initiating preferences fifty years ago, the Canadian government of that day had in mind the voluntary granting of tariff preferences to one another by the different parts of the British commonwealth of nations. It was not intended that there should grow up a system which would prejudice the maintenance of friendly relations with other countries. On the contrary what was envisaged was a system whereby trade would be
increased among British countries, full opportunity being afforded at the same time for -the expansion of their trade with other countries.
If Canada is to play its part in furthering the objectives of the international trade organization, it is important that the Canadian government should have freedom to determine the extent to which it shall maintain preferential arrangements while carrying out its obligations under the charter. We do not consider that a system under which -the power to reduce the Canadian tariff may be dependent upon the consent of other governments is consistent either with the spirit in which preferences were originally extended by the Canadian government, or with -those principles upon which continuing cooperation in economic matters can be carried on between the countries of the British commonwealth.
In order to assure the success of this agreement, the fundamental aim of the government now and in the future will be to work toward the successful operation of the agreement. The temporary problem of the present in the form of a United States dollar shortage has necessitated interim emergency measures which appear to be in conflict with the fundamentals of the agreement, but it must be kept constantly in mind that they are temporary, that they are of an emergency character and that they are subordinate in aim and purpose to the general agreement. .
The government would not previously, and will not at any time, allow them to imperil the success of the general agreement. It would have been the height of folly during the Geneva discussions to have allowed premature announcement of emergency measures to have confused or endangered the negotiations. In matters of this kind, there is nothing more important than timing. Temporary measures are needed to bring about the basic adjustment that will enable us to go forward under the Geneva program.
As I said in London on November 17:
At all times and at all costs we must keep our real and long-run objectives constantly in sight. We must meet the requirements of the short-run situation courageously, competently and with confidence, accepting emergency measures for what they are-drastic but temporary adjustments. By making sure that the emergency measures we have to take are not permitted to hamper or distort our long-run objectives, we shall, by the enlarged opportunities for world trade made public today, be greatly furthering our country's growth and development. It is to wider horizons that Canada must ever look.
Under the general agreement, it is indeed to wide horizons that Canada is looking. We look to a future in which the productive capacity of nations will be restored; in which trade of all countries will be enabled to flow freely; in which economic and commercial co-operation will form the basis for political
Tariffs and Trade

harmony; and in which the interests of humanity will be served by the mutual prosperity of all nations.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all listened with interest to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr, Mackenzie King). Personally I am quite willing to see the best in these agreements, but frankly I am not as much impressed with them as t'he Prime Minister appears to be. I am not as optimistic as to the consequences of these agreements as the Prime Minister says he is. -


An hon. MEMBER:: Jeremiah!


John Bracken: One can imagine that the Prime Minister has put forward the best side of the case to be made for this trade agreement. I want to be perfectly neutral in my approach to this question and deal with it on its merits rather than as a political issue. However, as the Prime Minister has put forward the best side of it, I think I should point out something on the other side.
I would have been more impressed with what the Prime Minister has just said if the so-called short-term program of the government had not completely nullified many of the good things hoped for from the agreements. For example, what good does it do to increase the number of cattle that are to be allowed to be shipped from Canada to the United States from 225,000 to 400,000 a year if we are to have an embargo which says that we cannot ship any at all? What good does it do to have the tariff on wheat reduced from forty-two cents to twenty-two cents a bushel when the United States has some hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat each year more than She needs?
One would have been more impressed if there had not been so much of these embargoes against goods coming into this country. Embargoes are not low-tariff proposals; they are the highest form of protection. One would have been more impressed if there had not been this rationing by the government. One would have been more impressed if there had not been restrictive provisions such as the government has brought in. One would have been more impressed if what the government is doing now was not resulting in higher prices to everybody with the threat of considerable unemployment immediately before us.
Let us all admit that this kind of arrangement is important. I think everyone from one side of this nation to the other recognizes that. But I want to say at the moment that it was not necessary to consider

these agreements at this particular time. They offer little help for the immediate problem which is facing the country. What help they do offer could have been achieved without any talk here at all, in which case we might have been allowed to proceed to deal with what the government really brought us here to deal with, the objectionable restrictive measures which it has brought in.
The government did not need to bring us here to discuss these agreements. Measures of this kind have been dealt with in the past, and last night I referred to one in 1935 and another in 1938. At that time agreements were made in the fall of the year at about the same time as these were made. These agreements were put into effect provisionally on January 1 by order in council under the provisions of the customs act. Nothing was done in the way of legislation until four months after the agreements were made. That procedure could have been followed on this occasion. We would have had the advantage of whatever merit they have, and I admit that they have merit, without having to take up time now in talking about them.
I need not repeat what I said last night. I hold in my hand a copy of the trade agreement of 1938. As I said, it was entered into on November 17, 1938, and brought into force by order in council under legislation already on the statute books. That agreement came into effect provisionally on January 1. I need not go through all the steps, but parliament did not meet until a couple of months later. The measure then went through all stages; and four months after the agreement was made, it was approved by legislation. That procedure could have been followed instead of taking up time now to discuss these matters. 1 suggest that these agreements were brought before us now just as window-dressing for the objectionable measures which we shall be proceeding with later on.
I wish to refer to two or three of the points the Prime Minister made. He offered the government's excuse as to why parliament had not been called at an earlier day, or why its own steps to meet this crisis had not been taken earlier. He said the government considered it was unwise to do so until the Geneva conference had been concluded. I have just two observations to make on that. The first is that several other countries interested in the expansion of trade did not see things that way. They went ahead, weeks before the Geneva conference was concluded, and took steps to meet their own problems. Britain was one of those countries; France was another; Australia -was another; Ceylon was another, and there were others as well.

Tariffs and Trade
My other observation on the excuse which the Prime Minister gives for delay is that, while the government was waiting, this crisis was developing and getting worse at the rate of about 880,000,000 a month. The situation is all the more serious now because the government dealt with it late and because it called parliament into session late. I do not need to point out again that whatever measures the government has taken are or could have been put into effect without our being here at all just now.
The Prime Minister then referred to the question of procedure. He pointed out that on the order paper there are two resolutions, one dealing with the general agreement on tariffs and trade and a second one to which I shall refer a little later. I wish to say now that I do not like the procedure which the government has planned and I do not think the house will. What it means is this. We shall be asked to pass this first resolution without the opportunity of having it go to a committee where the government and the government's experts could be examined upon it. It is now planned to have the second resolution go to the committee of the whole house unless other arrangements are made. We think provision should be made to have the first resolution go to a committee where we could ask questions and seek explanations and information upon it.
Then the Prime Minister, not unexpectantly, referred to the conditions that existed between the years 1930 and 1935. One can imagine what his purpose was in referring to conditions at that time. After the Prime Minister had finished telling us what a wonderful low-tariff government his government had been, it was surprising to me to be told that, after having been here for about a quarter of a century, his government should have brought us into the serious condition we are facing today.
What is the condition we are facing today? It is a condition of unfavourable trade balances for Canada as against the United States, amounting to nearly $1,000 million a year. But since the Prime Minister has referred to the years from 1930 to 1935, let me refer to the five years prior to 1930 and to all the years after 1945 in connection with this question of our unfavourable trade balance with the United States which the government now admits is a crisis. Our unfavourable trade balance means that we are buying more from the United States than we are selling to them and that we have not the money to pay for the adverse balance.
What were our unfavourable trade balances with the United States in the years from 1925 H849-8
to 1930? I have the figures here, taken from official government reports. I shall give them in round figures.
In 1925 we had an unfavourable trade balance with the United States of $92,000,000; 1926, $210,000,000; 1927, $239,000,000; 1928, $344,000,000; and 1929, $400,000,000.
That is the way in which this government solved the problem of an unfavourable balance of trade with the United States in the years from 1925 to 1930, and that is why we have the problem with which we are faced today.
Now let us take the years after 1935 on. In 1936 we had an unfavourable balance of trade with the United States of $35,000,000.


Mr. HOWE:: No, a favourable balance.


John Bracken: No, an unfavourable
balance of trade of $35,000,000, and I shall deal with that in more detail later on. In 1937 we had an unfavourable balance of trade with the United States of $130,000,000; 1938, $154,000,000-1 hope my hon. friends opposite are getting these figures-in 1939, our unfavourable trade balance was $116,000,000; 1940, $301,000,000; 1941, $404,000,000, and in 1942, when the Liberal policies were in full operation we had an unfavourable trade balance with the United States of $419,000,000. I could go on and give the figures for the other years, but I will give the figure for 1946, when we had an unfavourable balance of trade with the United States of $525,000,000, and in 1947, $587,000,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has overlooked the minus signs. We had a, strong balance of trade with the United States in 1943, 1944 and 1945.


John Bracken: Yes, but why? Were conditions normal in those years? Our balance of trade improved in those years only because the United States came along and bailed you out, only because they bought from us munitions of war to be sent over to Europe to be shot. away. There is the record of thi3 government with respect to the problem that is facing us at this session of parliament.
The Prime Minister mentioned one other thing, what he called the exchange of notes between Canada and Great Britain by w'hich each country reserves the right to reduce or eliminate the British preferences without consulting the other. I wish to observe that that exchange of notes has nothing whatever to do with the general trade agreement we are here to consider. True, it is a part of the government's program but it is a thing apart altogether from the general trade agreement.
Tariffs and, Trade

I wish now to read the resolution with which we are dealing. It is moved by the Prime Minister:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve the general agreement on tariffs and trade, including the protocol of provisional application thereof, annexed to the final act of the second session of the preparatory committee of the united nations conference on trade and employment held at Geneva from April 10 to October 30, 1947, together with the complementary agreements of October 30, 1947, between Canada and the United States of America and between Canada and the United Kingdom-
So in this resolution we are asked to approve the general agreement and also the exchange of notes that passed between Canada and the United Kingdom. The resolution goes on:
-and that this house do approve of the same, subject -to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.
So the resolution with which we are dealing seeks the approval of the house not only for the general agreement but for the exchange of notes which passed between this government and the British government and which have the effect I maintain, of washing out the British preferences altogether. One might ask now, why that procedure? I suggest that we should separate these two parts and deal with the general agreements by themselves and the other agreement-the exchange of letters-by itself.
As to the attitude of the Progressive Conservative party with respect to trade matters generally, let me say this. We favour the widest possible measure of international trade consistent with preserving our own standard of living in Canada; and I might add that that statement carries out the spirit of our platform approved at Winnipeg in December, 1942, which reads:
We endorse the aims expressed in the Atlantic charter and believe that Canada should join in the setting up of effective international measures to give them practical application, correcting trade barriers, with a view to making the world's resources available without discrimination for the satisfaction of human needs.
That statement of policy, as hon. members will have noticed, referred to the Atlantic charter. I might read the clause in the Atlantic charter to which it applies. It is the fourth paragraph of that document and reads: Fourth, they will endeavour with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access on equal terms to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.
That is the statement with respect to trade which appears in the Atlantic charter. One 
might pause for a moment to refer to one section of that statement, to be found in the first line:
They will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations-
That is a clause which we understand was incorporated in that statement because those who were representing the British government at that time did not want to see the British preference wiped out by that charter.
What the government should do now in connection with the British preferences incorporated in this resolution is this:	First, it
should take out the special agreement with Britain and deal with each part by itself. The agreement with Britain has nothing to do with the Geneva trade agreements. I pointed that out before. Second, th'e government should put the Geneva trade agreements part of the first resolution, and the second resolution covering schedule 5, together in one resolution, and that should go to a committee, so that members, before finally accepting or rejecting it, can examine, not only the tariff concessions we make, but those general, sweeping clauses in the agreement by which we shall be bound.
I suggest that as a procedure because I believe that by that means the members of the house will get a better understanding of the advantages of the arrangements, the weaknesses of them, if there are any, and the full effect of them.
Just a word now about the British-Cana-dian agreement. In the Geneva trade agreements some of our preferences with Britain have been lost; for example, the preference on apples. That is important, particularly to Nova Scotia and to British Columbia. If these agreements are approved, there will be no preference left on apples. One might ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley) to explain why that- preference was let go.
After the trade agreements are in effect, as of January 1, we shall have lessened the British preferences, but some preferences will still be left, namely on lumber, which is important to British Columbia. But the exchange of letters with Britain paves the way for the end of this preference and of others. These letters between the two governments pave the way for the end of anything that is left now of British preference. One might read sections 2 and 6 of the Canadian letter dated October 30, and that will be made clear. Other preferences left after the general agreement is passed concern motor cars, newsprint and a vast area of colonial preferences, but they are all in danger under this exchange of letters.

Tariffs and Trade
As I have said, these letters-these notes so-called-mean the death knell of the British preference system.
The principle of this agreement seems to be the most-favoured-nation principle. What it means is that we cannot favour our customers or anyone else, and neither our customers nor anyone else can favour us by way of trade concessions and so on. In the ease of the United States, where we have a huge unfavourable trade balance, we cannot take long-term special measures to correct the situation by tariff and trade agreements unless what we do applies to every other country .in the agreement.
That has been the situation to a degree for some eleven years. In 1935 some such agreement was made with the United States. That was the first time Canada granted the United States the same treatment as all other foreign countries. But now, under these Geneva trade agreements, we go farther and give the United States the same treatment as all others, including British commonwealth countries, in any future arrangements we may make.' Under the exchange of letters we lay the basis for shutting out the balance of British preferences for good.
Schedule 5 contains the concessions we make. I suggest that we should examine the concessions we are required to make with a view to seeing what we get for them. That is the real problem which is facing us in this kind of agreement. Do we get as much as we give? For example, we had valuable advantages that are now lost. One is in regard to apples. What do wTe gain in return for giving up the advantage we had? We want to see what we get in return for what we give up.
We know that any arrangement of this kind must be regarded as a two-way' street. We must not expect other folks to give up everything and ourselves to give up nothing. But it is well, in an agreement of this kind, to see what we are giving up and what we are getting in return. What I suggest now is that the house will want to know what the deal is. I need only point out that we have lost whatever advantage we had, not only on apples, but on frozen salmon, canned pears, vegetables, honey, electric stoves, typewriters, and half of the lumber preference, and many other items.
May I say a word further with respect to the procedure proposed by the government? I mentioned it in my opening remarks because the Prime Minister had referred to it. I say the procedure as we now have it outlined is confusing. We are asked to pass one resolution here without ever having an opportunity 5849-8J
to examine anybody' about it. The passage of that resolution means that the other one is passed at the same time, because the first one includes the substance of the second. The second one approves the concessions in the agreement and asks for a bill to approve it. As I said, the first resolution includes the second. If we approve the first we shall have approved the second. But it means that the first one will not go to a committee; that the second one will go to a committee of whatever kind the government determines, perhaps just a committee of the whole, but I hope it will be more than that. It means that if we approve the first we swallow all before we have had a chance to examine the agreements in detail or to question the government or to question the experts. I suggest that that is not a generous way to treat hon. members with respect to this measure. I think everybody in the house wants to find that he can support this measure. I have not seen any evidence that anybody wants to make it a partisan issue. I suggest that the first resolution should go to a committee before we are asked to vote upon it.
We in this party have had a small committee trying to study these agreements. I think it is true to say that never was parliament called upon to pass upon such a mass of interlacing and complicated ideas. Personally I want to be optimistic about them. I do not want to throw cold water on these plans, but in a field so complicated there is a wide scope for honest and different opinions. I merely suggest to the government that they give us an opportunity to have more light shed upon the pros and cons of this whole thing before we vote upon the resolution before us.
The spirit of the agreement seems to be that we tie ourselves against doing something which is regarded as bad in the family of nations; and then we find escape clauses which will let us do that which we agreed not to do. In our study of these measures we have seen several contradictions. We read one clause which appears to tie our hands, and then we find an escape clause by which our hands are untied. We seem to be tied in some measure at least against domestic subsidies to Alberta and Nova Scotia coal, but then we find what looks like an out clause by which we are not tied. We should like to know exactly what the position is with respect to the many situations of that kind.
We read in another place that the tariff concessions must not be frustrated or defeated by special advantages to domestic producers. There seem to be escape clauses here also. Let
10S
Tariffs and Trade

the government tell us, let them bring their experts to help them tell us, whether the sum total of these provisions put together means something worth while to us or not.
May I say a word about articles XII, XIII and XIV? Article XII says that we can take special domestic measures to protect our .balance of payments. It is under this provision that the special powers bill and the excise amendments will be brought in. We can therefore deal with them when they come before us.
In article XIII we are asked to agree to treat all parties to the agreement equally. It means that we can make no preferential agreements with anyone. Article XIV seems to provide the possibilities of a complete escape as far as Britain is concerned, that we do not have to apply the government's stringent measures against British goods coming into this country; in other words we shall not have to apply the present quota and prohibition restrictions against Britain. In that connection I just wish to ask the government three questions, and I am sure they will be glad to answer them as they proceed to interpret these agreements. Am I right in saying that we do not have to apply these measures against Britain? Are we applying them against Britain? If we are, why are we doing so? If we do not have to do it and are doing it, why are we doing it? I mention this matter only to show that our minds are far from clear from what we read in this document, and we want to have them made clear.
May I say a word about the Excise Tax Act? The excise tax which the government is bringing in applies to domestic as well as to imported products. This would appear not to be necessary under the agreement. If so, why is the government applying the special excise tax against domestic-made refrigerators as well as imported refrigerators? The Financial Post says they are applying the tax domestically because of diplomatic pressure from Washington. I make no comment about that. But I think the government should make clear whether that is the reason or not. If that is not the reason, then they should tell us why they are imposing this tax on domestically produced goods.
I now wish to refer to another aspect of this agreement that has come to our attention. It has to do with the effect of it on railway labour in Canada. Article V of the Geneva agreement has the effect of granting to United States highway transportation the privilege of carrying United States goods in bond across Canada. In its essence this will mean the sacrifice of the jobs of many Cana-[Jlr. Bracken.]
dian railway employees for the sake of benefiting a few United States truckers.
For years United States trucking interests have been seeking the privilege of carrying freight across the Canadian border in bond In particular they have sought to use this privilege to permit them to carry freight in bond between Detroit and Buffalo. Canadian railway employees, knowing that this would mean the sacrifice of jobs for many of them, have consistently fought this move. Under pressure, the Canadian government admitted the thin edge of the wredge during the last three years of the war by allowing the movement of United States war material by trucks in bond across Canadian territory. The Department of National Revenue knows that this regulation was never adequately enforced and, in the nature of things, could not be. The bonding privilege of these United States truckers was terminated two years ago for good reasons.
Now, under pressure of these United States interests the Canadian government has permitted the United States representatives to smuggle into the trade agreement a provision which will open up our boundaries and our highways to United States traffic moving from United *States points of origin to United States points of destination, employing United States labour and using United States equipment. Canadian railway labour is rightly alarmed at this prospect, because it unquestionably will mean loss of jobs to many Canadian railway employees
Railway labour organizations and many municipal councils, boards of trade and chambers of commerce have already voiced their strong opposition to the government's proposal. It is the government's first duty in this instance to preserve the jobs of our Canadian railway men.
I wish now to speak more generally about the major question that is before us, namely, the trade agreement as distinguished from the exchange of letters with respect to the British preference.
A freely trading world has been the ideal goal which has inspired every government since the end of world war one. Our declaration upon this subject made at Winnipeg m 1942 is and will remain the basis of our policy in the matter of international trade. I need not read it again.
We have now before us for consideration these proposed trade agreements. It will be admitted that none of our institutiors, including these, is of itself miraculous. They are vital only when they work for all the people. All

Tariffs and Trade
the institutions we set up to facilitate world trade must be based upon the facts of Canada's economy. We want to know what those facts are. Some of them I propose to summarize this evening. They are important. And we ought to keep them in mind as we proceed.
Of our total foreign trade, eighty-five per cent at all times is carried on with two economic units, namely with the sterling area represented by the British commonwealth and empire on the one hand, and with the United States of America on the other. The sterling area takes an average of fifty per cent of all our exports. With this sterling area we have always had a favourable balance of trade, which has amounted to the huge sum of $14,000 million since confederation and to more than $5,900 million within the last twenty-two years. With this sterling area we always have a favourable balance of payments, which has amounted to more than $7,609 million in the last twenty-two year-:. Finally our exports to the British commonwealth have a high labour content; that is, many jobs are involved in their production. Some products do not provide much labour, but many of these exports to the sterling area do have a large labour content.
On the other hand, the United States is a market in which we buy heavily, but in which we do not sell nearly as much as we buy. Hence we have had an unbroken unfavourable balance of trade with the United States for sixty-seven years. That unfavourable balance amounts to over $9,800 million since confederation and to over $5,600 milljpn in the last twenty-two years. Our balance of payments also is unfavourable to the extent of just under $7,000 million in the last twenty-two years. Further, three-quarters of our exports to the United States have a relatively low labour content; in other words, relatively few jobs are involved in their production.
It should be noted that the rest of the British commonwealth has taken a steadily increasing proportion of our exports through those years; yet we have taken a steadily declining proportion of our imports from them. Our exports to them have been going up; our imports from them have been going down. Is it any wonder they are in a bad way? It should be noted also that exactly the reverse has taken place in our relations with the United States of America. The proportion of our exports to the United States has declined while the proportion of our imports from that country has risen. Even in pre-war years two-thirds of our total imports from all countries came from the United
States. It is still higher at the present time. Hence our unfavourable balance of payments on the average has steadily increased.
In the light of these essential facts concerning Canada's trade and economy, what do the Geneva trade agreements do? That is the important question we have to answer in analysing this problem. Let me indicate a number of things I think these agreements do.
From our examination it appears that the average takings of our exports by each of the signatories outside the British commonwealth and the United States is 1-3 per cent of our total exports. The average amount we import from each of these same countries is one-quarter of one per cent of our total imports. The treaties, therefore, do not appear to have much material significance for us outside of their effect upon our British and our United States trade.
Under the terms of the treaties we lose all freedom of action in directing the course of our trade. I think that is the principle of the proposals. In no circumstance can we make special arrangements to buy from those who buy from us unless we offer the same privileges to all others. In the British market we gain no advantages whatever; in fact we shall lose some, and they gain nothing from us which is not shared equally by others.
According to a New York Times estimate of our trade with the United States, they gain advantage in items which in '1939 amounted to $354,000,000, or seventy-one per cent of our total imports from the United States. Further, Canada was oalled upon to make by far the greatest single sacrifice to America, covering nearly thirty per cent of all the primary concessions made at Geneva which, according to the estimate of the New York Times, amounted to $1,192,346,000.
What has Canada gained in return? The items upon which effective concessions are obtained, that is concessions which might be expected to increase our trade, amounted to only $134,000,000 in 1939, thirty-three per cent of our total sales to the United States. In 1946 those items of export amounted to only $260,000,000, or. thirty per cent of our total exports. It is claimed in press dispatches from Washington that the United States tariff barriers have been lowered to the 1913 level; but I think it is fair to point out that even in 1913 our adverse balance of trade with the United States was $297,200,000. Is the United States getting back to the position of 1913? Even so, our adverse balance of trade in that year was very large.
Further, Mr. Speaker, some of the alleged concessions are totally ineffective. With the
Tariffs and Trade

increasing exhaustion of United States resources, Canada is rapidly becoming America's principal source of supply. Their purchases here represent their needs, and these reductions in tariff merely aid their domestic consumers, while they do not stimulate our exports. This applies to lumber and base metals in particular.
In addition to our other difficulties, we learn that the United States customs authorities will add the Canadian excise tax of twenty-five per cent to the value of this class of goods for customs purposes, which will operate to reduce substantially or even exclude some of the exports we are now sending to the United States. But we seem to be rendered powerless to help ourselves in our extremity. Article I. paragraph 1 of the final act forbids any measure designed to direct or divert trade in any manner, no matter how desirable or necessary it may be. We have completely lost all freedom of action.
The chief folly of the government is, in our judgment, the destruction of the imperial preference system by their letter of October 30 to the government of the United Kingdom. The treaties forbid any increase in existing preferences, and forbid any new preferences; but the government has gone beyond this and appears to have embarked upon a campaign of destruction, of our best and greatest market, the market which maintains the employment and income of thousands of Canadians everywhere. As we see it now, we are opposed to the agreement contained in the letters of exchange between this government and the United Kingdom. It is foreign to and quite outside the Geneva agreement, and gives the finish to the empire preference system. By these letters the government invites the end of that great preferential trade structure.
I wish now to refer in some detail to the pattern of our British and American trade, wholly for the purpose of understanding what it is. The vital questions for Canada are these: What are the basic facts in our British and our American trade? In what way will these Geneva agreements affect, and be affected by, these facts?
I have some statistics on this subject which, with the permission of the house, I should like to have placed on Hansard in tabular form.


William Ross Macdonald: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


John Bracken: These trade figures are as follows:
a. Total of Canadian exports in the seventynine years since confederation:
British empire ..$23.617,000,000-48-3 per cent United Kingdom	.	18,915,300,000-38-7	"America	
18,149,400,000-37*1	"b.	Total Canadian imports in the same period: British empire ...$9,465.700,000-23-0 per cent United Kingdom	.. 6.991.400,000-17-0	"America	27,981,900,000-67-9	"c.	Balance of trade in the same period:British empire-favourable .... $14,151,300,000 United Kingdom-favourable ..	11,923,900,000America-unfavourable	
9,832,500,000d.	Number of years of favourable balance in the same period:
British empire-60 years out of 79; (last 57 years without a break).
United Kingdom-58 years out of 79; (last 57 years without a break).
America-5 years out of 79: (last favourable year-1880, 67 years unfavourable without a break.)
Nor may it be alleged that, whatever the influence of the long past, on the above statistics. more recent developments have altered the relationship. The following figures have reference to the period of 1926-46 inclusive and the first seven months of 1947, covering a period of nearly twenty-two years. The table is as follows:
a.	Total Canadian exports (1926-1947):
British empire ...$14,403,100,000'-46-1 per cent United Kingdom ..	10,652,40-0.000-34*1	"America	
11,684,500,000-37-4	"b.	Total Canadian imports (1926-1947):British empire ...$ 4,844,500,000-20-5 per cent United Kingdom ..	3,097,600,000-13-1	"America	
16,693,400,000^70-4	"c.	Balance of trade (1926-1947):
British empire-favourable $9,558,600,000.
United Kingdom-favourable $7,554,800,000.
America-unfavourable $5,008,900,000.
d.	Number of years having favourable balance:
British empire-22 years out of 22 years.
United Kingdom-22 years out of 22 years.
America-nil in 22 years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What are you talking about? What about the years 1943, 1944 and 1945?


John Bracken: If the minister wishes to base an argument upon what happened during the war years when the United States was buying war equipment, he can do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am speaking to a matter
of privilege. I do not wish to base an argument; but I wish my hon. friend to tell the truth about it.


John Bracken: You will have an opportunity to answer these statements.


James Arthur Ross: What a man you are, to speak about telling the truth!

Tariffs and Trade


Clarence Decatur Howe: The voice of the prairies!


John Bracken: Consideration of the
international balance of payments further strengthens the above position. Statistics are not available for the years before 1926, but the record for the period 1926-46 and part of 1947 is as follows:
a.	Balance of payments (1926-1947):
British empire-favourable $7,622,000,000.
United Kingdom-favourable $6,430,000,000.
America-unfavourable $6,895,000,000.
(All figures exclude net movement of nonmonetary gold.)
b.	Number of years having favourable balance:
British empire-16 years out of 22.
United Kingdom-16 years out of 22.
America-nil years out of 22.
It is to be further observed that our exports to the British nations are composed of farm products and manufactures, both of which have a high labour content. America purchases little outside of those primary products which have a minimum of labour content. For *example, United States purchases under the *three headings alone, namely wood pulp and paper, raw non-ferrous metals and raw nonmetallic minerals, took the following percentages of the total exports from Canada to the United States in the pre-war years indicated:
Year	per cent
1936	  71
1937		 66
1938		 75
1939		 77
Thus each dollar of British exports represents more employment in Canada than does each dollar of exports to America. I am pointing out these facts for one purpose, namely to emphasize the importance of a market that we are steadily losing. That is the point I wish to make. The facts are incontrovertible; they are more eloquent than words. But what did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) say in Montreal on October 30? He said: "The United States has been and will remain a market for our goods which exceeds all others." When he said that he did not state the facts. The facts of the matter, no matter on what basis the claim is made, are quite the reverse. Even the United Kingdom alone has been, in the past, a larger market than America.	.
With what does the government now confront us, and ask that we ratify? Our problem has been a chronic adverse trade balance with the United States. That is why the government entered into all these arrangements. That is why we are here in December,
rather than in January or February. What do these agreements do to correct the situation, when we proceed to throw the entire preferences into the discard? It seems to me that we are setting out to have a permanent and ever-increasing problem with our American trade if we throw away all the advantages we now possess through the British preferences in the sterling area. We must put forth a greater effort to save the British commonwealth market, which directly provides jobs for a million Canadians. We will want the government to explain clearly just how these agreements are going to resolve the present crisis with -which we are dealing.
As the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, I suggest that we ought to be considering other positive measures. Among other things, I suggest the following as the program that we ought to follow.
First, we should explore the possibility of preserving more of our greatest markets than the government's present policies are likely to preserve. Our essential market for farm and primary products has been and is in the sterling area. Are the government's present plans predicated on British bankruptcy? It looks to me as if they are. I think without a British market, our economy will suffer a severe deflationary process and our standards of living will be greatly impaired.
Second, we should relieve our present shortages and the ever-mounting inflationary pressures by getting production going in Canada with the same determination and energy which we showed in the war.
Third, we should try to arrange with the United Kingdom for the production on a priority basis of those supplies from which we now are cut off through no fault of the Canadian people.
Fourth, we should accept the opportunity offered in article XXIY of the Geneva agreement to try to protect our great stake in the sterling area by exploring the possibilities of an acceptable customs union with the other British nations or some modified form thereof on a basis which will secure both our own individual interests and the interests of the group as a whole. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I am placing emphasis upon the great market which we have had all these years, in connection with which we have always had favourable balances of trade, a market which we are losing through the government's exchange of letters. I think we ought to try to save as much of that market as we can.
Tariffs and Trade

Fifth, we should attempt to get a greater return in jobs and in profits out of our natural resources by adopting the following measures:
(a)	By requiring a higher degree of processing of our primary products before export from Canada;
(b)	By dispersing our industry throughout the nation in order to achieve a better balanced and more stable economy.;
(c)	By making in Canada those things which we are well able to make, but which we hitherto have bought abroad;
(d)	By in these ways creating the basis for a substantial enlargement of our population which will, in turn, make a stronger and wealthier Canada.
(e)	We should embark upon a great enterprise of scientific research and development for the greater and more efficient utilization of the resources with which this nation is endowed and to enable us to keep at home those fine young Canadians who now go abroad to enrich other countries. Let us use Canada's brains in Canada, for Canada.
I had thought of proposing an amendment to this resolution, not in any controversial waj', but simply to indicate that we feel that the action which is being taken as a result of the government's exchange of letters is likely to lose more of the British market than we should. However, I shall not do that. But I do want to place the amendment on the record as our attitude toward the resolution before us.
As justification for the procedure which I have mentioned, I should like to quote a paragraph from a great Liberal-I use the word in the broadest possible sense-free trade journal, The Economist. Under date of November 27, 1947, the following paragraph appeared under the heading, "Trade under the new tariff":
To assess the exact consequences for the future of world trade of a tariff agreement between 23 nations, which has involved 106 sets of bilateral negotiations between the parties over a period of six months, and is now set down in an agreement containing 34 articles and two volumes of schedules weighing eight pounds, is an impossible task. The agreement arrives at the very time that Britain is adopting bilateral trading practices as a matter of self-defence-
In self-defence Great Britain has been resorting to bilateral trade practices. We are washing out that procedure here. I am not attempting at the moment to say whether Great Britain was right or wrong or whether we are right or wrong. The article goes on:
-but despite this and all the other impediments to the free flow of international commerce, multilateral trade relationships still extend over a

large part of the -world and account for a significant share of world commerce. The extreme complexity of these relationships means that the balance of gain and sacrifice cannot be worked out by any process of simple arithmetic; formal figuring alone would require the mathematician's apparatus of simultaneous equations, but calculations of this sort will be far less important, in the end, than the effects of the agreement as a whole upon the quantum of World trade. World trade could increase and leave some countries poorer, but that is hardly a consequence which is likely to apply to Britain.
I read that extract because it comes from a journal which is respected by many people.
I now repeat what I said earlier, that, after the British agreement is separated from the Geneva agreements, it is evident that the government is proceeding in a wrong manner when they ask us to deal with the Geneva matter under two resolutions. Proceeding in the way they are it can only mean that we shall be denied an opportunity to study in committee the general provisions of the agreement as outlined in the first resolution.
I close with one question. What then are the alternatives before the nation? The government has put forward a program which many think can end only in the further impoverishment of the nation. There surely is an alternative to that. Whether these agreements are approved or not-and I hope we find we can approve them-I suggest that we should have a more expanding program. I suggest that it is to be found in a more positive expansion program for the maximum development of Canada's wealth and resources for the benefit of Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, ever since we knew that we were going to discuss the Geneva agreements today, I have asked myself why we are discussing treaties 'that do not become fully effective at the present time when we have so many other important problems before us. I feel that we should be dealing with problems that immediately affect the people of Canada rather than these treaties which we do not have to make fully effective immediately. It seems to me that the pressing problems affecting our country require the immediate attention of this house and they should have been placed first upon the agenda or order paper for this session.
No matter how beneficial these agreements may appear to be on the surface-and there are some good things in the Geneva treaties- they simply cannot become fully effective until Europe has been rehabilitated, until the nations of Europe are in a position to trade with the other countries that have entered into these Geneva agreements. Until that condition comes about, these agreements do not mean a

Tariffs and Trade
great deal, either to Canada or to the other countries which have signed them provisionally. So I say that, in spite of any good thing which may be found in this agreement, its success depends entirely upon world recovery.
This evening the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), if I may say so, introduced one of those old-fashioned tariff debates that we had about ten years ago. You know, Mr. Speaker, when I used to listen to the tariff debates in this house ten years ago or read them in Hansard before, that my reaction was this, that, in spite of all the talk about tariffs, my hon. friends to the right, at that time the Conservative party believed in high tariffs and said so, while our friends of the Liberal party always maintained a tariff that was high. I found it very difficult indeed to find any distinction or any differences between the two parties, when in power, in that particular field.
I agree with all that has been said today in regard to the necessity of economic co-operation among all the nations of the world. I also agree that multilateral trade is a very desirable objective that we should do all we can to aid and further, but may I point out that at the moment there is no possibility of multilateral trade on a world basis; that all we can hope for at the moment, apart from trade treaties altogether, is that the sickness of the world may be cured and that we may be able to trade more fully with one another to the advantage of us all.
Multilateral trade, then, cannot be promoted immediately by this agreement. Indeed, many of the nations that have entered into the agreement are themselves as nations buying under national import and export boards the goods they need to meet the needs of their peoples, and we ourselves in Canada are entering into agreements as a nation for the supplying of food and so forth on a long-term basis. I am of the opinion that, in spite of all the fine things that are said about the Geneva treaty, export and import boards will be used by nations more and more as time goes on. in spite of anything one may think regarding some provisions of these particular agreements.
I agree that Canada's historic trading was done on what was known as the Atlantic triangle. We sold goods in vast quantities to Great Britain, our best customer, and bought in vast quantities from the United States, and as long as Great Britain occupied the position she did in world affairs we were able to continue that type of trading. But Great Britain has now sold many of her overseas assets which brought her the goods of the world in payment of interest on her investments abroad. Because of war necessity-our necessity as well
as hers-she has disposed of many of her overseas assets, and she is not now receiving the amount she once received as the carrying nation of the world in the realm of shipping. Her great financial institutions and insurance companies are no longer in the all-powerful position they once occupied. Therefore we find ourselves in a different position too.
But most of all, Mr. Speaker, I believe this, that the future of Canada's trade and the future welfare of the world depend upon the willingness of the United States to accept the new role that the world has assigned to her as the result of two great wars, and in tying ourselves to the United States economy as we are doing under this treaty we must beware lest the United States does not fulfil that role.
I looked at the trade balance for last year, 1946, and what did I find? I found that last year the United States exported some $21 billion worth of goods and received in return from the rest of the world only some $8 billion worth of goods, leaving the world in debt to the United States in terms of money to the amount of some $13 billion. Even under this Geneva treaty the United States tariff will still be relatively high, and the world will find it very difficult for many goods to climb over the high tariff wall erected around that great country.
Tonight, for example, we heard of the excise tax imposed by Canada. It does not come under this agreement, but we are told that the excise tax is to be added to the cost of Canadian goods entering the United States, That is a twenty-five per cent excise tax, or a proportion of that tax will be chargeable in the form of duty against Canadian goods entering the United States. So it is really a new tariff wall erected against certain Canadian goods which we have been making during the war, electrical supplies and so on, which we have been exporting to the United States. To. my mind, that is an indication that this treaty-may be a broken reed upon which the government is inclined to lean and upon which we-are building so much hope for the future.
I doubt very much whether many members, of the house have been able to do more than I have done with regard to these treaties. I have simply been able to give them a cursory reading, skim through them instead of' scanning them, and I say to the Prime Minister and to the government that, before-this house is asked to approve the resolution approving the Geneva agreements, in, which I am willing to admit, as I have already said, there are, I believe, good things, the house should have the opportunity of finding; out exactly what this treaty involves in every particular. In other words, I think a decision.
Tariffs and Trade

on this resolution and on the treaty should be delayed until parliament reconvenes and then the whole matter should be referred to a special committee of the house or to the committee that has been set up for such a purpose, the banking and commerce committee of this house. There hon. members would be able to call the gentlemen who represented Canada at Geneva, the men who actually negotiated this treaty, the men who know what every line of the treaty actually means so far as Canada and the rest of the world are concerned. I think that none of us should be prepared to give his adherence to a treaty of this description individually or collectively on behalf of Canada until we understand the implication of every line of the treaty.
As I have said, I have been able to give the treaty only a cursory reading, to skim the surface of it, but even so I note that there are a good many escape clauses in the treaty itself, put there presumably in the interests of various countries. As I said this afternoon, one of these escape clauses we might have used to our advantage until at least January 1, 1949, for the general agreement states, in article XIV, section 6 (a), that the provisions of the agreement relating to nondiscrimination shall not come into force "in respect of import restrictions applied by any contracting party ... in order to safeguard its external financial position and balance of payments" until January 1, 1949; "provided that this period may, with the concurrence of the contracting parties, be extended for such further periods as they may specify in respect of any contracting party whose supply of convertible currency is inadequate." That is the very position in which Canada is today.
We were told that Washington put pressure .ipon Canada to put the excise tax into effect. We were told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) this afternoon, but not in those terms, that the United States government laid so much stress upon the non-discriminatory clause of this treaty that it was advisable for Canada to put it into effect. In other words, we are in danger of falling more and more under the domination of the United States. I have the greatest respect for the American people. We have lived on friendly relations with them for well over a century, and whenever one visits the United States one gets a kindly and hospitable welcome. But no one more than the Prime Minister has adopted policies designed to deliver us from the domination of Downing street, and I do not want to exchange the domination of Washington for the domination of Downing street. Let us not

escape from one to be dominated by the other. But we have had two indications today of pressure brought upon this country by the United States.
The United States has a new role to fulfil in the world. I wonder if she will fulfil it. I remember the pledge given to the American people by the President of the United States some months ago. I listened to him on the radio one evening some months ago, and he said that before there were any substantial tariff reductions in the United States, the interests involved would be given an opportunity to appear before the appropriate committee of the senate to make their representations. He assured the American people

as I say, I heard him over the radio-that he would not approve reductions until the interests affected had been heard by a senate committee.
We do not follow that method in Canada, and I am not asking that all interests involved shall appear before a committee of this house or of the senate of Canada. What I am asking tonight is that, before this house is asked to approve this treaty, in any particular and under any resolution, the matter be referred either to a special committee of this house or to the banking and commerce committee for a thorough investigation.
Let us bear this in mind when discussing trade treaties and particularly a treaty with the United States, that to a very large extent our economy is competitive with that of the United States. Our fruit growers, wheat growers and dairy producers are competitive with similar producers in the United States, and I think that, before we tie ourselves up to any particular treaty which involves us in the American economy, we should be sure that we have something of a long-term agreement. The year 1952 is not far away, and when I view the lobbying that goes on at Washington -thank goodness we do not get that kind here-


An hon. MEMBER:: We get some.


Major James William Coldwell: We get a little but not the same kind as at Washington, where all kinds of organizations keep permanent lobbyists around congress. The powerful farm block of the middle west, for example, will not view with equanimity, even if they do at first, in the interest of world trade, competition by our western wheat and western farm produce with the commodities which they produce in the middle west. The same applies to fishermen and to other interests in the United States, including, as my hon. friend suggests, the fruit growers of that country.
There is one other thing I wish to bring to the attention of the house. Not in relation

Tariffs and Trade
to this treaty particularly, but generally under any form of economic arrangements in the world as organized today, I am fearful of the influence of cartels. International cartels are organized by national private monopolies. We know perfectly well that many of the articles which we can produce in Canada are controlled by international cartels, and Canadians are actually prevented from exporting certain articles that are controlled by international cartels. I am not asking the hon. gentleman to take my word for that. Our own commissioner, appointed under the Combines Investigation Act, submitted an excellent factual report to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) some time ago. A reading of that report-1 hope all hon. gentlemen have read it-indicates clearljr that that some Canadian industries have been prohibited from exporting to countries abroad, certain types of material made in Canada, quite a long list of them, in the chemical industry, for example. Cartels know no law. Monopolies and cartels can entirely neutralize any advantages that we might get under trade treaties.
I do not want to prolong the discussion tonight because, frankly, as I say, I have merely skimmed this treaty. We have been given it only since the house met. Of course, I have read some of the press releases, some of the news items, and as well as I was able I followed the newspaper reports of the discussions at Geneva, where I know that we were very well represented. One realizes that the Canadian officials under Mr. Wilgress, who represented us there, were representing Canada well. I have confidence in them. But they have not to take the responsibility for the treaty; we have to take it. If it is good, we shall get credit for it, they will not; if it is bad, we shall get the blame for it, they will not.
What I really rose to say was this. As far as we in this party are concerned, the party for which I speak, we want a thorough inquiry into all the implications of the treaty; and once more I repeat what I have already said, that, before we are asked to cast a single vote in approval or disapproval of this particular treaty, we should have a thorough investigation. Let us have it where we can call the men who agreed to and, to some extent, wrote the provisions of this treaty. Let us call them before a committee of the bouse where we can go into the matter with great thoroughness. Then we shall feel, whether we approve or disapprove this treaty,
that we have done our best for the people who have sent us to this chamber to do the best we can for Canada and the world.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: It is not often I hear a speech delivered in tne House of Commons which I feel I should be glad to have delivered myself, but I think we have had one exception to that rule in the speech which has been delivered by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Coldwell). I think he has admirably expressed the whole case and I should like to commend him for what he has said. I wish there could have been as much realistic thinking all through the house two years ago when we were struggling over the Bretton Woods agreement as there appears to be at the present time. We should have avoided an exceedingly dangerous and costly experiment, I would say an exceedingly dangerous blunder, in accepting what I consider to be a pernicious agreement. I believe the members of the house will discover that before we have finished.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have discovered it already.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. I believe a good many have discovered it already. I think we can lay this down as a sound fundamental principle to be applied throughout the world: Trade must be not only free but also safe. I have heard nothing said tonight, I have heard nothing said in this house, regarding the matter of making trade safe. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said nothing about that. If the nations of the world are to be truly free from fear they must have the ability to trade and be safe while they trade. Any nation must be not only free to trade but also free from fear in exercising its freedom to trade.
There are a good many today who are wondering why the bitterness, the hatred and extreme feeling all over the world. I will dare wager that the cause lies right in the fact that nothing has been done to establish the principle which I have just laid down. The nations are mortally afraid of the danger in trade.
May I refer to the figures which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) gave regarding the foreign trade of the United States? The United States annually sells about $12 billion more goods than she buys. Hon. members can weigh that fact with the most earnest consideration and see what they conceive to be the logical conclusion from that dangerous fact. Because the United States annually sells $12 billion more goods than she buys, the rest of the world every year goes 812 billion into an adverse trade
Tariffs and Trade

balance with the United States. Somebody incurs that adverse trade balance. We ourselves have incurred upwards of a billion of it this year. The realization that such a possibility is always a danger constitutes a haunting fear to all the nations, from Canada to Russia. The nations, in sheer self-defence, have had to resort to tariffs, quotas, exchange controls and manipulations of currencies or downright embargoes; otherwise their economies would have been destroyed.
The astonishing thing, observable in the discussions leading up to these so-called peace measures, such as Bretton Woods and the united nations charter, is that so many like Morgenthau and Roosevelt have contended that when nations put up trade barriers and use exchange control and other means to defend their economies these nations are engaging in industrial or economic aggression. That is one of the most amazing lies ever perpetrated upon the earth. When nations to ensure economic self-defence against a powerful nation such as the United States put up trade barriers to protect themselves are accused tf economic aggression it is simply appalling thing, Mr. Speaker. And to think that we should live in an age in which that sort of thing can be done and in which so many can be deluded by it!
May I just say a word in explanation of this remarkable situation? About 1922 the United States administration began to place a special interpretation upon the expression, "the most-favoured-nation clause". Britain had for generations used what was called "the most-favoured-nation clause". As Britain interpreted the clause, it simply meant that if any nation were willing to grant concessions to British goods entering that nation's economy, then Britain would grant a similar concession to that nation's goods entering Britain's economy; consequently the mostfavoured-nation clause or the most-favourednation treatment meant granting a special privilege or favour to that nation.
About 1922, I repeat, the United States began to put a different interpretation upon the expression entirely. They began to say that if any nation lowered its tariff or granted any concession to any other nation, then that nation was in duty bound to grant the same concession to every other nation. This was an interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clause which was fraught with the gravest danger. The United States administration has maintained that interpretation right down to the present time.
Under the United States interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clause, it was a matter of forcing the nation granting a con-

cession to another nation, to grant the same concession to the United States or to any other nation that might demand it. As a means of popularizing the most-favourednation clause as the United States interpreted it, the United States began to use the expression "non-discrimination" to describe it. They said that if a nation granted a special concession-we will say that Brazil granted a special concession to Great Britain and that Great Britain in return granted a similar concession to Brazil, then, if Brazil and Britain did not grant the same concession to the United States, Brazil and Britain were accused of "discriminating" against the United States. Thus the United States administration began to work for the application of what they called "the principle of non-discrimination."
But that is not all. Roosevelt, on the Atlantic in 1941, when he met with war-worn Churchill to draft the Atlantic charter, directed his efforts toward constraining Churchill into accepting the destruction of empire preferences because, as Roosevelt said, empire preferences were discrimination against the United States. Churchill resisted successfully, much to his honour.
Then the United States administration caused the Bretton Woods agreement and the Dumbarton Oaks agreement to be drafted as two instruments through which to obtain the "non-discrimination" objective which they endeavoured to attain through Churchill.
The Bretton Woods agreement is based upon non-discrimination, or the application of the United States interpretation of the mostfavoured-nation clause. The Bretton Woods agreement was aimed at breaking down the power of the accepting nations to use the defences against adverse trade balances which they had long used, such as tariffs, quotas, exchange restrictions and so forth. But in the Bretton Woods agreement there was not one single thing to protect the nations from adverse trade balances and their evil effects. I pointed this out, Mr. Speaker, in March and April of 1945 when we were contemplating the San Francisco conference. I pointed out the causes of war, namely, adverse trade balances and the danger thereof. I pointed out that in the Bretton Woods agreement and in the Dumbarton Oaks agreement there was no provision whatsoever for safeguarding the weaker nations against the encroachments of the strong in the matter of trade.
Then the United States high-pressured the nations into accepting the united nations charter. This charter was supposed to be the means of obtaining peace in the world. As a matter of fact, it was nothing but a United

Tarifts and Trade
States commercial instrument to force upon the nations that accepted it the principle of non-discrimination in trade, which meant the application of the United States interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clause. You will find that indicated in the purposes of the united nations charter. Primarily, as I have said, the object of the united nations charter was simply to take away the power of nations to defend themselves against United States industrial aggression. Non-discrimination is only a weasel expression, meaning the application of the most-favoured-nation clause according to the United States interpretation of 1922.
Since then, there have been several trade conferences. There was one in the fall of 1946, to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred. There was one in Geneva from April 10 to October 30 of this year, if I recall correctly, and there is one now convened at Havana. Each of these trade conferences was aimed to add threads to the spider web of intrigue wrapped around Britain and the members of the British commonwealth, and other nations that happened to be involved, to render them helpless to protect their economies from the incursion of United States goods. The object pursued by the United States throughout all these negotiations. insistently and relentlessly, implacably and callously, has been to force the whole world into a condition of utter helplessness before United States industrial aggression and penetration.
These may seem to be very strong words, Mr. Speaker, but I urge hon. members to give the most careful consideration to each of these measures to see whether or not they do not find justification for what I have said. I believe without question that they will find such evidence. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), in what I thought was a strong speech tonight, showed quite clearly that he suspected the existence of danger in these treaties.
Still greater anxiety was injected into the world situation by a statement made by President Roosevelt in a radio broadcast in October, 1944, when he said something to this effect: "I intend to find jobs for sixty million Americans by tripling our exports." Well, Mr. Speaker, if the United States was already exporting so abundantly to the world and President Roosevelt proposed to increase those exports three times, will someone tell me where would be the markets for any of the other nations?
What is to happen to nations with weaker economies? How are those nations to avoid
disastrous trade balances? How repay the debts into which they must fall as a result? By the time Canada, for example, finishes repaying the adverse trade balance we have incurred this year we shall have gained a great deal of experience. I wonder if anyone can see how in the world this country can repay that adverse trade balance of S900 million. I should be happy to hear a suggestion from anyone who thinks he has found how we can do it. Meanwhile, how in the world, then, are the nations to obtain the United States dollars they need?
What happens to a nation when it falls into an adverse trade balance? As the leader of the official opposition pointed out, we have had an adverse trade balance almost always since 1867 in Canada. Well, ultimately that adverse trade balance will result in something like this: The United States in effect will say to Canada, after we have endeavoured without success for five or six years to pay off the $900 million, "You will never be able to pay off this adverse trade balance, Canada; so just give us Canadian dollars and we will invest those dollars in Canadian securities of various kinds; your gold mines, your coal mines, your forests, your railroads and anything else you happen to have in the way of fixed assets of value." Thereby what are called United States "investments" in Canada will increase. If this process goes on indefinitely the interest payments we shall have to make on those investments every year will become greater and greater until the millstone around our necks becomes impossible for us to maintain and we go under. Then we utterly lose our economic freedom, and ultimately lose our political freedom. In the light of a situation like this, how can nations such as France. Czechoslovakia, or any other of the ordinary nations maintain their economic freedom? How can they maintain their political freedom? How can they maintain prosperity?
For the United States I am going to say this, because probably certain officials of that country will read these remarks. To American people I say: "I was born in the United States and I love your country. I am interested in its welfare. I also love Canada. I say the people of the United States will have to think very seriously of what they will do after they destroy the economies of the other nations of the world. Where will they find the markets they now feel they need? What will be the ultimate effect on the United States herself? Will they not have another depression there from which they will find it utterly impossible to extricate themselves? And is it not time now, before widespread disaster strikes, to take thought and do something about this matter, something different from what the United States is now endeavouring to do?"
Tariffs and Trade

What will probably happen is this:	If we
should go down into another depression we shall have communism in every country. This will result in a world communist state. Then what will be the result? A dictatorship by a certain group of gentlemen who will gain access to the reins of power. The freedom of the world will be gone. This is more serious than I like to think about.
Why is it the United States constitutes such a danger to the various nations of the world? There are several reasons which every hon. member will immediately bring to mind. First, there is the size of the territory of the United States. Next, there is the richness, the variety of resources which makes the United States almost self-sufficient so that it does not need the goods which would have to be sent to that country to pay for the adverse balances which other nations incurred. Then, there are upwards of 145,000,000 people of the United States, giving her producers a market which enables them to sell enough goods within their own nation to coveT their overhead and make a profit so that they can almost dump the remainder of their goods anywhere in the world. Then, there, is the industrialization of the United States, which was greatly augmented during the war. Vast factories were built to produce tremendous quantities of goods which were necessary during the war, but which perhaps will not find such a ready market now that the war is over. Finally, there is the financial power of the United States, the accumulation of finance and their skill and ability in financing production.
The question will be asked:	What could
be done? I do not wish to go into details in that regard, but let me give some figures which may help hon. members to think this matter through, as they helped me. In 1918 the United States produced $60,000 million worth of goods. During that same year all the money distributed in the United States in wages, salaries, dividends and by every other means amounted to S45.000 million. Of that 845,000 million about $5,000 million went into life insurance or in other ways became more or less passive as far as purchasing goods was concerned. This left $20,000 million worth of goods in the United States with no money to buy them. What was to become of the $20,000 million worth of goods? The United States still faces that kind of problem, only in a highly aggravated form. What is she going to do? Well, I would say the only wise thing the United States can possibly do is develop a means of distributing purchasing power within her own country, to enable her own people to use her goods as far as they fMr. Blackmore.]
wish. Surely if she can lend money to France, let us say, and that money is good for the purchase of United States goods, the same money distributed among the people of the United States would be equally good for the purchase of United States products.
With respect to the things which the United States would still have to export or may wish to export, may I offer this suggestion? If the United States were to take, for instance, the adverse trade balance incurred in Canada this year, amounting to S900 million, and were to say, "Canada, you do not need to worry about that $900 million which you have incurred as an adverse trade balance; we will just keep it on our records as a credit. We will not charge you interest on it. We will not embarrass you in any way. Some of these days probably you will have lumber or pulp wood or something else that we will want, and then we will accept it in payment of this debt. And if we do not take the goods in payment of this $900 million debt after seven years have expired, we will cancel the $900 million debt-we will just wash it out" -I say that if the United States would take that attitude and a similar attitude in its dealings with every nation of the world, she would have established what might be called contra-credits in each of those nations with which she might trade. And if every nation in the world, including Canada, did the same sort of thing, it would become possible to visualize a state of affairs in which the trading of the world would be beneficial to every nation.
Some will say, "How can a nation do things like that? How can it give goods away?" A vast quantity of goods which the United States is already selling abroad will never be paid for, for the simple reason that the United States will never want goods in payment for them. Indeed, she will put up tariff barriers to keep out those goods, because they would compete with her own goods. What happened in connection with the debt Great Britain owed to the United States as a result of the first world war? That debt never was repaid, not because Great Britain did not want to repay it; rather it was because the United States refused to accept goods in payment.
The British have sold goods on credit to the extent of billions upon billions of pounds, and have never received anything back. They have cancelled those debts. So the proposal is thoroughly logical; it is something that has been tried. Now if something like contra-credits were provided for in these trade treaties we are now considering we would see a way out of the difficulties which at present are rendering conditions impossible for the weaker

Tariffs and Trade
economies in the world. We would have something worthy of the attention, of this House of Commons, something that would have a chance of evading and preventing war.
But the measures we are considering now will never prevent war; they will cause war. Everyone must realize that Canada is in a far more dangerous position today than, she would be if she were not tied up to the Bretton Woods agreement. And she will be in a far more dangerous position if she becomes committed to these Geneva treaties, and especially the general treaties; because there are in them clauses which bind Canada still further, in the same way as the Bretton Woods agreement bound her. So I would suggest that if the nations would establish a system of multilateral contra-credits to take care of the adverse trade balances which develop as a result of trade, then I would feel some hope for the future of the world.
In closing, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in his request that the study of these treaties be submitted to a committee and given the most careful scrutiny-something far, far better than we had when we were considering the Bretton Woods agreement. I think to my dying day I shall look back with disgust and shame upon the farcical performance when we considered the Bretton Woods agreement in the banking and commerce committee. There was not a ghost of a chance given for reasonable and fair consideration of the meaning and implication of the various sections of that act. It was rushed through in a very short time. All hon. members need to do is to get from the library the Final Act of Bretton Woods, and proceed to read it through. Let them see how long it takes to read it. Then I would suggest they read it again, until they have some idea of its meaning, and some idea of how long it would take a man to understand that Bretton Woods agreement. Then I would ask them to recall how it was jammed through the House of Commons in about five days.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: It is not in the library; it is in the morgue.


John Horne Blackmore: I hope we shall have a real study' of this present measure, and not under such high pressure that it will be a disgrace to the House of Commons. If, as was hinted by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the United States is putting pressure upon our nation to oblige us to accept measures of this sort, then the sooner we know about it the better. And let the matter be known throughout the world in its bare, simple nakedness; because if we have to go down to
destruction, then let us at least know where we are going, and why. Let us see if we have at least the courage and the stamina which has characterized our fathers back through the centuries. Surely we have not fought two wars in order to be enslaved by a series of base measures like Bretton Woods-surely notl Just as an indication of how difficult it is to make an adequate study of these treaties, let me say that I took the trouble to count through the number of pages involved. Each hon. member upon returning to this session received a set of five books with a total of 1,431 pages of closely typewritten material. This is the third day of our session. And we are supposed to have been able to read this material through and to have formed some sort of estimate of the implications in those many pages in this brief space of time! On the face of it, we have an indication that all is not fair and square.
Why all this secrecy? Why all this haste? Once more I suggest most earnestly that every possible facility be given for the most careful study. I suggest, further, that hon. members be ready to refuse sternly those treaties until such modifications are made in them as will render them safe for the world and fit to' be accepted by men whose sons died on many a battlefield overseas; whose sons died for freedom and not for slavery, such as these agreements involve; whose sons died for peace, not for war such as these measures if accepted render inevitable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have followed with a good deal of interest the debate as carried on by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and by the leaders of other groups, and I have been impressed particularly by the lack of appreciation of the importance of this agreement.
Here we have the most far-reaching lowering of trade barriers ever accomplished in the history of international trade. We are blamed by opposition groups for having called parliament together to consider this agreement.
I remind hon. members that the agreement has already been executed by eighteen countries and comes into effect on January 1 of next year. I wonder what parliament would have said if we had not brought hon. members together to discuss the terms of the agreement before it became effective. Apparently the impression is abroad that the government is attempting to force the agreement through parliament without adequate discussion and without consideration by a committee. There was nothing in the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to indicate anything of the sort. He has asked me to say
Tariffs and Trade

that the government will invite the fullest discussion of this resolution and the resolution which follows it and of the bill which follows the two resolutions, in committee, at any stage the house may wish.
As a matter of fact, two or three days ago the Prime Minister and the leader of the government in the senate decided that the other chamber would proceed at once to set up a committee to study the trade agreements. I rather think that committee has already been established, and will commence its work at once. As I understood it from the leader of the government in the senate, the plan is that that committee will bring before it government experts who will explain every phase of the agreements, and be' subjected to any questioning that hon. members of the senate may wish to place before them.


Mr. MacNICOL:: May I ask if there will be representatives of the various organizations present?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite. The same procedure
can be followed in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has suggested a discussion before the committee of the whole, but I feel sure that if another procedure is presented that alternative plan will receive due consideration.


John Bracken: May I ask if that applies to the first resolution?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It can be made to, yes.


John Bracken: That is the request I have made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I think a quite proper request.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would be sorry to have this debate adjourned without being able to place
before the people of the country some idea of the scope of the agreements and at least some of the highlights of the provisions as they affect Canadian trade. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that Canada had more to gain from the discussions at Geneva than any other country. I am bold enough to say that Canada gained more from the agree-: ments than any other country. Therefore to say that these agreements are not of sufficient importance to warrant calling the house together is, I think, wholly fallacious.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: So far they apparently mean just an au'sterity program.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend would not understand this. He said that he did not, and I agree with him. We have had alternative measures presented. I think the one that will perhaps Startle the businessmen of this country more than anything else is the alternative offered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) of a customs union within the British empire. There may have been times when it would have been proper to discuss that alternative, but it seems to me that that time is hardly the present when all the nations of the British empire except South Africa have been obliged to restrict buying and to adopt severe austerity programs.
Obviously I cannot finish my remarks this evening and I think, in order to do justice to the subject, I should have an uninterrupted forty minutes in which to place the principles of the agreements before the house. Therefore, I would ask the indulgence of the house to permit me to adjourn tlhe debate at this time.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Wednesday, December 10, 1947