[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, the C.N.R. is sometimes late, but it always does come through.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Other aspirants had better look out after that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In accordance with section 4 (2) of the Privileges and Immunities (United Nations) Act 1947, I have the honour to table order in council P.C. 3946 made on October 1, 1947. By this order the governor in council authorizes the Secretary of State for External Affairs to execute on behalf of Canada an instrument of accession to the convention on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations with the reservation that exemption from taxation imposed by any law in Canada on salaries and emoluments shall not extend to a Canadian citizen residing or ordinarily resident in Canada.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in response to the question submitted yesterday by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), with your permission I would like to make a statement on the Roseland and Oliver subdivisions of the Veterans Land Act, located near Windsor.
Perhaps hon. members might bear with me if I review briefly the history of these subdivisions.
Early in the war it was realized by my predecessor that as a result of high priority wartime expansion of industry, there was likely to develop in Canada a housing shortage and that those likely to be most seriously affected by the shortage would be the veterans
overseas. Accordingly plans were made to meet some of this anticipated shortage under the terms of the Veterans Land Act, and in 1945 construction was commenced on about 2.700 houses across Canada. One hundred of these were located outside the city of Windsor on the Oliver and Roseland subdivisions.
As had been anticipated when the men came back from overseas, there was a very serious shortage of veterans housing in Canada. The Windsor subdivisions were available for occupation in the summer of 1946, and although we realized there were some deficiencies in the houses, we felt that rather than deny the veterans in that area shelter, we should allot the homes as soon as they were reasonably ready for occupancy. About June 1946 the veterans started to move in. They had examined the houses, but we were not at that time in a position to tell them what the final price would be. Accordingly agreements to purchase were not asked at that time, although veterans did sign applications and the majority of them made a deposit of $600.
After the veterans had been in occupation for some time, defects which are inevitable in all immediate postwar construction became apparent. I would ask hon. members to bear in mind in assessing these defects that the director of the Veterans Land Act built these homes during one of the most critical building periods in Canada's history. Material was in very short supply and much of it was not of the quality we would normally have wanted. Skilled labour was equally scarce. When the defects became apparent, my predecessor said on the floor of the house that the houses would be placed in first class condition at no cost to the veteran. That undertaking is being carried out. The majority of the repairs have been completed, but there remain a few things still to be done. I can assure the house, however, that there will be no skimping on any of this necessary remedial work.
In the summer of 1947 we were in a position to inform the veterans what their homes would cost. These prices were not acceptable to the veterans and they refused to sign their agreements to purchase. As a result of this, the deputy minister of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the director of the Veterans Land Act and other departmental officials, met with the veterans in Windsor last fall. They gave most sympathetic consideration to the complaints which were voiced.
Veterans Affairs
[Stage Direction]
The main difference between the department and the veterans was on a matter of price, because by that time it had become apparent that the department intended to live up one hundred per cent to its undertaking to put the houses in first class shape. The veterans at this time pressed for an independent committee to appraise the value of the houses. My predecessor in this portfolio agreed that this should be done. It was his wish that no veteran should be compelled to sign an agreement to purchase a house which did not represent fair value, and he agreed that the only way to make sure that values were equitable and fair was to appoint a committee of independent experts.
In the fall of 1947 the committee was appointed. I would like hon. members to pay particular attention to the names of the men who comprised that committee. It was headed, first of all, by Mr. J. L. B. Price, a man who through the Canadian Legion has long been identified with veterans work. Mr. Price in private life is one of Canada's outstanding building contractors. As a member of the legion he headed the national committee on veterans housing. He has devoted long hours trying to help veterans from one end of Canada to the other with their housing difficulties.
The second member of the committee was Mr. Malcolm D. MacPhail, a very highly regarded Windsor real estate man who has had many years of experience as a valuator. The third man was Mr. Frederick R. Larkin, mortgage supervisor of the London Life Insurance Company at Windsor. These men in my opinion were unusually qualified to pass on real estate values in the area in which these subdivisions are located.
The committee presented their finding to the department on December 18, 1947. I now table the report. Briefly their finding was that in 54 cases the prices which they set on the houses were below the prices which had previously been quoted by the department. In four cases the price they set was the same as that of the department, and in 42 cases their findings show that the value of the houses as fixed by the independent appraisal committee was above the price quoted by the department to the veteran.
I want to make it absolutely clear that this independent appraisal committee set their prices without any reference to the prices previously quoted by the Veterans Land Act administration. They did not have in their possession the prices which the veterans had originally been asked for the houses.

The department has accepted their report in full with the one notable exception. Where the department price has been found to be below that set by the independent committee, the price to the veteran remains the same. Where the appraisal committee's report of values is below the price set by the department, the lower price is being charged.
The price reductions range from a low of .814.03 to a high of $685.71. The total decrease across the two subdivisions is S24,581 out of a total original capital expenditure on this project of 1694,490 78.
I should inform the house that in living up to our undertaking to put these properties in first class shape we are expending a total of 886,004 in remedial repairs. In addition to this, the contractor has accepted responsibility for certain extensive remedial work which is being done at no expense to the public. There, of course, will be no charge against the veteran for any of this work.
I should emphasize, too, that the original price quoted to the veteran was the exact cost of these properties to the director of the Veterans Land Act. It means in effect that in the remedial repairs and the present reduction a total of $110,000 approximately has been spent on these properties to ensure that the veteran is getting maximum value for his money.
To bring the house up to date on: the situation, I may say that a meeting was held with the veterans on Sunday last at which the district superintendent announced to the veterans the present prices on their houses. These prices were not acceptable and a demand has been made for a further downward revision.
I am informed that at Sunday's meeting the veterans went on record unanimously as being completely satisfied with the progress and the quality of the repair program. There were still, it is true, a few minor complaints. But in the main I can assure the house that the veterans are satisfied with the quality and that the one remaining point at issue is the matter of price. That this is true is best evidenced by the fact that when the president of the veterans committee asked for a show of hands from those veterans who intend to purchase their houses, all but two expressed their intention of doing so. I am advised that the two who did not raise their hands included the president of the committee who is planning to build his own house under veterans individual housing.
So we now have a situation where apparently the veterans are satisfied with the conditions of their homes; they are satisfied that the department will complete the remedial pro-

Veterans Affairs
gram in a way acceptable to them. We have prices set not by the department but by an independent appraisal committee as requested by the veterans themselves, but we still have the veterans refusing to accept these prices.
The one request which was made to the veterans at Sunday's meeting was that they let the department know whether they are prepared to sign a purchase agreement or whether they want to go on a temporary rental agreement basis, pending sale to another qualified veteran.
I think hon. members will realize that we must bring this situation to a conclusion. There are at present approximately 250 veterans in Windsor qualified under the Veterans Land Act who have not yet been able to find a home. Further, the house should note that of the 2,673 houses constructed on subdivisions throughout Canada, 2,372 veterans have signed their purchase agreements and furthermore are meeting their payments satisfactorily.
Mr. BROWN:: I was at the meeting on Sunday last. The veterans there raised the question of the cost of landscaping which had been charged to them, and some claimed that credit should be given for that work. Is the minister prepared to consider that particular matter?


Mr. GREGG:: If any undertaking has been given by the department which in the opinion of the hon. member has not been carried out, 1 shall be willing to consider it.


Mr. FLEMING:: In view of the revelations in the public accounts committee last summer in connection with the administration of the Veterans Land Act, will the minister be prepared to submit this question to the public accounts committee before the ultimatum issued by the department is pressed, so that there will be an opportunity to sift out the facts from the propaganda that is being issued by the department which has shown itself so hardhearted in its treatment of the veterans?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I want to say that there has been no ultimatum. I would refer the hon. member to the paragraph at the end of my statement. I shall be glad to consider the other point raised by the hon. member.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Have similar meetings been held in other sections of Canada? I have in mind Niagara Falls, Welland and a smaller division in St. Catharines. If such meetings have not been held, is it intended to hold them? There has been definite dissatisfaction in those localities.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will take that into consideration.


Mr. PEARKES:: Will the minister appoint a similar committee to investigate the Braefoot project, where conditions are even worse than those that prevailed at Windsor?


Mr. BROOKS:: I should like to ask a question with regard to the payment of the cost of extra work. What proportion are the contractors paying and what proportion is being paid by the government? How was the apportionment appraised?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will take into consideration the questions asked by the hon. members for Nanaimo and Royal.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege.


An hon. MEMBER:: Bagpipes.


Thomas Reid: Owing to the fact that the Canadian National train was some twenty hours late yesterday I was unable to be in the house last evening when the question arose whether bagpipes are musical instruments. I must thank the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) who differed with the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross) on that question. However, I did not rise to discuss that point; I am rising now on a matter that affects me personally. It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that there is no dispute at all about whether the bagpipe is a musical instrument, for all really intelligent people know it is.


Mr. FRASER:: The sweetest music in the world.


Thomas Reid: 

INQUIRY AS TO CASE OF HARRY READ, FORMER AIR FORCE PILOT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of -the day:
Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: I should like to -ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether his attention has been called to the
Inquiries of the Ministry

plight of a former air force pilot, Harry Read, of Calgary. In- passing judgment on this veteran Magistrate Rose said-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would remind the hon. member that in putting a question he should not give information.
Mr. SIvEY: I find it a little difficult to phrase this question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister know the plight of Harry Read, air force veteran of Calgary? And does he know of the magistrate's recommendation that his case be immediately investigated by D.V.A. and the pensions board?
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I do not know the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, but if the hon. member will give me the details I shall be glad to look into them.



DEVALUATION OF FRENCH FRANC


[Stage Direction]
On -the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the discussions now going on in the house with respect to trade matters I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance which bears on that matter. Has the government any official knowledge other -than has appeared in the press of the action taken by France to devalue the franc, and if so, will the minister divulge that information to the house?
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT '(Minister of Finance): The only information I have, Mr. Speaker, is a copy of the statement which was issued by the international monetary fund and which was sent to me yesterday by the chairman- of the fund. It is a public statement.



PETROLEUM PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of which I have given him notice. In view of disturbing reports that embargoes on oil exports, including shipments to Canada, may ba* imposed by the United States, can the minister inform the house whether the matter has been discussed with United States authorities, and what steps he proposes to take if necessary to protect the interests of Canada?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The government has for some weeks been concerned with suggestions

that an embargo be imposed on the export of petroleum products from the United States to Canada. Our ambassador at Washington has held frequent conferences with the United States officials in that regard, and officers of their department of commerce have visited Canada to study our position. Our stock position of petroleum products has been fully disclosed. Our steps taken to limit the installation of oil burners throughout 1947 have been explained. After consultation with the petroleum industry in Canada, the government voluntarily has cut imports of petroleum products from United States during January to 50 per cent of quantities imported in the same month a year ago. A corresponding cut is being studied for the months of February and March.
Any embargo on shipments of petroleum products from our traditional source of supply would be a calamity of the first order, but hon. members will appreciate that the decision is for the United States government.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister of reconstruction et cetera? I do not know whether this comes within that department or not, but in view of the statement he has just made with respect to our oil imports being affected by United States policy, can he tell the house what proportion of our oil requirements could be met by maximum production in Canada? That is what the people would like to know in case action is taken by the United States which will affect our importations of oil.


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the present moment the proportion would be about eleven per cent. Perhaps a year from now it will be somewhat higher.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? Is he prepared to intimate what action- will be taken on the request of the superannuated civil servants for a cost of living bonus?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I issued a statement with respect to that, Mr. Speaker, on January 23, in- connection with the announcement I made at that time concerning civil service salaries. I tabled a copy of that statement yesterday.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Is that final?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not so far as we are concerned.

Inquiries oj the Ministry



GENEVA AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Charles Abbott: Yesterday the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked me whether the tariff changes covered by schedule V of the Geneva trade agreement are now in effect. In reply to his question may I say that order in council P.C. 5270 of December 23, 1947, brought into effect on January 1, 1948, the tariff concessions granted by Canada in the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
The Canadian concessions are set forth in schedule V to the agreement and consist of some 1,050 items. A small number of items in the Canadian schedule respecting which reductions were negotiated with countries that did not undertake to bring their concessions into effect on January 1, 1948, have been withheld until such time as those countries are in a position to make their concessions available to Canada. The tariff items withheld are listed in appendix B, which I now table.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HARRY R. JACKMAN (Rosedale): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, arising out of an article appearing on the front page of the Ottawa Journal for January 26, entitled "Drop baby bonus above $3,000 level department asked," the final paragraph of which reads in part:
The argument was that allowances paid above the $3,000 level did not benefit the recipients, since the "bonus" must be included as income for taxation purposes.
Are family allowances in 'themselves taxable?
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: While the name "baby bonus"
is commonly used in reference to social security payments which are made by the government, I presume the hon. gentleman refers to the family allowance. Family allowances are not taxable. People are forced to take the family allowance so that the exemptions of $100 per recipient of those who get the allowance and $300 for those between the age of those receiving the allowance and twenty-one years may be deductible. Anyone who is entitled to the allowance but who does not take it is allowed an exemption
of only $100. That is the reason the plan was adopted of having everybody who had children within the age limit receive the allowance in order that the two different exemptions would be adaptable. The answer to the question is that family allowances are not taxable.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: I wish to direct a question to the
Minister of Fisheries which I was unable to do yesterday because I was snowbound in Alberta. I should like to ask the minister what steps are being taken for the conservation of eulachons in the province of Alberta.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order for return.


James Horace King: Order.



RENT CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): May I ask the Minister of Finance if tomorrow he will be good enough to make a statement concerning rent regulations and rent control as applied to both commercial and housing accommodation? I ask that question in view of the uncertainty that exists at the present time.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I had better answer that now in general terms, and then if my hon. friend wants further information I can give it. I announced in the house as long ago as last June that the control of rental on commercial accommodation would not be continued beyond April 1 next, and I issued a formal statement to that effect some months ago. So far as the control of housing rental is concerned, the government indicated it proposed to ask parliament to extend the power which it now has to control rentals beyond March 31.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONSERVATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for the second reading of Bill No. 3, respecting emergency measures for the conservation of Canadian foreign exchange resources.
Foreign Exchange Conservation
Mr. H. W. TIMMINS (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, two months have elapsed since the fateful radio talk of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) on November 17 last when these import conservation regulations were put into effect. The government admits that the 1946 Foreign Exchange Control Act was never intended to make use of such powers; nevertheless they decided to use them for that purpose.


James Horace King: Order. May I ask hon. members not to make so much noise? It is nearly impossible to hear the hon. member who has the floor.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The bill is now before us in parliament and we are being asked to pass it. The house is entitled to know what have been the results of these regulations up to date.
In December last the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) asked for certain information and certain statements as to the imports into Canada from the United States in the months just preceding November. Since we are now in this very unusual situation of having these regulations in force since November last, and we are now in January endeavouring to deal with the bill which will enact these regulations into law, it is my purpose to ask the minister to tell the house at this time -because this is the time when we should know it-what have been the results. What United States dollars did we save in the month of November? What United States dollars did we save in December, and what have we saved in January? We are not capable of dealing with this measure, and we should not be asked to deal with it, until we have been told what these results have been.
I see by a press clipping that yesterday the new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) gave to the people of Toronto some indication of what has been going on. This is the place where the statement should have been made. I am not blaming the minister. Perhaps the timing was wrong; but I am saying to him now that we should like him to elucidate in dollars and cents, not in general terms, what the situation is. For instance, the minister is quoted as saying yesterday:
The program to correct Canada's trade deficiency with the United States is making substantial progress. And I can go farther and say our balance of payment for December was more favourable than was hoped for.
What I am saying, of course, is, let us have the figures. After all, a board of directors of a company would not pass on a matter that had to do with the company unless they had

the information required, and we should not deal with a matter which has to do with the life and death of this country until we have the information asked for. We are being asked to make the stream run backwards, and we want to know why; we want the figures.
In addition we should like to know something about the principle of these schedules. For instance, they have been in force since November 17 last, and from day to day and from week to week changes have been made which we have read about in the press. As members of parliament we have some responsibility in respect to these matters. One of the things that bothers me is this complete and absolute prohibition upon fresh vegetables. I do not want to suggest that the people of Canada are going to have scurvy if they do not get fresh vegetables, but the fact of the matter is that you put the restrictions on and you made them stick right from the word go. In fact you do not say to the people who are subservient to your control, what you propose to do. Has the minister any recommendation or direction to give to the people of Canada or to the producers? Does he intend the growers to get busy and produce leafy vegetables and fresh vegetables for next fall and winter? Does he expect the producers of Canada to go into the business of greenhouse growing of vegetables? Does he expect them to spend their money in providing apparatus and equipment for that purpose? Does he expect the cold storage people to set up plant to deal with this situation? I know he is going to say that it is a short term policy; but how short, or how long? What knowledge have the people of Canada of the preparations that should be made for the future?
The produce dealers have a complaint with the minister. The minister may disagree with them; nevertheless they are in the produce business and he is not. Mr. Robinson, who is secretary treasurer of the Ontario Vegetable and Fruit Growers' Association, had this to say in Toronto on January 21:
Mr. Robinson suggested present high prices had been the result of scarcity that might have been avoided if producers had known in advance that restrictions on United States vegetable imports were planned.
I think he is right ini that. We are still in the valley of indecision and uncertainty. It is the minister's responsibility to tell the producers, the growers and the people what they may expect in the months to come.
I am dealing only with the principle of schedule I. As a matter of fact diamonds and precious stones were in this list but now

Foreign Exchange Conservation
they are taken out. Is that a special concession made to some trade or industry? Is there a principle involved? Why did you put an item in and take it out again? The people would like to know why that was done. We here in parliament want to know.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend will ask that question when we get into committee, he will get a prompt answer.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: We are dealing with the principle here. Why were some things put in and taken out again? How many more are to be taken out? When do we find out about that? The minister must take responsibility for this bill because he brought these regulations into effect in an unusual way. They are not yet law and they may never become law. The press has referred to "this grave new world" that has been created by these import restrictions. We have it from the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that many industries must change their program and a few persons must change their employment. That is an important statement.
I am sure that those who are interested in labour will -want to know more about that, and when we are dealing with the principle of the bill we should know it. When the minister says that a few may have to change their employment I do not think he can take offence at me when I remind him that he spoke of "months" a short time ago in dealing with controls and it turned out that he meant not less than a year. In the same way, I feel that labour will want to know what "few" means. Does it mean that we are going back to the days of national selective service when a man could be taken from one sort of employment and put in another? Does it mean that if an industry has to gear itself for the production of new materials, which it was not engaged in before, and1 the men are not capable of doing that type of work, the government will displace them and put them in some other industry? That is something on which we must have some information when we are dealing with the principle of the bill.
Under schedule III of the bill-


James Horace King: Order. I should have pointed out to the hon. member before that in the debate on second reading of the bill he should discuss only the principle and not the clauses. Discussion of the clauses should come in the committee stage.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I did not think I was transgressing, sir. However, having regard to the principle of the bill, as given to us by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his radio speech and also here in the House of Commons, the right hon. gentleman said, as reported at page 388 of Hansard:
A division to review applications and administer the issue of permits has been established in the department of which I am minister, under Mr. John Berry, who has been seconded from his position as president of War Assets Corporation. It is now actively functioning, and I need scarcely emphasize that all would-be importers of items listed in schedule III should be prepared to put before that division the details of their respective projects.
I have read that passage from his speech in order to show the intricacies of this bill.
I might also refer to a press clipping that comes from the Toronto Star of January 2 last:
Manufacturing industries whose operations are adding to Canada's U.S. dollar drain will probably have their allotment of foreign exchange for U.S. purchases sharply cut in 1948, it was learned today.
The government is working on a formula to cover the supplying of exchange to such companies, and this will be released shortly to allow firms to plan their year's programs on the basis of reduced imports from the U.S.
Slated for cuts are those businesses which consume more U.S. dollars for imports than they produce through the sale of their products.
All this gives us some indication of the regimentation which, we may expect under the bill and the dislocation of industry as well as the dislocation of labour which may take place and which in fact is going to take place by reason of these regulations. Among other things-


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has
exhausted his time.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: May I have one minute?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: With the unanimous consent of the house.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Apparently this whole bill is predicated upon the Marshall plan and the obtaining of American dollars for puchases in Canada to be used1 in respect of the delivery of goods to Europe under that plan. I think the people should be told by the minister what a gamble we are taking. We do not even know that the Marshall plan is going through. That is the first thing; and secondly we do not even know whether the moneys that would) come to Canada would be for the purchase of goods that we can sell. They might be for goods that we want ourselves in Canada and that cannot be parted with. We ought to know what United States dollars have been saved up to this time under
Foreign Exchange Conservation

this regulation since November 17, and we ought to know in concrete language, what United States dollars, based upon what has taken place up to this time, we may expect to save in the year 1948.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: When one realizes the implications
of the measure now before us he hesitates to get up and express an opinion. However, I have a few observations to make, and as most of my remarks will relate to the third schedule of the bill I am glad to see that several ministers are in the chamber because there may be points on which we disagree.
I am not very much concerned with the schedules that come within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. I believe they are the short-term end of the program. I just have this to say with respect to the part that he is administering. I notice in the Financial Post that the exchange position at this time is greatly improved as compared with what it was when the measure was instituted. If that is true, and I notice the minister nods his head in approval-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. I did not intend
to indicate that.


Clarence Gillis: Foreign Exchange Conservation
will supply raw material, set up assembly plants, send our raw materials over there, have them processed, bring them back, pay for them, create another dollar shortage, assemble them in Canada and send them out at prices dictated and directed on the other side of the line. That is what we are going to be. From there on we are just a satellite of the United States because control is over there.
With regard to the austerity program, I am not prepared to say that anyone in this country should go out and tell another that he should tighten his belt in order to conserve American dollars. I am not prepared to say that this measure is going to offer any solution to our Canadian problem. I believe it is creating new problems, that we are losing our sovereignty and that we are giving it over to others for exploitation in the future.
What is the future of steel? I cannot see any possibility of developing it; and I cannot see that possibility because in the United States they are searching for ore. Their ore resources are almost depleted, and we know about the search that is taking place.
In May of 1947 Bill No. 10, letter H of the senate, was passed by this house. Only a few of us questioned it. At that time I was looking to the future so far as the steel situation in eastern Canada is concerned. A clipping I have here from that authoritative journal, the Financial Post, says that there is a possibility of a shift in the United States steel industry. It states:
If the new iron ore deposits in South America and Ungava should prove to be economically feasible, the new discoveries may mean a major shift of United States industry. The whole United States steel industry is located in relation to the Take Superior deposits of iron ore.
The minister is familiar with the ore situation in the United States. Having this in mind, when that bill came before the house, and when the Hollinger-North Shore Exploration Company and the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company secured franchises from the Canadian government for the purpose of taking over complete control of the ore deposits in that section, I said to myself:	There goes Canada's chance of
developing her own steel industry. Because who are the Hollinger people in Canada? They are linked with the National Steel Corporation of the United States. The Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines are linked with the National Steel Corporation of the United States and other major United States iron and steel companies, through the M. A. Hanna Company. In 1943 the M. A. Hanna Company acquired a minority interest in the Labrador Mining and Exploration Company. The controlling interest in the Labrador Min-

ing and Exploration Company was acquired in 1942 by Hollinger. That is according to the Survey of Mines, 1947, page 357; it is not my statement. The Hollinger people are linked with the M. A. Hanna Company and the National Steel Corporation of the United States. That is why I say they are merely fronting companies in this country who are getting control of our resources.


An hon. MEMBER:: They do not control them.


Clarence Gillis: Do they not? You may make your argument after, and you may try to show me that they do not. I am trying to show where they do.
I could go on making quotations all afternoon; but if the minister has any' authoritative information to the effect that the Labrador interests today are not completely tied up with United States interests, through the National Steel Corporation and the M. A. Hanna Company, as a result of the link-up with Hollinger, then I should like him to give it. The two smaller companies are merely subsidiaries. I say the National Steel Corporation and the M. A. Hanna Company have an overriding interest which will exploit the ore resources of both Labrador and Ungava. would like me to give him the real situation, and I am prepared to do so, because I looked into the subject a few weeks ago. The companies mentioned are controlled in Canada by Canadian citizens. The ownership and control is in Canada. There is a minority stock interest owned by the M. A. Hanna Company. Incidentally, the M. A. Hanna Company owns and operates coal and ore properties in the United States; it is not a steel company. The Hanna Company has a minority interest and is assisting Canadian interest in planning the development of the Canadian property.


Clarence Gillis: 
Mr. BLACKMORE:: Government foolhardiness.


Clarence Gillis: There will come a time when that will be cured, I am sure. I wish to make these few remarks because I am interested in the development of Canada. Perhaps the minister thinks, and he is attempting to lead others to believe, that he is going to develop the country to a point where it will compete with the United States, and that things are going to be much better in the future. In my opinion that is not possible when there is a lack of control in the basic industries required for that purpose.
I shall not take up further time. If I am wrong in what I have said, then I would ask the minister to set me right-not by a statement across the floor of the house, but by factual data as to the tie-up with respect to
the iron ore which belongs to Canada, and that part in Newfoundland in which we would be interested when Newfoundland becomes a part of this country.
The nation which controls these deposits and will make use of them in the future will be the greatest industrial nation in the world because, according to the surveys I have seen, the greatest deposits of these ores are in that part of the country. Steel is one of the basic necessities to any country which is to become a great industrial nation.
I could not vote for this measure. If I thought it was part of an austerity program designed to help the minister get more dollars, and that he could cure the situation within a reasonable time; and if I thought that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply was going to develop the coal industry so it could stand on its own feet and to provide the necessary controls for the development of the steel industry in this country, I would back him no matter what any one else thought. But I cannot support this measure because I think it is designed to fool the people of this country and integrate our economy with that of the United States. We will be under their domina-ation in the future to such an extent that we will simply be a satellite nation.


Mr. H. O. WHITE (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, there are just two subjects I want to deal with. Years ago one of our great leaders, Sir John A. Macdonald, introduced a national policy which has never been changed in principle. The Liberals have always claimed that they were a low tariff party, but they have continually added to that policy. The measure now before us does nothing more than add to that policy. At times many farmers and producers have questioned the wisdom of it, but I believe the people throughout the country realize that we must protect our industries. The late President Roosevelt of the United States introduced what was termed the new deal. I am wondering whether the deal that was introduced here on November 17 will be referred to as the raw deal. I am wondering also if the people are not wishing for a square deal. I hope that that is what we will get in the future.
I am going to deal particularly with the position of the fruit and vegetable growers. For many years these producers have been denied the cream of the Canadian market. As soon as their products were ready to market, or just prior to that time, fruits and vegetables grown in areas where they ripen sooner were allowed to come into the country in large quantities. When complaints were made the answer given was that these were brought
Foreign Exchange Conservation

in and sold before the local products are ready to market. However, in many cases carloads of these early fruits and vegetables were brought in from the United States and stored and our growers had to take a licking.
What is the position of these growers today? They are confused; they are undecided as to just what to do. One group is saying, "Produce to the limit." Another group is saying, "Be careful, be cautious, because by the time you come to harvest your crop your throats will be cut." About the time Canadian peaches were ready to come on the market last year, 300 carloads of Georgia peaches came into this country and were sold in competition with the local product. Ontario and Michigan fruits ripen at practically the same time. But huge quantities of Michigan cherries were admitted into the country just at the time Canadian cherries were coming on the market. The same thing can be said about head lettuce, tomatoes, and practically all other vegetables and fruits that we grow in Canada.
The consumers in the cities are blaming the Canadian growers because certain fruits and vegetables are not available, and they are demanding the removal of some of these restrictions. In one breath they ask for controls, and in the next breath they ask for the removal of restrictions. The importers and the wholesalers are demanding the removal of these restrictions because they do not care about the primary producers. How can the Canadian producer be expected to supply a market overnight which he has been denied for fifteen years or more? On the other hand Canadian farmers are denied a most lucrative United States market for beef, wheat and other farm products.
A couple of sessions ago some questions were asked about the shortage of lumber. The classic answer that was made was that for every carload produced in Ontario and sold domestically another carload was permitted to go to the United States. It was said that because of the high prices that obtained in the United States lumber could be sold more cheaply to Canadians. Why not try out that theory on farm products? Why not let us send our beef and wheat to the United States and see how it will work out? It did not work out that way with lumber, and it will not work out that way with wheat, but in the meantime the Canadian farmer is being euchred out of millions of dollars because he is being deprived of that market. No other group in our economy is being denied that market. Our fishermen, our miners and those who produce forest products all have entry to the United States market where the}' are able

to obtain United States dollars, but not the Canadian farmer. Our farmers would be glad to bring in a few hundred million United States dollars.
What do the fruit and1 vegetable growers actually need? All they ask is that they be given the natural market for the products they can grow in this country. They ask that and no more. They want assurance from this government so that they can go ahead and plan and plant. They want assurance that when they are ready to harvest they will be able to obtain some reward for the investment they have made and the labour they have expended. They want assurance that there will not be a change of heart on the part of this government because of pressure exerted by consumers and importers to have these restrictions removed. They want these assurances right away, because planting time for early vegetables and fruit is fast approaching. Up to the moment the growers have not had that assurance. How are they to know what acreage to plant unless that assurance is given.
I think this measure has developed a lack of confidence in the government. In the first place the program was introduced more or less with an apology. It was said that it was temporary, that it might not last long, and reference was made to months. However, we are not certain whether it will be a hundred months or two months or how long it will be. What assurance is there to industry to go ahead1 and build plants when this is simply a temporary measure to correct an exchange situation. No wonder industry is marking time and following a wait-and-see policy.
Let me give you figures to show what is happening in the city of London, Ontario. Prior to November 17, the number of persons passing through the employment office was fewer than 500 a week. Last week 2,100 passed through that office looking for work.
We hear a lot about the high cost of living, and most of the outcry is against the high prices of food. We do not hear much complaint about the prices of beer or automobiles or refrigerators. The only thing that worries people is, when can I get it? But people generally do complain about the prices of food. They are not complaining about taxes to any great extent, but taxes play a large part in the high cost of living. An increase of 25 per cent in the excise tax on many goods is being imposed. Let us see what taxation does to the cost of living.
I have mentioned that there was a drive by consumers against food prices, the drive being concentrated against food prices and the farmer. According to an article in the Globe

Foreign Exchange Conservation
and Mail of January 12, 1948, thirty-three and a third per cent of every dollar earned in Canada, when paid out for goods and services, goes into taxation, in hidden taxes of one kind and another. What does that actually mean to a family in the city of London? The average weekly wage in the city of London is $34.95. Of that amount, $11.66 is made up of taxes. No wonder food prices are high! Actually the money spent on food, clothing and shelter is not $34.95 but $23.29, the remainder, $11.66, going into taxation. No wonder the government has a fictitious surplus of $700 million! That works out at between $55 and $60 taken from every man, woman and child in Canada without reason, and for a family of four persons it means $240. That $240 would buy a lot of butter, beef, bacon and milk. It would help to take care of some of the high cost of living. If it was not taken from the people in taxes it would be easier for them to pay today's prices for butter and milk and bacon and eggs.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It helps pay for the cost of the war, too.


Harry Oliver White: On top of that another tax was added on November 17. Let us see who carries this burden of taxation. Ordinarily it is those least able to carry the burden. How is it that it is mainly the low income groups and those on fixed incomes, the wage earner, the white-collar worker, pensioners, and the farmers who carry the burden? It is because they are the end guys. They cannot pass it on to anyone else.
Recently a gesture was made in the direction of reimposing price ceilings, but they were all imposed on farm products.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On fertilizers, too.


Gordon Graydon: The minister ought to know something about that.


Harry Oliver White: The ceilings were not reimposed on many of the things the farmer has to buy. The ceiling on fertilizer was just another gesture. The price ceilings that were reimposed do not produce one pound more of butter, beef, bacon or anything else. The taxation imposed by this bill is increasing the costs of the producer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no taxation imposed by this bill.


Harry Oliver White: I want to endorse what the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said about the development of our coal resources. At present we are largely dependent on the United States for our coal supply and yet, as he mentioned, in Alberta and the maritimes we
have vast coal resources. After all we did in the war, surely we can do something to develop the coal resources of this country.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, I listened on the night of the 17th of November to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the speech which came to us from London; later I listened with great interest to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Shortly after they had stopped speaking I was asked by a newspaper what I thought of the policy that had been enunciated by the leader of the government and stated in greater detail by my hon. friend. I said, and it appeared in the press next morning, on November 18:
It is a great tragedy that the only two remaining freely trading nations should in peacetime at the instigation of Canada, put up a curtain on their trading relations.
To admit that a country like Canada, whose whole destiny depends on multilateral trade, should suggest restrictions and controls is one of the most humiliating pages in Canadian history. It reveals the desperation of a government incapable of high policy.
Possibly' if I had had a little more time I might have expressed the same thought in language a little more temperate. However, that was my opinion, and whether it be good or bad it is one that I retain and one that has been fortified by the events which have taken place since these two remarkable utterances.
I ask hon. gentlemen to take a general view of the situation which confronted the Minister of Finance on the day of his pronouncement. Some two and a half years had elapsed since the end of hostilities. I am one of those who believed in 1945 and said then that the wise policy for the government to follow after the cessation of hostilities was to do away with all the controls which had been introduced as a war measure and which we had borne during the period of the war for the purpose of winning the war. Two and a half years have gone by but controls are still with us. By extraordinary means we revived, a little while before the war, the War Measures Act, chapter 206 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. The National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, chapter 25 of the statutes of 1945, was enacted on December 18, 1945. A few months later it was extended by chapter 60 of the statutes of 1946. Then we passed the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, 1947, which became effective on May 1, 1947; and last autumn we passed a measure which made controls operative until the end of March. 1948. We are confronted now with this Bill No. 3 and I am as certain as I am
Foreign Exchange Conservation

that I stand in my place that more legislation continuing controls will confront us before the end) of this session.
I ask the minister, what have controls given us? Immediately after the end of the war we were told that we did not want the high prices which followed the first great war. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) were here he w'ould recall that he took occasion-and others about him joined in-to chide me because I said something about butter going to seventy cents a pound; that I did not consider it would be a great tragedy if for once that element of our community who made butter, the farmers, shared in the so-called prosperity that had resulted from the war. What have all these controls given us? We know' that there were high prices after the first great war. But I put it to hon. gentlemen, two and a half years after the first great war was there the same confusion,; was there the same disturbance in all realms of national activity that wre find today? Were people frustrated, and was government enmeshed, despondent and helpless as it is today? As a result of controls we have had shortages, strikes, high cost of living, inflation, inader-quate production and, finally, what? More controls. Is that not a fair statement? Is that not a fair recapitulation of the story of the last two and a half years?
I understand that the minister was very much disturbed by the rapid disappearance of United States dollars which are required for the purchase in the United States of some things essential and some things that may not be quite so essential. The hon. member for Oape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who spoke this afternoon, made some reference to the inadequacy of Canada's supply of fuel, that coal and oil are not in as abundant supply here as in some other countries. That, unfortunately, is true; yet we have here something that is called white coal. We have vast quantities of hydro-electric power, which is still in the process of being developed and which in a large measure is a substitute for fuel. Our sources of hydro electric energy have not yet been fully exploited, and they to a large extent could replace the shortage to which the hon. member for Cape Breton South has referred. I say with him-and it has not often been my good fortune to agree with him-that if I thought this bill would achieve the purpose which the minister says he believes it will achieve I would oppose it with some regret, though I would still oppose it, because there is in the bill a kernel of error, a fundamental wrongness which cannot be cured.

Let us look at our present situation. We are told that we have inflation. That means, to put it very simply, that there is more purchasing power, there is more money about than there are goods available for purchase. The result is high prices. That is the crying trouble of the hour. It was in an effort to cope with the rising cost of living, in an effort to prevent foodstuffs from going to higher levels, that controls were re-imposed the other day on butter and meat. Here I open a parenthesis to say that butter has become a very scarce commodity because the policy of the government forced the dairymen, at least of eastern Canada, out of the dairy business, made it impossible for the farmer of the eastern townships to produce butter at a profit, forced him to sell his herds, because the farmers could not afford to feed them; we have seen going across the international boundary into the United States hundreds of thousands of dairy cattle that were required to meet the needs of the Canadian people. That is one of the immediate results of controls. My point is that the crisis which the minister is attempting to meet by Bill No. 3 is a crisis created by the policy of the government; the government, in its effort to manage everybody's business, has failed and caused this crisis.
Look at the record. What has the government done in housing? What has it done in reducing the cost of living? What has it done to benefit the farmer? I will not recite the whole litany of the failure of government policy; it would preclude me from discussing the bill. This bill, having in view the high cost of living, having in view inflation, says what? It says that the Canadian people shall not import from the United States goods which are desired here. It will create a shortage of goods. There will be fewer goods to buy. The result is that the prices of the goods which are available will go up and Canada will have higher prices and more inflation.
I think that is a necessary result if this bill becomes law. And how by the restriction of the importation of capital goods like machinery and steel we can hope to increase production I do not know. We are told on all sides that the solution of our trouble is increased production. We have full employment. How then we shall increase, production by cutting off the supply of capital goods, that is to say the means of increasing our industrial plant and producing capacity, is just something that one of my feeble mentality is unable to grasp. How we can hope to produce more goods when-if we accept the boast of the government-we have, full employment, without an immigration policy, is again a matter I do not understand.

Foreign Exchange Conservation
I say, therefore, that on all these counts the bill introduced by the hon. gentleman will not achieve the purpose which he wishes to achieve by it.
I should like to say a few words on another aspect of the bill. Why is the Canadian dollar incapable of purchasing United States dollars at parity? I think one of the reasons is that Canada has so controlled its finances, has made so insecure the Canadian dollar in the hands of the American, that the American feels that, whatever the inherent value of the dollar, it has been so bedevilled by the controlling agencies in Canada that it is not a safe commodity in which to invest.
We need capital in this country. We have a vast hinterland. We can hope to emerge from the heavy debt that has been imposed upon us by war, and by sundry pastimes in which the government has indulged on the eve of elections, only by the development of our natural resources; andi for that purpose we need capital. We need capital that will come from outside our own economy. We need capital that is willing to gamble on the possibility of success of the venture in which it is engaged, and we have slammed the door in the face of those who would come here and invest in our country.
Why have we done that? We have done that through fear, fear of economic domination. If anybody doubts that, let him turn to the preface of the control act of 1946. The full title of the measure is "An act respecting the control of the acquisition and disposition of foreign currency and the control of transactions involving foreign currency or non-residents." It declares:
Whereas it is desirable to control and protect the value of the Canadian monetary unit in relation to foreign currencies . . . and
Whereas it is desirable to ensure that the said resources in foreign currency are used to promote and facilitate trade and other normal current transactions with other countries and are not dissipated through disadvantageous exports of capital from Canada or for other purposes disadvantageous to Canada as a whole

What that means simply is that the citizens of the United States who have brought their money here in good faith and have put it into the development of our resources are no longer free to take it back as and when they determine proper. The act continues:
. . . to aid in the control and protection of the value of the Canadian monetary unit in relation to foreign currencies and to supervise and control transactions between residents of Canada and residents of other countries which involve or relate to foreign currencies.
That was bad enough. At that level Canada was controlling her dollars on the basis of economics. But today we have descended to another level. We have now come to the
political level, and I assert that this political manipulation of our dollar is one of the most dangerous undertakings that any Canadian government has ever entered upon.
After all, our friends in the United States are people who, like ourselves, do not rejoice in being discriminated against, and if we say to them that we are not going to allow goods which they make come within our territory then they may very properly say that goods which they need at home such as coal, oil, sugar and cotton may not come into Canada. I say that this legislation and other legislation like it, which is essentially political and which is passed for the purpose of securing political favour at this particular time, invites retaliation, misunderstanding, ill will and trouble between the two great peoples of this North American continent.
Now why this Bill No. 3? The Foreign Exchange Control Act confers broad powers upon the government, and yet they are held to be inadequate. When we see the broad powers that are conferred upon the government; when we are told that they no longer suffice; when we turn to the act and read that a minister, w'ithout let or hindrance, is to have the power to rewrite the whole fiscal policy of our country, for no better reason than that he dislikes the colour of somebody's hair, it makes one wonder seriously where the country is going and what has become of parliament itself.
Hon. gentlemen are familiar with the terms of the Foreign Exchange Control Act. It gives the broadest powers. It is effective until March, 1949, an adequate period within which to overcome any little difficulty. But no, the government says it is not sufficient. We find in section 6 of the bill which is before the house at the present time, that the minister is empowered to rewrite any order in council which may have been passed. Here are the terms of the act. Under section 5 the governor in council may make regulations; and one would think the governor in council would be pretty busy if he made regulations for all the possibilities that are set forth in this section 5. But not content with that we have section 6.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I never like to interrupt my hon. friend, but are we in order in discussing sections of the bill on second reading?


Mr. HACKETT:: Mr. Speaker, I submit I am in order. I am dealing with the principle of the bill. To illustrate how pernicious is the principle of the bill I cite paragraph (c) of section 6, which is in these terms:
(c) in particular cases or classes of cases, from time to time, prescribe terms of, and eondi-

Foreign Exchange Conservation
'tions to a permit or the permission granted in a permit additional to those prescribed by regulation.
This means that the regulations in themselves, as I said a moment ago, may be torn up at any time and completely altered and modified by the right hon. gentleman whose duty it is to administer them. That subsection is inserted for a political purpose. On several occasions I have pointed out that we have become so used to disrespect and perversion of the constitution that we sometimes forget we have one. It is admitted that in cases of emergency like war the normal operation of the constitution is suspended and extraordinary powers may toe assumed by the cabinet. The federal government in such an emergency may even over-ride and supersede provincial jurisdiction. The government has provided emergencies every time we have had political crises. I submit, with the utmost deference, that at the present time there is no emergency whatever. This is merely a political crisis, and to meet it the government is resorting to those methods which were resorted to in the dangers of war. These crises are not peculiar to ourselves. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance does not remember from personal recollection any more than I do, but his birth and sojourn on the border has taught him well that the time was when it took two United States dollars to buy one Canadian dollar. That time went on, not for months but for years. At that time there was no attempt to prevent the purchase in Canada of goods that were just as desperately needed in the United States as United States goods are needed here today. Yet there was no attempt in the United States to meet that political crisis in the way in which we are attempting to meet this political crisis.
I venture the suggestion that this bill is unconstitutional. Somebody may say, "What section of the British North America Act does it contravene?" My answer is that the constitution is not contained in its entirety within that statute. The Canadian constitution is a living thing. It is something that is made up of custom, of tradition and of respect for the way we have lived, worked, prayed, and prospered for seventy or eighty years. It is based upon the respect for a long tradition which emerged from great trials and much bloodshed and which gave to those who came before us that measure of freedom which made Britain looked to and envied by all freedom-loving peoples. Our constitution is not found in its entirety and exclusively within the four corners of that document which was enacted at Westminster in 1867 and which became effective here on the first day of July of that year. That was merely an outline or a char-

ter; it did not by any means contain the whole doctrine, the whole belief, the whole tradition of the constitution that ensured the dignity and freedom of the Canadian citizen.
Just where have we ceased to be constitutional? Canada has a constitutional, representative, responsible form of government; and here we find legislation brought in which is nothing more than a laissez passer. This house has been asked to say that the right hon. gentleman, the minister-what is he minister of now?


Mr. ROWE:: What is he not minister of?


Gordon Graydon: He has had every portfolio except that of Prime Minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That has been mentioned a number of times. We will take it as read.


Gordon Graydon: That is what you would like us to do.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Other hon. members anticipated that crack.


John Thomas Hackett: The right hon. gentleman who was minister of reconstruction is now under Bill No. 3 to be able to re-write the tariff legislation of this country as many times a day as he wishes and he is to be able to determine who is entitled to favour and who is not. Paragraph (c) reads:
In particular cases or classes of cases, from time to time, prescribe terms of, and conditions to a permit or the permission granted in a permit additional to those prescribed by regulation.
Mr. Speaker, if we were to transfer ourselves to that remote land of Russia and we were dealing with an economic problem, I ask you how could any administrator, how could any gentleman in the position of Mr. Stalin, have more absolute, uncontrolled and irresponsible latitude than this house is asked to confer upon the minister of reconstruction? If that is not unconstitutional; if that is not a perversion; if that is not turning to ridicule the whole theory of parliamentary government, the whole theory of the responsibility of government, then I am sadly mistaken.
I would draw to the attention of the house the fact that the difficulty goes far beyond that. We hear bandied about from time to time the term "bureaucrat". I am not for one moment going to quarrel with the gentlemen who control our economy if this bill become law; but how many times has it happened in this parliament that ministers have come to the house and been absolutely baffled and puzzled and even taken by surprise by orders in council the existence of which they had denied, and which, I believe in all sincerity, they knew nothing about.

Foreign Exchange Conservation
How can it be expected that a person, even one with the incomparable energy, talent and ability of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), can hope in detail to supervise the multifarious trades, deals and negotiations of individual Canadians? Yet he has said that each case has to be dealt with on its merits. That opens the door to all kinds of difficulties and abuses. It means that men who owe no responsibility to parliament are going to write and rewrite every day the tariff laws of the dominion. It means that so long as this legislation is on the statute books we shall be subject to management by men who are not elected by the people of Canada, who owe no duty to the people of Canada, or, so far as that goes, to parliament itself.
In my submission this is utterly and completely unconstitutional. It is a tearing asunder; it is a disruption and destruction of the constitution; it is the bringing into existence of another and new method of managing the affairs of the country. It is putting the people of Canada back under the yoke of controls, making parliamentary control farcical and futile.
I ask the Minister why he goes on with this bill. What lasting benefits does he expect Canada to derive from it? Can he turn to any country at any time in the history of humanity in which a group of men, good and talented as they may be-to say nothing of a single individual-has ever been able to manage successfully the affairs of a whole people? I admonish the government that for their own comfort in debate it would do well to keep away from the historical argument, because it points to the conclusion that men should not be so self-confident about their ability to plan. The general record of. mankind has been- one of great poverty, and by far the most fruitful method1 ever stumbled upon to make the world richer has been that of leaving men free, within the limits of criminal and1 civil law, and letting them engage their energies on their own account and for their own reward. This was discovered against all the instincts and traditions of kings and other rulers who found it very much against their grain to leave the public any part of the management df their own trade, manufacturing or finance.
We have never in the long story of mankind found these tactics leading anywhere but to tyranny. This is a misconceived policy. We have enjoyed liberty so long that we have forgotten its price. We have put physical comfort and material advantage on a higher plane than they should be. We have made money more important than men. We have
forgotten the importance of liberty; we have scorned the spiritual condition of freedom, and we are asked in this bill to sacrifice both to a very fleeting, futile and doubtful advantage.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in the debate until I realized the trend it was taking. In my years in the house this is the strangest debate I have ever witnessed. Here we have before us perhaps the most important measure which will be brought before the House of Commons this session. It is more important than any other measure which will come before us.
While I am not disturbed by the small number of government members who sat in the house yesterday and who are here again today-because I realize they will not do as I tell them, and perhaps will not listen too attentively anyway-the peculiar fact is that, despite the importance of this measure, not one private member on the government side of the house has stood up to give it his endorsation.


Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: Oh, yes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why is it?


Gordon Graydon: Just one?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Is it because they are all for this measure? Is it because they agree with it and are quite w-illing to leave everything to one or two cabinet ministers? One would not think so if he were to read some of the speeches made on the hustings.
This is the sounding board for members of parliament. This is the place ini which one expects them to give to the house and the government some idea as to the grievances the people have, some idea of the people's reaction to the various measures the government has passed or is proposing.
So I say that none of the private members on the government side has yet risen in his place to endorse this measure. However, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. McCubbin) does not agree with this; he is opposed to it. Recently, speaking in the town of Hensall he said, according to a newspaper article, he irked at new controls. The article states that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture went on to deplore the fact that he had picked up the paper that morning and found that the government was putting back controls. And he went on to say:
Because I represent farmers and am speaking in a riding just like my own, I want to say I will do my best to see the government puts price ceilings on the things that the farmer has to
Foreign Exchange Conservation

buy. I know the Liberal government is certainly not going to see the farmers singled out and left without protection.
If ceilings are put on what the farmer has to sell then I feel sure he is going to get a fail-deal when he goes into the buying market.
Where is that voice now? Has that voice been raised on the other side of the house urging the government to do those things which he thought ought to be done? As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture he holds a responsible position and he should be using his influence and voice to see that, those things are done which will be in the best interests of the farmers.
We must realize that for a long time we have been living in a fool's paradise. We have not faced facts. The government has never been frank and honest with the people in giving them facts. How well do we remember that prior to his going overseas the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) spoke in Toronto and gave an interview to the press. There never was a more optimistic interview given to the press then the one he gave at that time. He said there would be no depression in Canada, that there was no danger of these austerities which might come as a result of these things. Then he left for the old country on what was to be just a little trip, nothing of any great importance. He came back and went to Washington and that is when the trouble started. That is where the schemes that we are questioning today were formulated.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know my hon. friend wants to be correct. I did not come back and go to Washington.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Then you went to Washington and then over there. I mean that you were in Washington.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was in Washington ten days ago and I had not been there before for four years.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Never once since the end of the war two and a half years ago has this government taken the people of this country into its confidence and told them the things that it ought to have told them. During the war we appealed to the people of this country to support the government in its war measures. The people of Canada showed that they were prepared in times of peace to do everything necessary to rehabilitate and reconstruct this country, to keep our industries going, to make it the type of country expected by the returned man.
A great deal of work was done by the industries of this country. When the famous white book on reconstruction was got out after a

lengthy survey of the industries across this country, industry generally' co-operated in every possible way to formulate plans along with the government and the department of reconstruction to keep industries going, in order that our people might be gainfully employed and to provide those'things which the people needed and had been without during the war. Where is that white book now? Who ever hears of it? Who ever hears of that planning?
As we have said, the same thing is true all the way through the picture. The post-war planning of this government has been null and void. The government has kept us living in a fool's paradise. We have finally reached the time when the private members of the government will not stand up in this house to endorse this measure. The chickens have come home to roost; the day of action has long passed; the day of reckoning is here.
For many months tariff experts from the different nations of the world sat at Geneva. They put in a lot of hard work in an effort to try' to plan a new world system of trade. I believe in protection and so does everyone else in this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It does not matter whether a man belongs to a trade union, he believes in a type of production. The man on the farm believes in a type of production. The industrialist believes in a type of production. The merchant believes in a type of production. Doctors and lawyers are more protectionists than anyone else. Like many thousands of others engaged in industry, like many thousands working in industry, I was looking forward to the day when those Geneva .agreements- would become law. People were prepared to modify their views on protection because they felt that, as a result of these Geneva agreements, we would have more trade in the world and gainful employment would be provided for our people and we would be able to help to rehabilitate the countries which had been devastated by the war.
I said that none of the ministers has been honest with our people. At noon today I heard a man speak and he referred to the frankness which had been shown in Great Britain. How well we remember the words that Churchill used when he told the people that he could promise them only blood, sweat and tears. This gentleman told us how Sir Stafford Cripps had said the other day that the country would have to work to produce. Ever since the end of the war not once have we heard anything in the way of pessimism

______________Foreign Exchange Conservation
from members of the cabinet. This at a time when we should have heard some note of pessimism. The Canadian people should have been made to realize what they would have to go through in the course of months or perhaps years.
Then the famous night came when the Geneva agreements were to be made known to the world. Along with hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions, we listened to hear what these Geneva agreements would mean. Here was the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) speaking from London and telling us what was being done. We listened attentively. We could not get all the details, but at first hand we thought that here was something which would be helpful. Perhaps in the working out there would have to be changes made, as is always done with trade agreements, but we felt that this was a start, that here was a large group of nations willing to co-operate on such a vital matter as world trade and the betterment of world conditions.
Then suddenly the Minister of Finance came on the air and the Geneva agreements were nullified then and there. World trade was stopped. I laughed to myself because I realized that hon. gentlemen opposite in some parts of the country have been more free traders than anyone else, and in other parts of the country they have been, high protectionists. They have always labelled us with being the friends of great industry, as being the seekers of high protection; but here was the Minister of Finance, not asking just for higher tariffs, but asking for dictatorial tariff powers which would say to a manufacturer, You cannot bring in anything.
When the minister had finished I began to realize something of the ramifications of what he had said and how it would work out. My wife and I had been sitting there listening to the two speeches, and I said to her, "This means the reimposition of controls. Controls must come back because he is taking away competition. The produce of the farmers and fruit and vegetable growers of this country is no longer in the hands of the producers but in the hands of the canners and the middlemen, in the hands of those who store this produce in great warehouses for months and months. So we immediately saw what would happen. The minister must surely have come to realize, as everyone else does, that there are certain immutable laws of economics and that if you start to interfere with one or two of them you must interfere with them all. If you control one thing you must control everything. If the farmer changes one cog on the binder on his farm he must change them all. It is the same with the law of economics and the
laws of nature. They work very well until man starts to interfere. Trees are grown, for instance, to keep streams running. It is the same with the law of economics. This government has been continually monkeying and fooling with them until it has now brought the country into such a chaotic condition that no one knows where he stands. The minister has now started to reimpose some controls.
But what else did he do? After reading his explanation of his austerity program in the papers next day, I asked myself: Is this a "save Canada" policy or a "save Truman" policy? I just wonder. The government is putting an excise tax on goods that are wholly produced and sold in this country, goods made solely of Canadian material. This tax has so increased prices that these goods are now out of reach of a good many people. The price of an electric stove, for example, immediately shot up from S150 to $185, and increases in the same proportion took place in the price of almost every household requirement in this country. It seemed to me as if there was only one explanation. In order to get the acquiescence of the United States to these restrictions the Minister of Finance had to say to them: We shall put such a heavy excise tax on goods manufactured in this country which ordinarily would compete with your goods moving across the border into Canada that our people will not be able to buy them, or industry produce them, so that when we rescind this austerity program, you can make these goods in your industries in the United States and send them in here, and Canadians can walk the streets.
But there is more than that. We promised -and when I say we I mean this house.-that the men returning from overseas would be looked after when they came back and be provided with homes and with all those things that were necessary to rehabilitate them and get them back into civilian life. And we started a housing policy. Now we find that a twenty-five per cent excise tax has been imposed on refrigerators. There was a time when a refrigerator was looked upon as a luxury, and perhaps even today in some old-fashioned homes a refrigerator, if we have to have these austerity measures, may still be looked upon as something of a luxury. But on the other hand we have built thousands of homes across this country for the veterans, and in spite of all we did to force the government to build for the veterans decent homes with cellars under them, many of these homes have no cellars today, and to the veteran living in one of these homes without a cellar a refrigerator is just as necessary as any other piece of furniture. Yet the government says
60S

Foreign Exchange Conservation
to him: You cannot have a refrigerator unless you are willing to pay twenty-five per cent more for it, unless you are willing to pay $375 for a $300 refrigerator. That is the situation we have today.
Last night the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), in speaking to the construction association, is reported in this morning's Globe and Mail to have said that profiteering is the one great curse in this country, and that it was the one thing which would break down our economy and private enterprise. Here on the one hand we have the Minister of Labour condemning profiteering, and on the other we have the Minister of Finance making profiteering possible by his controls and the like which are upsetting the whole economic machinery of this country.
And now what are we to have? We are to have a czar in charge of industry. I do not question any man's desire to be fair and honest in the administration of the powers entrusted to him; but, as the hon. member who has just sat down has very well said, it is impossible for any human being to administer such a bill as this and be fair and impartial throughout the whole of his administration.
What happened when the austerity program was announced to the people of this country? Immediately industry started to get worried. Many of them approached me and asked what they should do. I told them to wait, to be patient and see how this thing worked out. I said perhaps the government knows what it is doing; but if it does it is the first time it ever did. So we waited for some days, but no clarification was forthcoming and chaos became worse and worse. We found that the furniture industry, for example, was told that it could not bring in veneers; the textile industry was told that it could not bring in certain cottons that we cannot make in Canada, and other industries found themselves in similar difficulties. Those difficulties have not yet been overcome. Those industries are still waiting and worrying about what is to be done. Do the members of this house representing the various constituencies have to come to Ottawa on behalf of the industries in their ridings and personally interview the new czar we are creating by this bill, or is this to be done by the industries themselves writing in? Just how is this thing going to work? Already I find that some decisions are being made. According to a report in the Brantford Expositor there is an industry there which makes golf clubs, golf balls, squash racquets, tennis racquets, curling paraphernalia and other sporting goods, and according to this newspaper report that industry thanks their member for intervening with the government 
and having the excise tax taken off the sporting goods made in that city, while the tax of twenty-five per cent is still retained on the refrigerators which the veterans of this country need.
My contention is that the time has come when hon. members must take a stand. It is all very well for them to say, "If this goes to a vote, we shall have to support the government," and then be free to go out on the hustings and say, "I could not do anything else. Those darn Tories and C.C.F.'ers in the house forced us."
Whatever has happened in this country with regard to our industrial and financial condition is due entirely to the lack of planning on the part of the government and to the fact that they have kept the people of Canada in ignorance of the true conditions. Therefore they must accept their responsibility, and the government members of the house will have to accept theirs as well.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I cannot rise to the heights of oratory of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, but I can supplement what the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) has said by giving illustrations of others who express the views of the Liberal party on the subject of Bill No. 3. He called attention to one Liberal member who said in his constituency or thereabouts that he would fight this thing in the House of Commons, but there has been no sign or word from him up to the present time. Another one of these members made a visit to my constituency, and he advanced an argument in support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have to report to you that his argument was merely "that Liberal party members should defend the dominion government's recent economic measures so that the party would not face an avalanche of misunderstanding at the next general election."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: That hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, was the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris). He was accompanied on this occasion by no less a person than the leader of the Liberal party in Ontario, who delivered himself of another equally searching statement. He had this to say to the people of my constituency:
It is implied in the principle of democracy that a political party which makes solemn vows should fulfil them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. CLEAVER:: No wonder the Tories laugh at that.

______________Foreign Exchange Conservation


Lawrence Wilton Skey: He should be on the cabinet benches in Ottawa.


William Earl Rowe: Maybe he wants to get there. He is the one who announced the Prime Minister's resignation.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I now return to the more serious material which I have before me. First, to give the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) a rest, if for no other reason, I should like to refer to the speech made last night by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), and the one made this afternoon by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Both of these hon. gentlemen referred to our United States neighbour in a way which I think was uncomplimentary, and which showed a want of knowledge of the United States and of our position with relation to her.
First, the hon. member for Mackenzie took it upon himself to criticize the United States because she emerged from the war strong and powerful. He held that that country should have used its resources for the common good in achieving victory. That remark will be found at page 581 of Hansard. That remark shows in particular, first, the want of knowledge of the capacity of that great country to the south of us. Had the hon. member seen what I saw during the war; had he known anything of the difficulty of fighting a war on two fronts; had he known anything of the unstinting help which the United States of America gave to all of its allies, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for whom the C.C.F. show so much admiration; had he known of any of these things he could not have made the statement he did. I suppose it merely goes to prove that the socialists are merely bankrupt capitalists, and the greatest and most outstanding thing in their philosophy is an envy of those who can produce.
The United States economy has reached its present position and its strength, which I think a sensible man will admire, because for years and years, almost since their inception, the businessmen of the United States have been able to get a hearing before their senate and house of representatives. They have been able to go to Washington and show, as businessmen, how they could increase their production, employ more people, reduce costs and generally do things to benefit their own country; and in almost every instance they have had the help of their representatives in the house and in the senate. What do we find in Canada? We find Canada faced with an industrial revolution. Can businessmen come here to Ottawa- and tell the Minister of Finance their troubles?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Yes, they can, but if they do they have to sneak in the back, which they have done in a great many instances. And if they come here and sit in the gallery-


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no back door in my office.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: If they come here and sit in the gallery what do they hear from the socialists to my left? They hear themselves blackened as capitalists, men who make a profit, when actually in this country wages have risen by a greater percentage than profits. They find themselves badgered by government; they find themselves regulated by investigators and they find themselves weighted by taxes. How can you produce in a country like Canada? We have the industry, the initiative, the foresight and the confident ability to plan, ability to fill these gaps in our own economy which are now being filled by imports from other countries, and the will and the desire to produce in order to better the standard of living of the Canadian people. How can the producers of this country find the courage, the initiative and the capital to go on when they are faced with this constant stream of envious criticism from socialists and communists alike?
We had in Toronto the other day a visitor who spoke to one of the union congresses, and he supported capitalism. He spoke before one of the same congresses that have lent their support entirely to the socialist party in Canada. His name was a Mr. Woll, a vicepresident of the American Federation of Labour. These unions which are non-communist led would do well to listen to him, because the unions and their leaders are in business. They need good working conditions; they need to see the industry in which they serve in a healthy condition. They need to be associated with a profitable enterprise, no matter what my socialist friends may say, because if an enterprise is profitable they will be justified in asking for wage increases and sharing in those profits.
It is just as simple as this. You cannot milk a starving cow, and if industry in Canada is not in a healthy condition the working people will suffer as they are suffering today under the present government embargoes. The condition we find in Canada at the present time is a pathetic one. One cannot deny the necessity of action to conserve United States exchange. One would certainly be ill advised or ignorant to try that. However, we can point out that the situation was foreseen and indicated clearly to the government. We can say that on July 5, 1946, the revaluation of the Canadian

Foreign Exchange Conservation
dollar upward hastened the crisis which I believe would have come anyway. But it hastened the crisis.
We can regret that the government has taken the advice of the socialist-minded planners instead of calling to this capital practical men skilled not only in industry but in banking and exchange matters. I will go on later to say what I think they would have recommended.


Mr. IRVINE:: Say what you recommend for a change.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: It is perfectly simple.


William Irvine: It always is.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What the hon. gentleman will recommend is what I have been waiting for. It is going to help me out.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: We would recommend that the government return to the 90-cent dollar.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Anything else?


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I have already recommended that the Minister of Finance call to Ottawa some of those in this country who are skilled in the day to day fluctuation of exchange values, as well as in commerce and in the export and import business, and he might consult the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the boards of trade.
I was going to say that in the United States they enjoy the benefit of examining exports and imports, and finance and industry before committees of the house of representatives and the senate; but when we tried to examine anything before committees of this house we are blanketed by a very cunning government policy. I have in mind, when I say that, the war assets committee, when we saw drained away into the dark comers of Canada great assets left by the armed forces of the country; assets which had been paid for dearly in taxation by the Canadian people and which were resold to them again at still higher prices.
Before I was distracted I was saying I would recommend that the government consider the policy of permitting the Canadian dollar to find its economic level in the exchanges of the world. He would be pleasantly surprised, I think, to find how much real support the Canadian dollar had, and I do not believe jit would initially fall much below ninety cents, although there might be a period of instability when it would fall below that. But if he freed it from his control at a pegged price I think he would do a great service to Canadian producers.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South says it is not an exchange crisis. I disagree with him on that statement. I feel it is

entirely an exchange crisis caused by the government's unrealistic approach to our postwar economy. Had they, perhaps eighteen months ago, started necessary restrictions through a tariff policy, which they certainly could have amended in any of the three budgets, to my mind they would have stopped the heavy imports of a great many of the capital goods and other goods into Canada which have so drained our resources of United States dollars.
Last session I received a great many complaints from producers in Canada. They all protested against the twenty-five per cent excise tax, particularly because the argument of the Minister of Finance against devaluation was that it would cause rising costs in Canada to the extent of perhaps ten per cent. I do not see how anyone in his right senses can argue that a ten per cent rise in costs in Canada is a bad thing when the Canadian consumer is faced with a twenty-five per cent rise in cost as a result of the excise tax.


Douglas Charles Abbott: On a few non-essential items.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Non-essentials such as stoves and refrigerators-


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not on stoves.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: -and a number of other things. In addition to these electrical products which have suffered the twenty-five per cent excise tax, we find the Canadian retail federation writing to us to point out how their whole import policy and planned sales have been upset by the fact that goods already on order have not been allowed to come into the country, although even United States funds in some cases had been purchased against orders placed months ago. It has damaged their relationship with their associates across the border and in some instances even such things as 25-cycle electric motors which were produced especially for some areas in Canada cannot now be imported.
I realize that the minister has already dealt with one of the items I had to bring before him, and that was the fact that the Canadian organ and piano manufacturers' association were also protesting the twenty-five per cent excise tax which had resulted in a great many cancellations of organs, causing unemployment in their industry and a restriction of the cultural benefit derived from the practice of these arts.
Then we come to food and medical supplies and we find special foods and medicines, some of great value to young children, being affected. I know of a particular industry near Toronto which was producing a widely advertised food

Foreign Exchange Conservation
preparation for young babies and it was completely restricted from import into Canada. This in itself perhaps would not have been so bad had it not caused the laying off of eighty per cent of their employees, because eighty per cent of the employees of this one plant had to be dismissed as a result of the governments' restriction of this food preparation.
That policy has also restricted in some cases the medical salve produced from petroleum products which we have been using in Canada up to the present time, to say nothing of the heavy capital losses which have been experienced by men who have put their all into businesses which they considered would be free from interference for many years to come.
I have in mind the case of a man in Toronto who must have invested upwards of half a million dollars on new premises and showrooms to advertise a product which he assembled in this country. Without any warning his halfmillion dollar investment was wiped out because the showrooms and fixtures are certainly not of much use to any other industry than the one he was in.
Then we have sporting goods. The Canadian members of the sporting goods dealers' association have written in to protest this action by the government. Some tourists who come to our country-and the socialist party have advocated that we try to attract more tourists to cure this particular difficulty-want to buy certain types of equipment which are made only in the United States. Our summer resorts have been in the habit of importing these goods just for the benefit of United States tourists and for their attraction. They are now denied this bait, so to speak. The higher costs of sporting articles, as a result of the twenty-five per cent excise tax, will restrict many juvenile and junior sporting activities. They will make it more difficult for benefactors to provide equipment for teams of youngsters. I refer to those youngsters who play on the back lots of their towns and not in the lush fields of the perhaps more privileged or spacious parts of the city; those children who have for quite a long period of time in many cases been supported by various men's organizations such as the Kiwanis, the Rotary club and so on. These organizations will be charged an extra twenty-five per cent in providing sporting equipment for these children. This might conceivably result in some rise in the juvenile delinquency rate which is, at the moment, alarming enough.
Then we have motorcycles which provincial and municipal police use, as well as many others in Canada.
5849-39J


Douglas Charles Abbott: Motorcycles are exempt from the tax when used by municipal or provincial police.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When they come from Britain, you are taxing them.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Then we come to furniture and furniture products, which the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) mentioned in his speech. The government was surprised, I know, to find that Canada was such a heavy importer of wood products of specialized types such as finished quality oak, walnut, mahogany veneer, red cedar lumber and other things of that kind, all wanted for special purposes, for special finishes-perhaps to adorn an article for re-export.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I know my hon. friend does not want to use up his time unnecessarily. I think he will find, when we get to committees, that a number of these articles which are used for special purposes are being allowed in under quota.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I appreciate that. That shows how little t'he government knew what they were doing when they put a tax on those things. My socialist friends did/ not seem to consider it a happy solution to ask some businessmen here to advise them, but I submit that the evidence I am putting before the house is proof that that is a wise policy.
In one case I know of, a furniture company operating near the border imports five per cent of the value of its finished product from the United States, but that is a vital five per cent. It found that this import was denied to them. Under the regulations they would then have been able to re-export to the United States and thus earn their dollars because of their low cost of production in Canada. They were temporarily frustrated because they could not import.
Then we come to the question of office equipment. Even the government has on order business machines, Ediphones, Dictaphones and things of that type which increase efficiency in government as well as in business. None of these machines are produced here, but up to the present time there has been no assistance given or no policy enunciated as far as they are concerned, to my knowledge; whereas some business machines with exactly similar functions in their own way are permitted to enter the country. We find companies like the Howard1 Smith Company, General Electric, Westinghouse, -and Ford, as well as the federal and provincial governments, frustrated because the equipment they had on order cannot be delivered to them.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Foreign Exchange Conservation

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Mr. Speaker, in the twenty minutes which remain to me I intend to address myself to some other aspects of the bill, and I would first discuss the power given to the minister and those under him. In this connection I should like to cite the example of another man who was given similar powers, a man whose name will be familiar to hon. members because at the present time through his actions one section of United States industry is tied up in a vicious strike. His name is Caesar Petrillo.
I was going to suggest that this bill might have been called the Abbott and Petrillo bill. At page 11 of Time magazine for January 26 of this year, Mr. Petrillo's powers are set out. In 1936 Mr. Petrillo was granted power as an international president of the A.F.M. by writing into the union's bylaws, as a section, the following:
(a)	It shall be his duty to enforce the constitution, bylaws, standing resolutions or other laws and resolutions or
(b)	annul or set aside same or any portion thereof and substitute other provisions of his own making.
I am sure that must strike hon. members as it does me, as a parallel case with this Bill No. 3. The powers granted the minister under the bill are exactly similar, except that he has an additional power in that he is not only given it for his own use, but under section 6 (1) (d) he can authorize any other person, under his control and direction, to act on his behalf. So it will be seen that this bill is even worse in the powers that it gives than are the powers given to Mr. Caesar Petrillo, the head of the musicians union in the United States.
We have seen the result of Mr. Petrillo's powers. He has tied up a whole industry. The powers the ministers now have are quite sufficient for them to tie up the whole of Canada. When the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) says he is going to vote against the bill because the minister has no power, I think he is drawing a pretty long bow.
It is because of these powers that I feel we should hear from those Liberals who still remain Liberals and are true to their traditional beliefs. We should hear from the men who represent Montreal, Windsor, Quebec.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You will.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: _ We will hear from the minister, later; he represents Westmount, of course.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And Montreal, too.
Mr. SKEY': I only wish Your Honour could step down to the floor of the house, and speak

for your constituency, because I do not think you would support this bill with its exceptional powers. I feel that every Liberal who sits on the government side of the house will be answerable to his constituency, when the election comes along, as to how he voted on this measure.


James Joseph McCann: Look after yourself.


Douglas Charles Abbott: So will every Conservative.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: And they ought either to vote
against it or stay out of the house.
This afternoon the hon. member for Stan-stead (Mr. Hackett) mentioned how controls of this nature begot further controls, until the whole of the economy is under the control of the government. We have a warning to that effect in Hansard at page 539, a warning from no less a person than the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), where he says:
So far as the government is concerned this would have the advantage of allowing the Minister of Finance a little more time for the preparation of further measures he will have to bring on later.
We see the words, "Further measures he will have to bring on later"-more controls, more bedevilment of the industry of Canada. Now we have seen the results of government interference with industry. We have seen it with particular clarity in respect of the gold mines. Once the government placed its withering hand on the gold mines of Canada, their future became more and more obscure; and the government has so discouraged this great dollar-earning industry that it is producing at less than half of its capacity. The government has denied it a free market. Why? Because the government wants to control that industry. It wants to control gold just as it wants to control industry.
The government has tied Canadian gold mining to the international monetary fund, a fund which received its first blow on Saturday, when the French republic devalued the franc and became a realistic trader in the world's export markets.
The gold mines are also harassed by the government's taxation measures, which are so stringent that they have caused as much as twenty per cent absenteeism in some parts of the country. This absenteeism results from inhuman taxation methods. In 1939 an exemption of SI,000 was allowed a working man, and $2,000 to him if he was married. With the purchasing power of the dollar forty per cent depreciated, that $1,000 should now become $1,400 for the single working man and $2,800 for the married man. But what is it in reality? With an exemption of $750, and a forty per cent depreciated purchasing

Foreign Exchange Conservation
power, the working man today starts to pay taxes at the $450 level when compared with 1939 standards.
Taking 1939 as the basis, the married man starts to pay a tax when he has reached the equivalent of the $900 level. We have there a difference between a real exemption of $1,400, as it should be at present day rates, and an exemption of only $450, for the single working man.
This excessive taxation gives rise to many social problems. All the veterans are concerned. Those who are married are being miserably squeezed. This condition comes right down to the administration of rent control when we see the rentals administrator ruling in favour of veterans and penalizing landlords so that they may help the veterans over this difficult period. We see these boys and girls piling up debts, and developing friction in their home lives. They are faced with tremendous rising living costs. The working man and his family are suffering equally. He has had to curtail purchases of food; his clothing budget is reduced, as are his budgets for recreation and cultural interests. At the same time his fear of unemployment is greater because high taxes make it impossible for him to save.
Turning to the situation in France, Great Britain, Sweden and other trading countries of the world we see them thwarted by the Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks agreements, which pegged currency values at the end of the war. No account was then taken of the tremendous readjustment of currency values which must inevitably follow the destruction in Europe. Their theory was that there should be rigid control of capital and money. However, at considerable cost to the Canadian people the government has learned that it cannot control the commodities it sought to control. Capital and money are notoriously timid and invisible and they will move in spite of regulations and will therefore be impossible to regulate.
I predict that the government will be unable to enforce its currency restrictions, that the dollar will continue to be traded at around ninety cents or possibly less on the free market and that eventually England will have to follow France's move and devalue the pound in order to export. I predict that the government's planners when confronted with the present situation will prove inadequate to their task. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question.
Mr. ABBOTT; Ask it in committee, not on second reading.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: He has had from Saturday to consider the effects of the devaluation of the franc and he should have in mind some course of action which should be followed by this country to keep us from the worst effects of a currency debacle. That is what we are headed for. This currency debacle is being brought about by the policies of the international monetary fund. Those policies have been unrealistic. The currencies of all countries in the trading world, with the exception of Switzerland, have been overvalued in terms of United States dollars. This over-valuation makes it impossible for some countries to export to the United States and it makes it difficult for others to do the same thing.
What has brought about this situation? It is caused by the fact that a nation's money and credit find their true reflection in the exchange markets of the world. That reflection in the exchange markets of the world is a direct result of the particular government's monetary policy. The most, influential thing in setting the value of a country's currency in the markets of the world is the government's policy. If that policy is inflationary, then the money of that country will be cheap. If the policy is a stable one, then, that country will find it easy to trade. If the policy is deflationary, then there will be a demand for that currency and its value will rise on the exchange markets of the world.
I wish to emphasize that this valuation is influenced by the government's monetary policy. It can also be influenced substantially by the productivity of a country, the quality and quantity of the goods produced and the demand for those products in other countries. But I repeat that the most important thing is the financial policies of the government in office. The government has had one answer to its financial policy. The government went to the United States and was told that it was a good risk for only $300,000,000. That poor credit results directly from the course on which the government has guided this country since the end of world war II.
The international bank has been a brake on world trade. They have undervalued the United States dollar and have hindered exports by other countries to the United States. In some cases the effect has been to add as much as 100 per cent to the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Nobody can sell to them under conditions such as that. If we wish world trade to survive, and I am sure we all do, we must first have realistic currency values and then the removal of artificial barriers and controls. We may then find that
Foreign Exchange Conservation

other countries will be content to lower their tariffs and thus create a more stable trading economy.
When I commenced my remarks I said that I would1 make certain recommendations to the government. I make them now in goodi faith. I recommend that the government call in immediately the exchange experts from the banks and exchanges of Canada and hear their views, in private if necessary but preferably in public, on the present inflationary monetary policy being followed by the government. I would recommend that with the inauguration of the price spreads committee we should institute an exchange probe. These practical men have the knowledge to deal with the socialist planners who are now advising the government and they would be able to teach them some of the principles of international monetary exchange.
I think the government should withdraw the bill at this point and permit the Canadian dollar to find its own level in the free market. If necessary they should amend the tariff in order to stem the tide of excessive imports.
In closing I invite hon, members of the Liberal party who are true Liberals to stand up and declare themselves on this measure. I invite them to stand up and be counted because I know that those who are real Liberals will vote against the bill.
Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St, Paul's): Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the minister and his colleagues for the predicament in which they find themselves, but perhaps I should not because they have only themselves to blame for having got into this mess, and it really is a mess. It is simply something of their own making. I have a couple of folders here filled with protests in connection with this bill. I do not intend to deal with these tonight because there will be opportunity later if the bill should get second reading. I hope that it will not pass the second reading. Surely if Liberals on the other side of the house feel free to express themselves on this thing and vote as they want to, the bill will not pass. So much for that.
I wonder if hon. members realize that when the government believes it is in the best interests of its own policies it may pass any order it pleases with regard to trade, regardless of the legislation which parliament itself has enacted or may enact? Do hon. members realize that this bill gives the government the power to prohibit absolutely the importation of goods from another country which the government may allege it is in the public interest to prohibit? This parliament is to

part with its right to say what is to be imported. As I have said, the effort is to get away from parliament altogether.
Let me pause and ask my hon. friends who support this legislation whether they believe in the old principle of no taxation without representation.
They accuse our party of standing for certain principles and Shibboleths. Well, if we stand for them, we stand for them because they have been the security of men and nations through the centuries and they are the things that have stood up against revolution and against the kind of movements hon. gentlemen-the C.C.F.-are fomenting at the present time.
I appeal to horn, members on this last opportunity they will have of recording where they stand on these great fundamental principles to forget their party prejudices and show by their votes that they regard as more essential than all else the proper parliamentary proceedings in all matters pertaining to the control of taxation and expenditure by the people's representatives in parliament, and that they regard as more sacred than all else the maintenance of the constitution of the country and of all that constitutional government seeks to secure.
I have borrowed these words with a few changes. They are not mine, but they seem to be very appropriate to the present occasion, and that is the appeal which I now make. The government has, of course, power now to prohibit the export of goods from this countiy and is using that power in banning the export, for instance, of cattle. The words I have quoted were the words of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King); and I can think of no better way of appealing to my hon. friends opposite than by having just quoted them, if they believe in the principles of freedom, liberty of the individual and of free enterprise. I think the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the cabinet have forgotten what he called fundamental principles. Those principles seem to have disappeared from the Liberal platform these days. The Liberal party seems to me, and is, we know, a party which, if anything goes wrong, at once resorts to a little more regimentation, putting a few more controls on. They have not the courage of their convictions to stand up for these principles but are interfering with business all the time. It seems to me that that appeal which the Prime Minister himself made should be sufficient to convince hon. gentlemen opposite. It was spoken under the difficulties which beseiged the government of that day.
I suggest that the members on the other side of the house stand up and show by (heir votes

Foreign Exchange Conservation
that parliament is supreme and that they do not intend to delegate these extraordinary and arbitrary powers to the discretion of any one person. Let them show that they still stand for the principles of freedom, free enterprise and liberty of the_ individual, and that they believe in the right of the citizen to recourse to the courts. How strange it is that the Prime Minister should have held those principles then and that he holds the principles that he does today! It is just a right-about face. Scant attention has been paid to the principles which he held out to his party for so long and which the public had been led to believe were the mainstay of his party.
One of the difficulties with this administration is that they cannot get used to parliamentary control. They have had a free hand for so long and they are still war-minded. They refuse to let the laws of economics work. The sooner we get back to those laws, the better it will be for Canada and the less we shall suffer in the long run.
This bill takes away from parliament its supremacy. That is one reason why I do not like it. Another reason is that it will regiment the people. Another reason is that it will mean the creation- of another large body of people to administer the act. At the present time business does not know where it stands or where it is going. That condition needs to be remedied and remedied at once.
I know of one man who wanted to bring in some goods from Great Britain. He went over to Great Britain and spent quite a lot of money in preliminary arrangements, and then this austerity program came in. Since he did not have any imports before July 1, he could not get a quota, even though, as I said, he had already spent a considerable amount of money. It is true that the goods he was going to bring in were more or less luxury goods, greeting cards, for instance, but greeting cards in Great Britain are a high-class article that we should be glad to have, -but he is prohibited from bringing them in. We shall see further about that when we get into committee.
Another reason why I do not like this bill is this. No sooner had it been announced to the public that seventeen countries had cooperated and agreed to lower tariffs on January 1 of this year than Canada made use of the escape clause in the treaty right away, just like that, and the Minister of Finance announced his austerity program nullifying all these concessions. It does seem to me that that is not quite playing the game with these other countries.
I do not know why the dollar was revalued upwards some time ago. Perhaps the government became a little afraid of the tremendous
buying that was being done by the people of the United States in Canada and thought it might lead to a shortage of goods here. The minister talks about why we cannot devalue the dollar. As a matter of fact, I cannot see any particular reason why the dollar was revalued upwards when our dollar was worth only ninety cents and is still worth only ninety cents. However, it was revalued upwards. At the same time that the dollar was revalued upwards we did have a good deal of buying by United States customers in this -country of ordinary staple goods of one kind and another which brought in United States dollars. We have lost these dollars. We also had an incentive to the tourist trade. These incentives are largely gone.
The minister talks about what the effect of devaluing the dollar would be, or what the effect was when it was at ninety cents. He said that the cost of living would be increased. It would be increased a little bit but not very much. He said that it would be ten per cent across the board. That is not so. It would be ten per cent only on the wholesale price of the goods in the United States plus ten per cent on the freight to the Canadian border, but that does make a lot of difference. ' Most of the goods in the bureau of statistics cost of living index are Canadian. The minister said at page 91 of Hansard:
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.
I do not think anybody did rise in his place to object to it. If they did I do not recollect it; but when that action was taken nobody in this House of Commons knew the exact position of Canada with respect to United States dollars. I recollect plainly that on many occasions the amount of United States exchange which the foreign exchange control board had was asked for by certain people and it was always kept a dark secret.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was announced at that time.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: When?


George Alexander Cruickshank: At that time.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: At what time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: At the time the Canadian dollar was revalued.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: October, 1946:


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, July, 1946.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not remember its being announced. Probably we would not object to it if we did not know what it was;

Foreign Exchange Conservation
I do not remember whether the exact amount of exchange was ever announced and I doubt whether anybody else does.
I repeat: The minister said that it would be ten per cent across the board. It would not mean ten per cent across the board; it would mean an increase of ten per cent only on the wholesale price and ten per cent on the freight to the border, but what would it do? It would permit people to pick and choose for themselves. It would permit people still to retain their freedom; it would permit parliament to have freedom as well instead of being dictated to. It would sell more goods to the United States; it would bring in more tourist dollars. In that regard may I refer to what the people of northern Ontario had to say on the subject, as quoted in the Ottawa Journal of January 26 (C.P.):
Ontario's tourist trade will suffer severe reverses unless the Canadian dollar returns to the $1.10 premium over United States money, Len Hughes, director of the Northern Ontario Outfitters' Association told delegates at their annual three-day convention here today.
That is the opinion of a gentleman who knows something about the subject. In addition to that, we would get ten per cent more for our newsprint, our copper, our gold, our lead and other commodities. It would make a market in the United States for goods where we have not one now. It would increase the Canadian production of all goods, and amongst the others things it would increase the United States investment in Canada.
I turn now to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), development, reconstruction and supply, radio, transport and austerity. At page 385 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
We devalued the dollar in 1910 as a means of meeting a situation that would have seriously impaired our ability to fight a war.
Further on he said that we could not revalue the Canadian dollar because it did not do any good. He contradicts himself in these two statements. In the first place, he said it was a good thing to devalue the Canadian dollar for war purposes, and later on he said we could not do it now because it would make everything too expensive, and so forth. He contradicts himself when he says that. Then, when he is asked how long it will take to get our exchange in good shape he answered the question by saying, "I do not know; it will take some months." When he is asked if it will take three or four months he says, "It will take some months." When he is asked, "Will it be soon?" he says, "I do not know." Then again he says, as reported at page 385 of Hansard:
I said I was basing my opinion on my experience, and my experience was that from the time
the dollar crisis appeared in 1941, the situation had been corrected in about nine months' time.
It was corrected in about nine months by the devaluation of the dollar at that time. If it could have been corrected in nine months by the devaluation of the dollar at that time, it seems to me that that is the proper method to use at this time. The minister also said at page 386 of Hansard-.
I might say a word about the "dictator" charge which hon. gentlemen opposite love to make.
Well, we do not love to make that remark about the minister, but there is no getting away from the fact that that is what he is. If he does not like it he should not accept the position. He makes the regulations or laws; he enforces them; he hears the appeals; he adjudicates on them and his decision is final. I do not know what a dictator is if that is not one. It seems to me that is what he is; and yet, with all that, the minister calls himself a Liberal. We hate to have to call him a dictator, we hate to have to call anyone in parliament a dictator; but the government decided they would have a dictator, and they think he is the best man for the job. The minister gives lip service to free enterprise, believes in competition, and dislikes regimentation; yet he condones this bill and takes on the job of dictator, which is the very antithesis of free enterprise and freedom.
Some time ago it was suggested in this house by many of us that we should have a moratorium on the building in Canada of projects which were not absolutely necessary, such as motion picture buildings and so on, the reason being that we wanted to have more materials and labour for other purposes, but the minister insisted that the federal controls could do nothing of this kind. That was when he dumped the responsibility for construction liabilities in the lap of the municipalities. They were to choose what should go up and what should not go up. He said that nothing could be done, and it is extraordinary that he takes the stand he does now in order to justify his sweeping powers. He says that much relief would be brought to housing and high priority industrial construction by the action which was being taken. In the meantime, twenty months have passed and nothing has been done with regard to having some priority on necessary buildings, and the cost of building has skyrocketed. All materials and labour are scarce and there is really too much building going on at the present time. That is one of the difficulties.
In October, 1946, when the government revalued the Canadian dollar to a par with the United States dollar, as you know, the Cana-

Foreign Exchange Conservation
dian dollar had been arbitrarily valued by the foreign exchange control board at ninety cents American. This step was taken in spite of many factors then known to the government. The quick economic recovery of Europe was then known to be wishful thinking. Canada was selling large quantities of goods to European countries for credit because our own economy required it, and still does, and we had previously made loans to those countries for that purpose, loans which were running out very much faster than had been anticipated; in fact, they had all been half used up.
The government also knew that we could expect very few United States dollars in payment for our goods from those countries. It was known that Canada had been expending her United States dollar store at an ever-increasing rate to buy goods in the United States. It was then expected that the Canadian adverse balance would amount to over half a billion dollars by the end of the year. It was plain common sense that one cannot go on for ever selling for credit and buying for cash, or one would run out of cash.
In spite of these facts and others, the government took the worst possible step to increase this adverse balance of payments by re-valuing the Canadian dollar. It wiped out the ten per cent discount; it took the brakes off Canadian buying in the United States. Various houses in Canada which had been wanting to buy for some time thought the green light had been given to them to go ahead, and they went ahead and bought all kinds of goods, necessary and unnecessary, in the United States market which accelerated the depletion of our store of United States dollars.
This had a manifold effect. It increased Canadian buying of United States goods and decreased United States buying of Canadian goods by eliminating the ten per cent incentive. It had a dampening effect on the tourist trade, as illustrated by the clipping I have read. The extent of the effect it had it is hard to say, but it is acknowledged that it had a great effect. It decreased the value of gold to Canadian mines by S3.50 for every ounce sold. It lost for Canadians $10 on every hundred pounds of goods sold in the United States, and those goods were those which the United States had to have. They could not do without them, goods such as newsprint and so on.
It reduced the movement of United States capital dollars to Canada by investment from some $280 million a year to a mere trickle. Canada paid in dividends to people in the United States, on balance, some $200 million more than we received. This accounted for the necessity of finding another $20,000,000.
At the end of 1946 our adverse balance with the United States was $600 million. The deple-5849-40
tion of our United States dollar store was accelerated. It was known in the early part of this year, while parliament was sitting, about May, to what extent the situation was worsening, and that some action would have to be taken. It was pretty well estimated by those who knew, and a great many others suspected, that Canada would have an adverse balance at the end of 1947 of about $600 million, and that our United States dollar resources would dwindle from $1,200 million at the end of 1946 to about $250 million at the end of 1947 and be entirely wiped out early in 1948 unless something were done.
The House of Commons was not so informed and no action was then taken, the excuse for not doing so being that it might upset some of the negotiations going on in Geneva in regard to world trade if the situation were disclosed. I might say that if the facts were not disclosed, then, to say the least, it was a lack of honesty on the part of the government in these negotiations. However, no action was taken until the situation was in an awful mess.
Then the government acted with its usual disregard for the supremacy of parliament. Three announcements were made on the same day. The Prime Minister sugar-coated the bitter pill of the Minister of Finance, followed by the speech of the newly created totalitarian minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There was a wonderful new-era speech by the Prime Minister-everything was to be lovely-which was followed by the everything-not-so-nice, austerity speech of the Minister of Finance-not so good-I do not know how long it will be-and the usual optimistic one from the new dictator, the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I may say that if his foresight with respect to this austerity program is as good as with respect to housing, he should have said, "Prepare for a long time", because I think it will be a long time.
I know that in the beginning the development of the crisis was not all of the government's making, but this policy certainly aggravated it. So much for this brief review.
In announcing its program, the government has had an utter disregard for parliament. The far-reaching effect on the economy and liberty of the individual is unpredictable, but, if continued, will be severe.
Demands were made on the government some months ago to call parliament, but no heed was given to those demands. No doubt the government was afraid to face the angry voices of the members, hoping that the people would be lulled into complacency by hopes held out to them of trade agreements if parliament were called late enough in the year

Foreign Exchange Conservation
so that it could be gagged. That is exactly what 'happened. The government announced its austerity program on November 17. The Minister of Finance announced a budget while parliament was not sitting. For the first time in the history of any Canadian parliament a budget was announced while parliament was not sitting. Let me remind the house of what happened recently in Great Britain when, the Right Hon. Hugh Dalton was dismissed for giving information with regard to his budget before it was brought to the house. Never have I heard of such an outrageous proceeding or never have I known of a democratic government anywhere which imposed taxation such as has been done here by order in council without consultation with the House of Commons, and when the House of Commons was not sitting.
I think no more outrageous deception was ever perpetrated on the House of Commons than in the stand taken by the foreign exchange control board, with the knowledge and direction of the government, to use powers given to the government for certain purposes and with the assurances of the government to the House of Commons that those powers would be used only for the purposes indicated, only to find that on November 17, 1947, the powers thus secured were utilized under a pretence in order to effect the wielding of power which the board had never been intended to have. We have taxation without representation. The government has gone a long way in its transitional powers act to deny the individual the right of recourse to the courts.
I should like to remind the house that a few weeks ago, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, then Minister of Reconstruction, came back from Britain. He spoke in Toronto and in scathing tones condemned the socialist government of Great Britain for placing powers in the hands of one man. Now this government which pretends to be Liberal is asking parliament to place in his hands-and I might say in the hands of a man who has never had, to my way of thinking, a scrupulous regard for parliamentary procedure-power over every individual industry in this country; power in the words of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), to say to one industry, "You shall live"; to another, "You shall die"; to say to one industry, "You shall receive," and to another, "You shall be denied"; and no one who is affected is permitted access to the courts.
Mr. Speaker, where will freedom be when one individual in this country is given such powers as that? Our dollar is now worth

only eighty-five to ninety cents in United States funds at the present time. Why not deal with the matter in a courageous way, devalue the dollar and get our dollar value down to be worth what it is worth? It will not cost Great Britain as much to buy food.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It will cost more.
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's); I am sure that the discount of the Canadian dollar with respect to the United States dollar will have a great effect on the adjustment of our foreign exchange. I call on every Liberal on the other side of the house to vote against this bill.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a bill respecting emergency measures for the conservation of Canadian foreign exchange resources. It is true that we must conserve United States dollars; but reading through the present bill causes me to wonder if a synod of fiends, bent upon the complete ruination of Canada, could have drafted a worse bill.
It is rather important at this time, I think, that we as a House of Commons should ask ourselves what it is that has got us into the swamp of difficulties which impelled the government to adopt such extreme measures as are set forth in this bill. In the first place, I would say, in answer to that question, that it was just pure government foolhardiness in accepting unsound agreements. Hon. members will recall that in the fall of 1945 members of this group did everything in their power to bring the House of Commons and the country to realize the dangers of accepting Bretton Woods and also of accepting entangling trade agreements which it was quite evident were to follow upon Bretton Woods. The fundamental reason why we are in the trouble we are in tonight, and why we are considering this bill with all its objectionable features, is that we accepted Bretton Woods. There is not any way of explaining that away; and our Conservative and C.C.F. friends might just as well face up to that fact and assume the responsibility which it is fitting they should assume, because they supported the government in that exceedingly reckless and dangerous set of agreements called Bretton Woods. All of these agreements-Bretton Woods and the trade agreements which were considered in Geneva and are now, I understand, being studied at Havana-are centred around the principle of non-discrimination in trade. That sounds attractive but it is actually exceedingly pernicious. These agreements are also centred around the idea that debts

_______________Foreign Exchange Conservation
which result from adverse trade balances cannot be paid or cleared away with goods other than gold unless the creditor nation sees fit to accept the goods. It seems difficult to impress that fact upon all those who should be impressed. Nevertheless, what I have said is true.
There is another cause for the government's being in the difficulty it is now in and dragging the country through the mire, and that is the fallacious trade theories which have been entertained and advocated by the members of the government-which were not seriously objected to by the other parties except the Social Crediters-and false theories as to what constitutes a sound national economy. I have heard since 1935, when I first came to the house, the Prime Minister repeatedly declaim against what he called economic nationalism. The time he has used in condemning economic nationalism would make one think that it was the worst thing that could possibly be conceived, that it was the cause of wars, and of all the other wretchedness to which mankind has fallen heir. All economic nationalism means, in the last analysis, is national selfsufficiency. Imagine a government which for years has followed a policy which was opposed to economic nationalism, or national selfsufficiency !
That is the record of the Liberal party before this country for the last quarter century, and it shows how successful they have been in deluding the people of Canada when they have been elected time and again despite their policy, namely because the people of Canada were not informed.
This Liberal administration under the leadership of the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King has played a considerable part in ruining the Ottawa agreements, which were the great contribution made by the Conservative party under the leadership of the late Viscount Bennett. If the Liberal party could point to any achievement in all its long tenure of office which could compare with the Ottawa agreements, they would have much more to rejoice for than they have at the present time.
This same party, while tendering lip service to the idea of a greater and stronger British commonwealth, nurtured and defended by imperial preferences; this same party, while giving lip service to that general principle, has given me the impression that it has done a good deal toward destroying the British commonwealth, and the trade association which has existed among the members of the commonwealth, not so much by anything it says, as by the things it does, similar to the signing of these pernicious agreements to which I have already referred.
5849-40J
We are beginning to see the results of what they have done. There is not much use in finding fault. After all, the damage is done. What we should do is look to the future with the idea of altering our ways. There are things we can do about this situation, dark as it is. While I presume all the members of * the opposition will vote against this bill; all the members of the government will vote for it; the bill will pass-and away it will go, until they find force of circumstances rendering it impossible to follow the act. Then they will do something else.
It seems to me that it is the duty of every member in the house, and especially the duty of members of the government, to see if *they cannot work out a plan for the future, which will offer much more hope than anything we have had in the last year.
The first thing I would recommend is that this house, without further delay, take steps which are necessary to withdraw from Bretton Woods. They should give formal notice and then go through with it, just as soon as they possibly can, under the agreements we have; for the longer we stay under Bretton Woods, the worse our condition will become.
It will not do any good for me to rise in the house five years from now, if all goes well, and say, "I told you so." It will at that time be obvious to all, just as I said in 1945 it would be obvious in a few years, that Bretton Woods was fallacious. Let us see if we cannot be really worthy of the responsibilities resting upon our shoulders at the present time, and take the necessary measures. Let us give formal notice of our withdrawal from Bretton Woods and so give leadership to the other nations of the world, so that they can consider a similarly sound proposal.
It is evident that the Bretton Woods agreement is completely unsound and is being found unworkable. The measure France has had to take in spite of the monetary fund within the last two or three days, when she devalued her currency, is clear evidence that this pernicious Bretton Woods thing will not work. The nations will simply be crucified if they try to make it work.
The next thing we ought to do as soon as convenient to us, is to denounce the principle of non-discrimination in trade. Non-discrimination would not be objectionable if all nations were equal in economic power. But all nations are not equal in that power. The result is that to have large nations like the United States in a non-discrimination arrangement with small nations like Holland is absurd; just as absurd as it would be to have boys fifteen years old playing marbles in the same ring with boys six years old, and insisting upon the

Foreign Exchange Conservation

6-year-old boys following the same rules as are followed by those who are sixteen years old. No one in his right senses would favour that.
The present arrangement we aie seeking to establish among nations of the world is just as grotesque, absurd and unworkable. It means that the big boys like the United States will get everything and the small boys will reap destruction. Canada is beginning to see what can happen, with S900 million in adverse trade balance in one year. Heaven knows how we shall pay it back. Let us face that fact. And if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) would spend a little more time in figuring out how we can pay that back, instead of taking such a cocksure attitude, as though he knows all there is to be known, he would really discharge his responsibility to this country just a little more effectively than he is doing today. It is getting beyond a joke entirely.
The next thing we ought to do is to work out some method, by conference with the nations, whereby the nations which fall into [DOT]debt, as a result of adverse trade balances, may have some chance of clearing themselves out of it. That is, we should have some arrangement whereby creditor nations, which become creditor nations just as the United States is this year a creditor to the extent of $900 million with respect to Canada, through adverse trade balance, would be obliged to accept in return goods other than gold; for small nations like Canada are unable to pay enough in gold; yet they need to get out of debt.
How are we to get out of debt? If we fall into another adverse trade balance of $700 million next year, what shall we do with the resultant $1,600 million? Surely, as responsible members of the House of Commons we cannot permit this country to slide along as though we had no responsibility. Remember, the interests of our children and our children's children are at stake in this matter. These are real things we are talking about these days. So I would say that the third thing we have to do is to find some means whereby debts, which result from adverse trade balances, on account of inequality of productive potentials of nations participating in world trade, can be in some way or another repaid. If the Geneva trade conference, and trade conferences of that kind had worked on that problem they would have been really profitably occupied.
The fourth thing which, it seems to me, might be highly desirable is this: To devise and to adopt by agreement a measure Jo prevent industrial penetration of the weaker economies by the stronger economies. It is
[Mr Blackmore.]
manifest that the United States, with its tremendous population, can produce goods in great numbers. It can deliver them in Canada more cheaply than our industry can, when it serves a nation of only 12,000,000 people in competition with a nation of 140,000,000. I know that the cards are stacked against any industry in Canada which seeks to compete with a corresponding industry in the United States. What measures can be arrived at and agreed upon by the various member-states to prevent that industrial penetration whereby goods are obtruded into the markets of the weaker nation by the stronger nation, to the disadvantage of the industries of the weaker nation and the destruction of its employment structure? That problem must be solved.
If the wise men who met at Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks, and I do not know how many other places during the war, and were planning to follow the advice of some little gang somewhere to destroy the peace and prosperity of the world entirely, had been busy on this problem, they would have been doing some work which would have been for the real benefit of the world.
There are some other things we in Canada can do, and in our own right. I hope this government has not given away our right to govern ourselves-although I am afraid they have done it. It seems they have given up the right or power to use subsidies to modify prices. If they have done that, we must agree they have pretty well given up all right our nation has to control its price structure. Apparently they have gone on and acted stupidly, failing to realize what they were doing. I do hope that there are still some things we can do within Canada.
If we have not bartered our freedom away, here are some of the things that we can do. We must realize that it is sound for us to work for national self-sufficiency. That principle was laid down this afternoon by several members and yesterday by several others. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) pointed out the danger we are in with regard to coal and steel. How much better it would be if at the present time we knew that we were able to supply the coal needed throughout this dominion without worrying about the United States.
The same applies to gasoline. We simply must be more nationally self-sufficient. One thing which was done during the war and which will stand to the credit of the government, unless it weakens and gives it all up, was the building of a synthetic rubber plant at Sarnia. That was sound. If it is sound for rubber, it certainly is nationally sound for the other vital necessities of Canada. That ought

Foreign Exchange Conservation
to be clear to all. No more argument is necessary. Why does the government not go ahead with other vital needs?
Why did the government establish a synthetic rubber plant in order to make its own rubber and then persist in the stupid attitude it has adopted in connection with the beet sugar industry? We could be self-sufficient in sugar.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: We need private enterprise.


John Horne Blackmore: Someone says that we need private enterprise, but we did not need private enterprise in the case of the Sarnia plant. Private enterprise would take care of the beet sugar situation if the government would get off their backs. It does not see fit to do that.
In addition to rubber, one of our great needs in Canada is gasoline and oil. There are sufficiently large deposits of coal in Canada which could be processed to supply our requirements. The Germans showed us during the war how they could produce synthetic gasoline which enabled them to put up such a terrible fight. Sufficient gasoline could be produced from the coal in Alberta to supply the whole country of Canada. The necessary gasoline and fuel oil could be produced, as well as many other commodities, for centuries to come. Why should we import gasoline and oil from the United States and be in danger of facing the major calamity to which the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) referred this afternoon should the United States cut off our oil supplies? We could not blame them for doing that because they are in danger of suffering from a shortage there.
Why should we be in danger of a shortage of gasoline and oil when we have all the coal that is necessary to produce these commodities? During the war, I repeat, the Germans showed us how admirably they could process coal into gasoline and other commodities which were necessary to carry on the war. We can blame nothing but our own stupidity-


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Liberal stupidity.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, it is Liberal
stupidity in more ways than one. The coal in the Lethbridge area, which I represent, or in the area south of Calgary would provide sufficient supplies. Great pipes could be laid down, granted at tremendous cost but the investment would pay great dividends in the course of twenty-five years, to carry the oil, gas, and gasoline from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec. We could supply the two central
provinces with all the gasoline, fuel oil, diesel oil and natural gas and the like that they require.
Somebody will say that that is too grand a scheme, that it is too ambitious and costly. The people who have accomplished things in this world were those who could dream dreams, who had the courage to go ahead and make their dreams come true. Canada is capable of dreaming the dreams which are necessary; she has the energy and courage to make those dreams come true. We have the facilities here. God has taken care of that. It is for us to determine whether or not we are going to use them.
Those hon. members who have read the newspapers lately will know that the United States is intending to build processing plants for the production of synthetic gasoline. Interior Secretary Krug proposed to the government of the United States on January 26 that they spend $9 billion on synthetic oil projects. If the United States is getting into a position where it must consider measures of that sort, a country which has a great deal of gasoline, what ought Canada to be doing when our production, as the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply said this afternoon, is only about eleven per cent of our needs? Our needs are extensive and they are going to increase. They will become imperative because we are in an age wherein we require gasoline to carry on our way of life.
I do not wish to labour over-much the beet sugar question, but this matter is far more serious than we can get the minister to realize. Somebody should take him out into the back yard and deal with him long enough to get him to realize how serious this question is. There is no reason why we should be in danger of having to spend $28,000,000 of United States funds every year to obtain sugar. There is no reason why we should be in danger of being short of sugar should there be another war when we can produce all the sugar this dominion could possibly use, in Alberta in the area south of Calgary and still have plenty of room for vast production of other commodities.
If we do not use the means at our disposal it will be due to the stupidity of the government in power, or to the lack of vision on the part of the people of Canada in not putting the necessary pressure on the ministers to see that they do the things which they ought to do. What is the government going to do this year about the beet sugar industry? Last year the minister laid fine plans and we heard much about the great acreages of sugar
Foreign Exchange Conservation

6:n
beets that were to be planted. Then we saw the minister dawdling along, and there was delay for weeks and weeks and weeks when a vital decision should have been reached which would have enabled Canada to produce millions more pounds of sugar. The result was that Canada did not produce the beets she could have produced. There is only one man in Canada who can be blamed for that, the Minister of Finance.
If the Minister of Finance has not the power, he should tell the people why he has not. He should tell the people who is holding him down, who is preventing him from doing the sensible thing in regard to beet sugar. We are reaching the time when people are getting ready to plant beets. I wonder if we are to be treated to another dose of "consideration", "consideration" and "consideration" until it is too late to do what ought to be done. We want action in Canada. The people are entitled to action even if they are unfortunate enough to have elected a Liberal government.
Another matter which is not being adequately dealt with in Canada at the present time is our tourist trade. There ought to be a systematic handling of this problem. The tourist industry is one of the greatest industries in Canada at the present time and it could be greatly enlarged. One thing that is holding up this industry is our lack of roads. The central government has simply stayed out of the road picture and has left the provinces to take care of this matter. As affairs now stand, it is impossible for the provinces to deal adequately with their roads.
Take my own province of Alberta as an example. There are 90,000 miles of roads in that province; a tourist might want to travel over any one of those miles. But there are only 800,000 people to take care of those roads. The present administration in Alberta is doing a magnificent job in building roads, having spent $13,000,000 this year, but it simply cannot build roads fast enough to permit the tourists to come in and enjoy the beauties and wonders of Canada and give us the income which we could have from the tourist trade.
I urge the government to wake up and get to work on the tourist business while there is still an opportunity to cut down our great deficit of United States dollars by the revenues from that business. The government of Canada ought to take a definite interest in the construction of roads. It ought to call the provinces together and discuss with them the road problems of the various provinces and be prepared to pay one, two, three, four, five or six dollars for every dollar the provinces spend until such times as the roads are brought

into a condition where they will be inviting to the tourists. We should also help the provinces to maintain those roads.
It will be said by a number of people that that is not federal responsibility, Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the ministers at Ottawa to help look after everything that pertains to the welfare of Canada. If the provinces are able to discharge their responsibilities, well and good. The provinces ought not to shirk any of their responsibilities. But where a project is beyond the strength of the provinces and needs to be done, certainly everybody has a right to expect that the dominion government will enter the picture and assist in attaining the objectives.
There is a great deal to be done in the matter of fish. Everyone knows that tourists like to go where there are fish. We have an abundance of lakes and streams; all that it is necessary to do is to replenish them with fish. It is beyond the powers of the provinces to do this adequately, but the dominion government working with the provinces could lay down plans which would adequately supply our streams with fish and thereby create a very great attraction for the tourists.
We could also do much in respect of game which we are not doing now. I shall not go into details, but once more it is a question of finance. We did not have a single bit of difficulty in raising billions when the war was on, and if we got into war again, within six months I am sure we would again be voting billions and billions for war. What is the matter with the mentality of a people who can raise billions for war but cannot raise millions for peace? It will be said that in the war we went into debt, but everybody who has taken the trouble to inform himself knows perfectly well that money can be obtained without debt and without taxation. The Minister of Finance knows that, if he would only acknowledge it instead of trying to bluff himself out of any offer to discuss money in this house.
Canada must do more than I have suggested. She must devise means whereby she can conserve her population. It is a disgrace to Canada that we are a sort of supply depot and training school for the United States. We give birth to the children here and educate them; then we let them go across to the United States. The United States has been taking the cream of our population for years and years, and she is now getting down to the two or three top layers of milk. Yet all the time we are suffering from lack of population. Is it because Canada cannot produce enough things to enable her people to enjoy a high standard of living? Of course it is not. We can pro-

_______________Foreign Exchange Conservation
duce the goods. Then why do we not do so? We must do something to make our country attractive to live in.
I would suggest among other things that one of the first things we ought to consider is that threadbare one, namely, a housing program. I suggest that we should have a housing program that will include the common man who lives in what Roosevelt called the submerged third' of the population. We have a submerged third in Canada just as they have in the United States. There is no reason why the ordinary man in that submerged third should not have a home. There is only one way in which this can be accomplished and that is to make the money available to him at a rate low enough and on terms which will enable him to keep his home. It is high time that something was done about that. We have talked enough; even the Liberal government has talked enough about it. Now it is time to produce results; we need the results. We do not want to wait until another election and then have the Liberals try to trick the people into voting them back into power to fool the people for another five years. Let us have a real housing program now.
Then purchasing power ought to be made available, corresponding with the production of goods in this country'. It is simply common sense to recognize that. Then w'hy is not something done to see that purchasing power does go into the hands of the people, so that the boys and girls who are growing up in this country can visualize possibilities in its future? We should have a price structure that will be kept equitable and stable, so that people will have confidence that they will be able to live and raise their families here. These two things can be done only by monetary measures. I shall not go into that at the moment, but we must do something to keep our young people here. We need them. We should be a much greater and more powerful nation than we are today if we had kept the people here who have been born and raised in Canada in the last fifty years. Why should we not even try to draw the best of the people of the United States over here by making our conditions so attractive that they will want to come here? About all that the ordinary citizen of the United States has to do now is to come across the border and get a feel of our temperature-I do not mean the climate but the temperature of our economic conditions-and back again he goes to his own country.
To accomplish these things I have been speaking of with respect to purchasing power
and prices, we must insist on the right to use subsidies. I view with great anxiety the remarks made by such ministers as the Minister of Finance to the effect that the government does not favour subsidies. The government has already committed itself to the principle of floor prices. I ask any man or woman in this house, how in the world can you maintain floor prices without subsidies when the world market price happens to be below the price at which you wish your commodities to be sold in Canada? You cannot maintain prices without subsidies; for this government to commit itself to the idea that it is not going to give subsidies is for it to give up all possibilities of governing this country economically as it ought to be governed.
People may say that we cannot raise by taxation all the money we need for subsidies. I am not contending we should. First, let us recognize that we must have subsidies, and then adopt those measures which will enable us to pay subsidies. We can produce the goods. Let us learn how to turn them into money. We must maintain the right to use subsidies and not barter our rights away by signing some silly trade agreement like the one at Havana or something of that sort. We must use those subsidies instead of yielding to trade conferences convened and perhaps dominated by the United States.
We must adopt measures which will conserve our natural resources. It is often argued by Liberal apologists that Canada must export goods. Why must we export more and more goods? We must export goods because Canada is mining her soil, taking the richness out of the soil in those wonderful square miles we have in the great prairie regions, depleting the soil which should be maintained for future generations. We are simply selling the goodness of the soil, and we imagine we are building prosperity. Any man from an agricultural constituency such as the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) knows what I mean. We are mining our soil. We cannot go on like that and have a Canada worth having for our children. We must cease producing vast quantities of goods to be sent abroad, with nothing to come back to take their place. We must conserve our natural resources, and now is the time to think about it, not after they are gone.
Our fisheries are being depleted. We are not taking the necessary steps to replenish those waters. What sort of improvident people are we when we do things of that sort.
Our forests are being devastated all over the land. We could replace our forests as we use
Foreign Exchange Conservation

them. Germany has done that and many other European countries were forced to do it. Let us do it before it is too late.
So I say that we must maintain our resources, and I say it is the duty of every member to see to it that as much as possible is done in that direction. Some may say that it is a provincial responsibilty. We must adopt a different attitude. There are some matters with respect to which dominion and provincial responsibilities merge into one.
I have seen a most tragic attitude develop in this country. We hear a great many people sneer about the colonial attitude that once prevailed. The attitude which now seems to possess the Liberal party is so much lower than the colonial attitude that I marvel our French-Canadian friends can stand for it. The government have adopted an attitude of abject menial submission to Wall Street. Here they have been standing up fighting for fifty, sixty or seventy years for independence against Britain, and they just run and throw themselves at the feet and lick the dirt off the shoes of Wall Street. They are doing it right along and they do not seem to take any interest in it at all. I wonder whether they cannot realize that there is a real power in Wall Street that may actually destroy their liberties far more than any power that ever came from Europe. I wonder whether they cannot be spurred with a desire to do something about this. What are the men of the Liberal party full of? Is there not somebody in the Liberal party who has vision, who has honour and courage and public spirit and patriotism and1 those other things, that will make them wake up and start doing something for Canada?
We should maintain a "greater Canada" attitude; we should adopt a "greater British commonwealth" attitude and do it right now, and1 stop thinking defeat. I hope I am wrong but, as far as I can see, the government at the present time are "selling Canada down the river," to use an expression which is rather commonly used across the line. They are making Canadians hewers of wood and drawers of water for the United States. It is an amazing thing. We gave of our best blood; we gave of our treasure; we gave of our all to defend ourselves against Hitler, and right at the same time that we were doing that here was the United States calmly and sardonically planning to d'o the same thing for us that Hitler planned. We are submitting to what the 'United States is planning, while we fought against what Hitler was doing. What is the matter with the people of Canada? Is there no leadership in this parliament anywhere that wTe cannot see that? We submit to maga-

zine articles and newspaper articles being written by United States people talking about their taking over Canada, and we pay no attention to it. We are allowing people to come up here and address our service clubs on the advisability of our being taken over by the United States. What would we have done if Hitler had talked of a thing like that? It<s about time we stopped thinking defeat. If we have absolutely to surrender to- the United States, well, then, let the United States stand up in the guise of a world dictator, a world conqueror and let her receive the publicity which Hitler received. Let it be known that what she fought this war for was to take over the countries she was supposed to be defending. Let it be revealed. That is all I say, and let us know where we are. If the government i3 absolutely powerless because somebody across the line is putting pressure on it, why does it not let us know so that we can all realize where we are going instead of pretending to be governing this country now in the interests of Canada and the British empire, but yet actually governing it in the interests of the United States?
It looks to me as if this government is actually participating in the breaking up of the British commonwealth. I do not want to speak overmuch of the British commonwealth, but in these days we are in an age of great combinations. We do not get very far unless we are part of a great combination. There never in this world's history has been a combination as potentially great and powerful as the British commonwealth, and never has there been a combination with the splendid ideals and willingness to serve and to suffer to improve mankind as is to be found in the British commonwealth of nations. Then, why are we disregarding its glorious possibilities that our ancestors and providence have built up and thrust into our very hands? Is it not about time that everybody, even the people on the street, began to realize that in Canada and talk about it and began to do something about this wonderful British commonwealth, this wonderful treasure placed in our hands before the little gang across the line utterly destroy it, as they are aiming to do?
Surely it is bad enough to submit to their dictatorship, but actually to take part in the destruction process ourselves is beneath contempt. It is an utter disgrace to our ancestors that their descendants should be taking the action that is being taken in this parliament right now, and by a government that is supposed to be a Liberal government.
In closing, let me say, first of all, if we pass this bill let us go right to work to see that if possible we will not have such a disgraceful

Foreign Exchange Conservation
bill before this house again so long as this house exists. Let us take measures to govern this country instead of measures permitting it to be governed by another.


Mr. L. E. BAKER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) tossed down the gauntlet to the backbenchers of the Liberal party and it is with great pleasure that I am picking it up. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Skey) also tossed down the gauntlet and to him I might say hie sum in corpore et in spiritu hie.
Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 3 is merely a means to an end, and I maintain that it is a justifiable means to that end. I believe that there is far more, talking on this bill than is absolutely necessary, inasmuch as we are dealing with the principle of it at the present time. As the bill plainly states, it has to do with emergency measures for the conservation of foreign exchange resources. The word "emergency" is an all-important word. That is the reason we are using these means to attain the end which is necessary, namely, to conserve United States dollars. If we do not have United States dollars we cannot spend United States dollars. Apparently a lot of people do not realize what a serious situation it would create in this country if we should run out of United States dollars.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Oh, yes, we do.


Loran Ellis Baker: The only way to keep from running out of United States dollars is to conserve them or to increase the flow into Canada, and that is exactly what Bill No. 3 intends to do.
I supported the Geneva trade treaties in December and still do. I think they are a great step forward. Some people think this bill is contradictory in its nature as applied to the Geneva trade agreements. True, for a short period it is. The Geneva trade agreements were arranged with the long-term view of increasing international trade. This is an emergency measure to conserve United States dollars for the present time, which we must do.
I did not come to parliament to win a popularity contest and just do what seemed to be popular. I came here to do my duty by my constituency. I shall not be popular with all my constituents, perhaps, in supporting this bill. You can never bring down a bill which will be popular with everybody, but I do think there are a great many of them who will see that I have done the right thing in doing what I consider is my absolute duty. They know I am in a position to realize that, and any criticism that there may be in
Shelburne-Yarmouth-CIare in so far as I am concerned can be cleared up quickly by explaining why we are doing this.
The majority of people to whom I have spoken realize that if we are to have United States dollars we must either increase the flow of those dollars into this country or conserve what we already have. This is very necessary legislation. There is no question about that.
As regards the argument that we are becoming subservient to the United States of America, I maintain that is just a whole lot of bosh. There is nothing else to it. We are not any more subservient to the United States of America today than we ever were, and we never will be. I regard them as amongst our best friends. They are our largest customer and we are their largest customer. I maintain that if we are to have a happy and prosperous world we must deal with all nations of the world in the same way. Here is a perfectly good example, and let us work with the example as best we can and not try to defame those people or say unnecessarily unkind words about them.
The United States of America have been very good to my people in Nova Scotia and to the people of the maritimes. As a matter of fact a great deal of our trade has been carried on with them, and had it not been for them we would have been in the doldrums long before now.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a practical problem and I do not Chink it should be dealt with in an abstract way. I would say the best thing to do is to pass the second reading as soon as we can and then discuss the various items. There may be some items that will need a lot of explaining and no doubt there will be. But we are dealing now with the principle and1 I say that the principle is the right one under the existing circumstances.
I will not take up more time now because I would rather see the time spent in committee. I do not want anyone to run away with the idea that Liberal backbenchers are refraining from speaking because they are afraid to speak or do not support the bill. They realize that their votes are what count. I was not going to speak because I thought that when I voted for something that was sufficient. But the gauntlet having been thrown down two or three times, I could not resist and therefore I have risen to speak on this occasion.
I would say to the Minister of Finance that there is one thing he might add to Bill No. 3, and that is that during the emergency period an excise tax be imposed upon the excess of verbosity in the majestic halls of the House of Commons at the present time.
Foreign Exchange Conservation


Mr. W. GARFIELD CASE (Grey North):: la addressing the House of Commons on the particular bill- which is now before us for consideration, I feel that I should first of all compliment the hon. member for Shel'burne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Baker) on making at least one contribution on behalf of those who sit on the government side to the right of the Speaker.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The best contribution we have had so far.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Well, there is one thing I always admire about the Minister of Finance. When he really discovers he has no other course to follow he appeals for help, and this afternoon I thought his appeal to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Skey) was rather pathetic, because, after all, I would say for his information that it is not the function of the opposition to determine the policy which should govern the country. It is the function and Ihe sole prerogative of the government to introduce policies which His Majesty's loyal opposition are free to criticize and to determine whether they consider the government is worthy of support. By the same token, the moment the government feel the same degree of frustration that is at present apparent in this country, they have the right to throw in the sponge and 'hand over to His Majesty's loyal opposition the right to form a government and to introduce into the House of Commons policies which would mean a great deal to the Canadian electorate and to Canadian industry.
As we grow older we probably become more and more conscious of the past and possibly we may be given to reminiscence. I have had a rather varied and unusual political career, as many hon. members know, and my memory goes back to the days when political slogans were the order of the day. I think of the time when I almost suscribed-indeed I was quite enthusiastic about it-to the slogan adopted in 1935 which said, "King or chaos''. Someone behind me says that now we have both.
Without any disrespect to the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mackenzie King), we certainly have the most chaotic condition that has ever existed in Canada. My experience dates back to over a number of years, because I have been prone to regard myself as an economist, as a student of political history, and have been most enthusiastic about the contributions that have been made by, and the progress that has been made under, various governments in this country; and this is the first time in my experience that a government has deliberately gone out of its way, for some unknown reason -reasons about which we may conjecture or

may have suspicion-to create in Canada the greatest pall of gloom and despair which has ever lain upon the country.
During those dark and dismal days of the great war I heard many memorable and commendable speeches on the air. I refer to such great personages as Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt, and I could also include the words of the Prime Minister when he sought to describe what he termed a new heaven and a new earth for the Canadian people. Well, the voice which originated in London describing the Geneva trade pacts was indeed a preview of what he no doubt intended to be a new heaven and a new earth.
It is said that everything has its opposite. We have the negative and positive poles in electricity, one necessary to the other, and we know the opposite to heaven. I will not labour that point, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) followed, and after he had concluded his address I think I can say-I do not know whether my language will be considered parliamentary or not-we have been in a hell of a mess ever since. No one has any sense of direction.
I would challenge any businessman in Canada today to say that he can plan for the future with any sense of confidence, or whether he knows the policy the government intends to introduce within the next twenty-four hours; and I would challenge any member of the government, including nay right hon. friend, (Mr. Howe), designated the new czar of industry, to say that he knows what he intends to do within the next twenty-four hours. There are so few things that industry can plan and carry on with some regard for the future, with a policy which the master minds themselves do not comprehend; for that great body of motivated power, industrial genius, ambition and enthusiasm has been set an intolerable task. How can anyone plan when he does not know what direction to pursue?
Let us examine for a few moments, in relation to this Bill No. 3. some of the objectives of the present administration. Just before I left my home in Owen Sound in December to attend the special session, a young war veteran telephoned me to sa>
that he had ordered an electric range-in fairness to the manufacturer I should not disclose the name. This range was $297. I said that seemed almost enough. "Yes," he said, "but they have advised me that the price will now be $367. What would you do?" I replied:	"If I were you I would
stand by a few days because I am sure that once parliament meets and the opposition has an opportunity to enlighten the adminis-

_______________Foreign Exchange Conservation
tration with respect to some of the things they are doing you may anticipate some degree of relief." I did not make any contribution at that time; but my hon. friends and colleagues did, and I was happy to have this man telephone me when I arrived home and tell me that he had saved the tax on that electric range.
But there were others who, having some confidence in a degree of stability in government, had purchased equipment such as electric ranges and other equipment which they might require; and I am wondering what provision has been made for them with respect to the refund of the tax which they paid in the interval when this government-* operating in a haze or a London fog, or goodness knows what persuaded them-sought to introduce measures which were ill conceived and not properly studied or considered, and which were afterwards changed and are being changed from day to day. If you can think of any industry in Canada or any individual who has any sense of direction or confidence in the future of this great country as long as this government is in power, Mr. Speaker, I should like to meet him. That is the reason why I think the opposition quite properly challenged the government to consult the 'last court of public opinion, the people of this country. I am not one of those fellows who are running around looking for an election; but I love my country, and I have arrived at the place where I am prepared to make any sacrifice which is necessary to return this great dominion to some degree of stability, where people will have some confidence.
I am not a newcomer to some of the things I shall say tonight, because two years ago I challenged the Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley), who was then Minister of Finance, to tel! me where the pressure came from which caused the government, over a week end, to put our Canadian currency at par with that of the United States. Being a newcomer to parliament and not realizing that it is necessary to obtain an answer, I let the minister smile it off and the smile was never put on Hansard. I have yet to learn where that pressure came from. It certainly did not come from any quarter of this House of Commons, but it happened quite deliberately. I want to say that, as a simple problem of elementary economics, before the Christmas recess the Minister of Finance sought to leave the impression with this house that, had our dollar remained at ninety cents, it would have been a more costly experiment because of the amount of goods we are importing from the United States of America. I obtained his attention to ask
him to make his comparison on balance; because it is unfair to assume that we would have spent as many dollars in the United States if our dollars were worth only ninety cents as we spent them when they were at par. And conversely it is reasonable to suppose that more United States dollars would have been spent in Canada had their dollars remained at $1.10 in purchasing power. Yet if the Minister of Finance can establish his argument that we would have spent the same amount of money, of course it would appear that parity was the proper move. But I challenge that statement.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you that, on the eve of our joining Bretton Woods, recognizing the fact that our currency would be accepted at the rate of exchange currently in effect and realizing that we had the right to devalue our currency ten per cent still further without even the consent of the international bank, it would have given them a leverage between a dollar and eighty-one cents. In other words, we could have depreciated to eighty-one cents without the consent of that bank had we gone in with the 90-cent dollar.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not ten cents?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Because ten per cent of ninety is only nine cents. As I say, the problem is elementary. The minister's question convinces me that I was correct.
Let us consider the matter for a moment. Surely our approach to the future of our problems in Canada can be gauged somewhat by our experience in the past. Even though my hon. friends opposite may suggest that it was because of war activity and otherwise, we know that while we possessed a 90-cent dollar we built up a $1,600 million surplus of United States dollars; and then, as a result of being ill advised, when we adopted parity, those dollars were drained off to the extent of over a billion, and that within a brief period of time.
Let me suggest that, as long as the United States dollar remained the standard of value throughout the commercial world, we enjoyed an advantage, not only in our approach to United States markets, but in our approach to all the markets of the world. With her tremendous development of industries as a result of the war, producing far more than her limited population could begin to consume, Canada was seeking and was bound to seek outlets for her surplus products. But this government sought to put upon industry, agriculture, and upon every producer in this country, the greatest handicap they could possibly conceive of. They sought not only to restrict our purchasing power but to level our dollar so that the United States of America would have the advantage over our dollar in

Foreign Exchange Conservation
the markets of the world. And all the time, Mr. Speaker, it was merely a joke; because I want to tell you that when we sought to buy and redeem Canadian dollars at par in Canada, if you look at the financial sheet of any daily newspaper you will discover that we have been discounted as high as fifteen per cent in the markets of the United States. I am prepared to accept the word of those who are world traders, men who-and Canadians at that- through their initiative, foresightedness and a degree of confidence in the governments of the countries in which they are doing business, have expanded their industries.
One of our greatest traders, a Canadian by birth, is on record as saying that the moment you try to place an artificial structure on your dollar, you are trying to maintain an artificial price which will tax the resources of your nation. I had a good friend, a man who was a friend of this government, the late Hon. James Malcolm, one time minister of trade and commerce in a Liberal administration. I can remember that in 1932 he said to me, "The more you interfere with natural laws, the more difficult it will be to govern." Just as my hon. friend the member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) said this afternoon: The moment you begin to interfere with natural laws, just at that moment you must impose restrictions and regulations. One restriction leads to another; one regulation leads to another. That which we have valued so highly, our freedom of enterprise, our freedom of thought, our rights as individuals, is cast aside, and in its place we have a system of regulations.	_
With all due respect I do not think there is a man in the house, no matter how sincere or capable he may be, who can regulate and govern the economy of this nation, a man who can seek to obtain a balance of production here and at the same time a restriction of production there.
As a result of the contribution made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) following the address of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) from London, these restrictions were introduced. I can well understand why there is a degree of hesitancy and uncertainty among the followers of the present administration because Canada has been placed in an untenable position at a time when she stood on the threshold of the greatest economic development in industrial expansion in her whole long history.
What do we find today? I do not know whether I should say the Minister of Finance went hat in hand-usually I am one of those who must wear a hat, when outside anyway;
r>fr. Case.]
and possibly there is good reason for it-but it has been said, and I will ask him to deny it if I am wrong, that this is the first time in our long history that we have ever borrowed money from a foreign government. So he has established a precedent.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have borrowed a lot of money from foreign countries, though.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Oh, yes; you borrowed from individuals who had confidence in this country. But you could not find the same sources available today because, as my hon. friends have said, those individuals did not think we had good business administration in Canada at the present time. So only a government could afford to take the chance.
One of the things I am concerned about is our relationship with our friendly neighbour, and in that connection I ask myself some pertinent questions. With our huge resources and our immense country, are we today becoming dependent upon the economy of the United States of America? Are we to become slaves to the United States dollar? Those are questions which are properly asked because the time will soon come when the repayment of debts will be an important factor.
Here we have journeyed on along life's highwny, indicating to our people a degree of prosperity, with the admiration of our friends in the Social Credit group-I mean the C.C.F.; one must be very careful not to criticize where criticism is not warranted.
Our socialist friends have admired the government as it has journeyed along the path to totalitarianism, because it has suited them. They have said, "Look at the degree of prosperity Canada enjoyed through the management of industry by the government during the war." Perhaps very few of us have stopped long enough to think this out. We borrowed one-half of our prosperity. We have mortgaged the future. .1 have no objection to that; as a matter of fact, I like to think of myself as a student of monetary reform. But there is one thing I would say, and that is that those w'ho have benefited by the bloodshed, sweat and tears which guaranteed our future freedom can well afford to pay, in kind at least, in a material way, for the success and achievements of our armies in the field. I am offering no criticism of the method employed in financing the war; but I believe we could have accomplished a great deal more had we determined that it would require not only bloodshed, sweat and tears but the whole

Foreign Exchange Conservation
resourcefulness of the Canadian people to gain to the full the great reward won for us on the field of battle.
It seemed to me most unusual that we should lead a life of ease and security when that future had been so dearly bought. Surely the law of compensation is still working; surely there comes a time when we must pay. So we are going to pay. This year for the first time in the history of our country we have departed from our usual procedure and, as the first step in our unknown economic future, we have borrowed 8300 million from a foreign government when, in my opinion, the whole thing could have been adjusted by allowing the medium which we use to adjust our balance in exchange to seek its own level.
One thing we must remember, and that is *that there is now a degree of inflation in the United States. Is it not strange that that flood of inflation did not hit Canada in a marked degree until the 'Minister of Finance said, "No longer can you buy Canadian-made goods without paying an excise tax."
I come now to a pertinent point. We have heard our socialist friends talk about the excess profits tax. They seem to think it is extremely bad business for any industrial concern to build up a reserve with which to meet problems in the future. Apparently they would be better satisfied to have the employers and their thousands of employees living from hand to mouth in these enterprises which, under circumstances of that kind, might easily collapse and go to the wall. It is interesting to note that when they point to profits they always pick the most successful enterprises, and fail to give any reference to the trying experiences they have overcome. They say nothing about the enterprises which have failed where people have invested risk dollars and have been willing to take chances.
While the House of Commons will in the near future name a committee to investigate price spreads and profiteering, I suggest to the house that one of the first witnesses to be called before the committee should be the Minister of Finance himself. If there ever was a marked degree of profiteering, it exists right in this government today. They have had absolutely no regard for the money that they required to carry on the business of the nation. They budgeted for a surplus of $80,000,000 or $180,000,000, and now it is said they will have a surplus of hundreds of millions. I realize that for a government steeped in wartime traditions a million or a hundred million is neither here nor there, but it means
a great deal to the Canadian taxpayer. There is nothing in this world which would make for a greater incentive in production.
In my contribution to the budget debate last year I challenged the minister to budget for a deficit of a quarter of a billion dollars and show that he had confidence in the future of Canada. Had he budgeted for a deficit of a quarter of a billion, he would have been far closer to the mark than he is now. He budgeted for a surplus and now they have so much money they do not know what to do with it.
Taxation has become a vital factor. It makes a tremendous contribution to the degree of labour unrest in our industrial plants. The take-home pay is a great factor in the worker's life. One sure way to defeat inflation is to increase production. We have the productive capacity because our people are possessed of the resourcefulness and genius to make their full contribution. But unfortunately, as I have said, we have in office a government whose powers to restrict have outgrown their desire to have things done. The result is that industry is languishing. Our farmers have no sense of direction. They do not know what they should plant next spring. Harvest time will arrive as it did last year and the government will begin squirming and turning about and talking about what should be done after the product is out of the farmers' hands and in the large warehouses of Montreal and Toronto.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And Owen Sound.


An hon. MEMBER:: They have elevators there.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Owen Sound may not have large warehouses, but there is one thing we are very proud of. We are proud of the way in which the people there put into cold storage for a long time one of the government's efforts to put across on our people something that would not go. In my riding we have a few people at least who are considered to be pretty well balanced. If I may digress for a moment may I say that I was almost amused by reading in the press the other day where the Prime Minister, for whose person I have the highest regard, made a statement that he was opposed to communism and that we should put our shoulders to the wheel to defeat these subversive elements. In February, 1945, in the riding of Grey North, the Liberal association were pleased to authorize and pay for a full-page communist ad in our papers which contained the pictures of the communists who were supporting Andy McNaughton.
Foreign Exchange Conservation

Having said this, let me proceed to make my contribution on this memorable occasion. This occasion will become memorable because this is one of the times during which this administration has been in power when we, as the elected representatives of the people, have been asked to depart from what we consider 'to be parliamentary practice and procedure and democratic rule. This parliament is being asked' to delegate certain powers. Someone mentioned elevators in Owen Sound. The present Minister of Reconstruction and Supply and fisheries and finance and several other portfolios-what is his present portfolio?


An hon. MEMBER:: Trade and' commerce.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: He built the elevators in Owen Sound, so that I expect he will guarantee the quality of the workmanship. That does not detract in any way from the right hon. gentleman's contribution. We are being asked to delegate to one man the right to do things which I would not ask a local municipality to do for me. In that case there would be only a mere handful of people in a restricted area as compared with this vast country of Canada with its, shall I say teeming millions? There could be more millions if this government were concerned about planning for our future which I am sure they are not.


Clarence Gillis: All planners.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I expert that all people do a certain amount of planning. I always plan my affairs so that I can stand on my own feet and not lean on somebody else. That is one thing this government have encouraged the people of 'Canada to do, to lean upon someone else. They have encouraged this great body of citizenry to become leaners. They themselves are leaners. The Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement in the press that Canada was in for great times, provided that the Marshall plan succeeds. Where are your plans if the Marshall plan does not succeed? You have no guarantee that it will succeed. I am not going to raise my voice in any way that might defeat the success of the Marshall plan because it is necessary for world recovery. I hope 'that those who are dealing with it in the United States will take a reasonably generous view. They must do that if they hope for the survival of their own security and of the particular form of government which guarantees their freedom.
There has never been that planning and leadership for which Canada is starving today. Government has been carried on at the administration level. Canada is seeking leadership; it is seeking someone who will give

us a sense of security in our planning and in our hopes for the future. If the minister had made his comparison on balance I would have been perfectly satisfied. I admit that it probably would not be easy to make a comparison on balance.
We have sought to bring into Canada tourists from the United States to spend their money here. The tourist industry is one of our greatest industries. Yet here we find the Canadian government restricting the travel of Canadians to the United States. It would have been far better if the Minister of Finance had charged them SI.10 for every United States dollar they bought and let them go wherever they liked. That is freedom. But no, he sought to restrict them. The people of the United States, realizing that our price level is lower than theirs, would have flocked to Canada if their dollar would have enabled them to buy $1.10 of Canadian goods, which are worth about S1.60 in the United States. We must remember that whatever the United States is doing about the dollar they consider that their dollar is worth a dollar in their own country, and they let the rest of the world determine what it is worth in their countries. I think that would be a very good position for Canada to take. It certainly would provide us with a terrific advantage when we seek to sell our goods in the markets of the world. The challenge today is to determine exactly where we stand. Never can I recall a period in Canada's history when there was so much confusion in the public mind-I say this kindly but deliberately-and so much uncertainty as exists among Canadians today. They have a feeling of frustration, a feeling of despair, a lack of confidence. A sense of confidence properly should come from the leadership which one looks for in the government of the nation, but no government will survive in Canada or enjoy the confidence of the Canadian people which tries to live on the record of its past and which has no conception of present-day problems. That is the position of the present administration. They are accepting advice from certain groups or individuals who are theorists, to begin with, with no practical knowledge of business. Take our gold mining industry-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I shall conclude in a moment, if I may, Mr. Speaker?


William Ross Macdonald: With the
unanimous consent of the house the hon. member may continue.

_______________Foreign Exchange Conservation


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Take our gold mining industry. The government proposes to set up a group of bureaucrats who will have to go about the country checking the returns of all the gold mines in Canada, and still that state of confusion will exist.
In conclusion, I suggest that the minister should listen to the voice of reason and turn back while there is yet time and give Canada the opportunity to expand on its own volition, in accordance with the enthusiastic ambition which has carried us to the peak we now occupy in international affairs.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask one question of the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case). He said that the minister should listen to the voice of reason. Very good advice. But whose voice is it? Is it the voice of my hon. friend? Is it the voice of his leader? Is it the voice of the leader of the C.C.F. party? Is it the voice of the leader of the Social Credit party? Is it the voice of my colleague the hon. member for Beauharnois-Lapairie (Mr. Raymond), who is not here but who can speak from long distance? Whose voice is it, the voice of reason? I should like to know. The advice given by my hon. friend was not complete. He gave very good advice to the minister but he did not finish his sentence. Will he be good enough to say whose voice, according to him, is the voice of reason and logic?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: If my hon. friend is asking me a question I would say just a word in reply. The voice of reason is the collective voice of the Canadian people who value freedom and justice above anything else in the world.


Jean-François Pouliot: There was once a great politician across the border who was offering one of the provinces of Canada for sale. A friend of mine saw and talked with him, when other Americans were present. Afterwards they asked: Has he power of attorney to sell a province of Canada? I would ask my hon. friend what power of attorney he has to speak on behalf of the people of Canada. I ask that question to be informed by him, because I listened to him with joy. He does not send one to sleep. He is lively. He is eloquent; he speaks well. He is interesting. But he does not finish his sentences. Why does he start so well and not finish? He made my mouth water. I was expecting some wisdom from him and he gave us only eloquence. The brain food he gave us did not have enough in it of the salt of wisdom, and therefore I am very sorry his speech was incomplete. I would
have listened to him much longer with great pleasure if he had finished his sentences and had told us whose is the voice of reason, or if he had read to us in full the power of attorney that he has from the Canadian people to speak on their behalf.


An hon. MEMBER:: Very clever.


William Earl Rowe: He at least speaks for Grey North.


Jean-François Pouliot: One at a time and I can handle them all. I do not say that because I dislike my hon. friend the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe); I like him. But what surprises me is that my hon. friends have discovered grounds for challenge recently. They have been thinking deeply about the problems of the day, and I should not be surprised if the hon. member for Grey North were chosen by his party to make the speech he did tonight because he was elected in the dying days of the war, and just because he was not here when the former leader of the Conservative party-before it was Progressive -used to say, "Don't worry; don't bother; let the war go on, and after the war yye will talk business." That is the language which was used in the house by Mr. Hanson. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), who succeeded Mr. Hanson, had too much common sense to make the same speeches. At the time there was no language of wisdom; there was no voice of wisdom. The minds of all members of the house were distracted by propaganda.
Today I am not in the position of the hon. gentleman who has challenged the government on this bill. If I look into the past; if I look into what has happened during the war, I will tell my hon. friend because he was not here at the time, that there were protests against the financial policy of the government, and at the time the challenge was not against one party, it was against the whole house. The Conservative party have not the right to attack the government since they are sinners as well in that respect because they have not shown that they were imbued with any idea of Canadianism. They were imperialistic to the core; when we were talking within the language of reason, of common sense, nobody was listening to it, and we were attacked. We were abused; we were called isolationists just because we saw what is happening today.
What about the gift of the formidable amount of S450 million for the air training plan, and what have we got for that? We have got wrought-iron gates for the Trenton camp.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.
Foreign Exchange Conservation


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And freedom.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, yes. Wait a minute.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: And dearly bought, too.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was a pure gift of $450 million, a formidable amount that we have to pay from the taxes of the Canadian people. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario must keep quiet and listen to it because it is an arraignment of the stupid financial policy of this government from the start of the war, a policy that was condoned by all parties and supported by all parties. He may be remorseful-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Everybody is out of step but John.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, yes. Let the colonel be quiet, too. I know it hurts them. I know it is painful. When I stood against all of them at the time with the small number of members, I was met with the cry that was insulting me at the time. I was called a supporter of Hitler because I was speaking my mind, and because I was speaking honestly and because I was telling this house and the country that we had not the right to mortgage what was the property of future generations, to mortgage national wealth just because we had wizards in the Department of Finance who had been put there by the former leader of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), the former leader of the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case), and the former leader of the other howlers, Bennett, who put these men in key positions because they were flattering his vanity, his tremendous vanity.


William Earl Rowe: They did not run him, though.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is the last privy councillor of the Bennett government who sits in this chamber now, and that is not a reason of pride for his children.


William Earl Rowe: It is no disgrace to them. He did not run Bennett.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell you they will never boast of a father who was a member of Bennett's government.


William Earl Rowe: He did not run Bennett; Bennett ran him, but he runs your government.


Mr. GRANT:: Bennett ran away.


Jean-François Pouliot: He may have run everybody, but he never ran me, and when I saw that big windbag being the Prime Minister of Canada I was ashamed for the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame on you.


Jean-François Pouliot: Here they are. Have you ever seen them, Mr. Speaker? Look at them. They are like old women.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. MANROSS:: If you want to see a windbag look in the mirror.


James Horace King: Order. May I call hon. members' attention to the fact that we have before the house Bill No. 3 entitled, "An act respecting emergency measures for the conservation of Canadian foreign exchange resources." I should like hon. members to keep their remarks relevant to the bill which is before the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will say to the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross), who was the last interrupter, that at the time Mr. Bennett was prime minister he was a Liberal himself, a supporter of the government; but that is off the record.


William Earl Rowe: You had better have it all off the record. It should be all off the record.


Mr. HARTT:: Just a notice of motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: Now that Lord Bennett has been embalmed and buried properly, let us proceed with the discussion that we were on a moment ago, and with a little order. Just to show my hon. friends that they are true to themselves, that they do not change at all and that they are always the same, semper idem-


An hon. MEMBER:: Bill No. 3.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is a Latin phrase which means, "always the same thing." My hon. friend has missed it, but it is an accurate translation.
We can remember what has been done; we can recall it, and it is precisely because it has been done that today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has to go to Washington to get some money from the United States government to help Canada.
How much did we spend during the war for war purposes? We spent S30 billion, and the amount of $300 million is just one per cent of what we spent during the war while we were financing the sterling area. My hon. friends were all for the financing of the British or sterling area.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: They applaud. I see my genial friend from Simcoe over there. He is applauding. He is ready to start again. I

_____________Foreign Exchange Conservation
should like to know what is the feeling of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). I am sure that he will be for it again, for the financing of the sterling area. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has vanished. I think he has had enough of what I gave him, but if he comes back I will ask him if he thinks that it will be good and sound financial policy to finance the sterling area. Then there is my hon. friend from New Brunswick, the radiant colonel, the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). I am sure that he will be for it; therefore, if they are still for the causes of death, how can they complain that the minister goes to Washington to borrow more money? They stood for the causes of the mess we are in-and they still stand for them. They are silent now, Mr. Speaker. They do not protest. We do not hear any banging of desks. There they are. They are silent. They have been tamed, and the only thing to do is to confront them with their past record to show the absurdity of the policies of the Tory party. I cannot help saying how indignant I feel when I hear these denunciations of the government's policy by men who would probably have done worse if they had been in power. It was on the suggestion and the recommendation of the former leader of the opposition, Mr. Hanson, at that time member for York-Sunbury, that the government went into such an extraordinary move, financially speaking.
What will be the future? The future will not change. In the future we shall have the same financial policy in this country, whether this government returns to power after the next election or whether there is any other government, so long as nobody has the guts to make a clean-up in the Department of Finance and in the Bank of Canada. Abolish it and get rid of all those wizards-and I say that ironically. When I used the word "wizard"-for those who do not understand Job-I was using irony to describe these cranks.
The financial policy of this country since Bennett came to power has been failure, and it still goes on. Do you remember, sir, that the governor of the Bank of Canada boasted of following the financial policy of Schaeht in Germany? Do you know that the foreign exchange control board has been conducted by the most dangerous man who was sitting on the board of the bank of international settlement? They try nation-wide schemes until they fall into international experiments.
I wonder what will be the effect of the eloquent speech made by the hon. member
for Grey North. He spoke very well, but if he was chosen by his party to speak tonight, it was, I am sure, because he was not a member of this house when Mr. Hanson was the leader of that party. I said that Mr. Hanson made bold recommendations and suggestions to the Liberal party, and I cannot understand how it is that the Liberal party has followed his advice. But the last men to blame the government for having followed 'the views expressed and suggestions made by Mr. Hanson should be those who belong to his party, and those who were in the house when he made those recommendations. And even if they were not in the house, those were the recommendations made in this house by the leader of the party who was the loud-speaker of Arthur Meighen, who has been so often chosen for a short period of time to give the Tory party the illusion that he was bringing them to victory.
That is a sad story. I regret 'that the Minister of Finance had to borrow S300 million from the United States. I believe that economically we should be just as free from the United States as we should be from the United Kingdom. There is no reason why, economically at least, Canada should not be the mistress of her destiny. But I will go a step farther and say that if it is impossible for Canada to be economically independent without being politically independent, Canada should certainly be politically independent. But we shall not be independent so long as there are procrastinating imperialists in all parties in the house, men who should be denounced because 'they cannot be good Canadians. And that's that.
I believe that the Minister of Finance is well gifted and I sympathize with him because he has inherited an onerous legacy. But the legacy was not the 'tremendous debt of this country. It was not the taxes, which are a burden on each Canadian citizen. The legacy is the staff of the Department of Finance, the staff of the Bank of Canada, the staff of the foreign exchange control board, that octopus which creates ruin and danger, which creates disorder in this country.
If the hon. member for Grey North would listen to the voice of reason he would realize that reform is impossible in this country unless we return to the time when the minister of finance was boss of the Department of Finance and had to listen to false advice, wrong advice given by those wizards I mentioned a moment ago. There was a time when we had responsible government in this country, and the gold and securities belonging to the Dominion of Canada were kept in the east

Foreign Exchange Conservation
block where the Prime Minister has his office, where the council sits, where the Minister of Finance also has his office. They were the guardians of the public treasury. When I saw armoured trucks moving those securities to the vault of the Bank of Canada I realized that the time of ministerial responsibility had gone and that we would be in the hands of men who are incapable and incompetent. I do not want to go to the trouble of naming them, but everyone knows whom I mean, and it is not a question of being unpleasant to this one or that one.
The financial policy of the government has been unsound since these men have been put there. They have destroyed the wealth of Canadians in many ways by reducing the interest on deposits in banks and by doing all sorts of things that made people more miserable, that affected their wealth, things that may bring communism to this country in the near future.
How does communism arise? It comes when the people are deprived of their own property. I believe in the right of ownership, and the right of ownership is in accordance with the natural law. Is there a party bold enough to come and make definite recommendations for reform? What we need now is not at all what was mentioned a moment ago, namely leadership. What we need is reform. But we shall have no reform so long as we have irresponsible government in this country. I am ready to support the Minister of Finance to the limit if he is ready to make a house-cleaning in his department and to superannuate those men who cannot give sound advice to this country.
I have spoken of my hon. friends of the Conservative party. They procrastinate. They do not change. They are always the same. That is inevitable. But amongst the members of the party there are some good men; and I will mention two who helped me. I see the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), an old sage, one of the best-informed members of the house. When I mentioned here that amounts below $25,000,000 did not appear in the public accounts, he rose and said it was an outrage. I relied upon his support and I relied also on the support of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) who helped me. At times I have obtained some support also from some friends in 'the C.C.F. group, from some friends in the Social Credit group and from some friends in the Liberal party. We tried to give an opportunity to the government to listen to the voice of reason.

Those men in the Bank of Canada, in the foreign exchange control- board and the other accessories are not the ones who will run before the people in an election. It will be the members of this house who will do that. When we go before the people, each one of us will- be asked what he has done to improve conditions in this country. If we bring about reform; if we see that we have responsible government in this party and that the financial policy is no longer imposed on the government by those men who were put in key positions by Bennett and who are still there, then the Canadian people will have a breathing spell and will be given relief. They will realize that we shall return to the good old times of Jim 'Robb, Fielding and also of White, who was a sound Minister of Finance.


William Earl Rowe: Why do you keep them in power?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, Fielding is dead,
Robb is dead and Sir Thomas White must be eighty-five years old. My hon. friend knows him better than I do.


William Earl Rowe: You are a supporter of the government. You are responsible for keeping the employees. You could dismiss them if you do not like them.


Jean-François Pouliot: At the time there was no distinction between the financial policy of the parties except on tariff and regarding responsible government. The policy of the Conservative party at the time of Borden was the same as that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and there was no change until Bennett came. When I was elected a member of parliament for the first time I felt at home in the House of Commons. I could follow the government blindly. I trusted them. But as soon as Bennett came in with that smart set, I could not do that, and I had to keep my eyes wide open. That is my answer to my hon. friend.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell you one more thing. Some people have a feeling of joy to have forecast something. My feeling is one of regret. During the war, during the post-war period and even in 1946 when nearly all the members who are here tonight were members of this house, when I spoke of the fallacy of the loan gifts I was not listened to. I said to myself, is it worth trying to speak the language not of reason but of plain common sense to the House of Commons? I was not sure if I was right or if the majority composed of all parties was right. So I decided to stop speaking in the house for some time and to call on the English-speaking people of Canada in Ontario and in the maritimes to

Foreign Exchange Conservation
find out what their reaction was. I found from those who were reading Hansard, not from those who were reading the English press- because with very few exceptions the English press of Canada is far from being informative about dominion affairs-that the stand which had been taken by a small group of members was supported by them. We were encouraged to go on to try to open the eyes of all.
This is said without any party bias. I respect my colleagues. They may differ with me, but they will realize at least that I have been consistent; and I regret deeply and profoundly that matters have grown much worse than anyone expected them to be at the time. Theoretical discussion about this bill will not bring any improvement to the financial policy of the government. I urge upon my most respected colleagues of all parties the necessity to realize that the time has come for reform. That reform will not be to go ahead with more crazy ideas. The reform will be simply and honestly to do at first an act of modesty, to realize that we must get out of that foolish
atmosphere created by wizards and return to responsible government, the responsible government which made this country prosperous at the time of'Macdonald, Laurier, Borden and Mackenzie King also until 1930. Let us make a general clean-up in the Department of Finance. Then it will not be necessaiy any longer to borrow money from the United States or from any other country.
On motion of Mr. Lockhart the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Douglas Charles Abbott: Tomorrow I believe we shall resume the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And sit in the afternoon only?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The afternoon only.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 28, 1948