1952-11-28

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday afternoon I was carrying out an engagement on public business in my own office and I was necessarily absent from the chamber when the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale), in the course of his remarks, attributed to me a statement in these words, which I must repudiate as being incorrect. They are found on page 163 of Hansard, as follows:
For example, our Manitoba minister, speaking recently in Preeceville, Saskatchewan, criticized the trend toward industrialization on the prairies, claiming it to be a revival of what he termed Tory protectionism, whatever that may be.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in that address I never even mentioned the trend toward industrialization on the prairies, let alone criticize it. What I said-and I will quote two sentences-was this:
Yet, some people in Canada argue that the course of our development should be altered, that we should process and finish more of our own raw materials in Canada; and that, for example, rather than export iron ore, we should enlarge the steel-producing capacity of this country. Now, while from our government's deeds it is perfectly clear-


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I ask what is the point of privilege that is under consideration?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have just stated it. If my hon. friend will contain himself for about fifteen seconds I shall finish my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the Minister of Justice was not in the house when the hon. member for Brandon attributed to him certain statements which he states were not made by him. If the minister had been in the house, according to custom, he would have been permitted, at the end of the speech of the hon. member, to correct any incorrect statements that had been made regarding him.


George Alexander Drew: I am merely raising the question because it is obvious that he would be in a position on a question of privilege to correct any inaccurate statements, but I would point out that the minister is taking the occasion to make a speech, and we have from him another speech.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I must object to my hon. friend's interjection. I am not making a speech; I am repudiating what is attributed to me, and stating what I actually said at that time.


Mr. Casselman:: What page?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Justice should only complete the statement which he actually did make, without further comment thereon.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I was quoting, Mr. Speaker,
when I was interrupted:
Now, while from our government's deeds it Is perfectly clear that we believe in enlarging the steel or any other producing capacity of Canada to the optimum point, we do not by any means agree with the view that we should process all of our raw materials in this country.


Mr. Pearkes:: Are you going to read the whole speech?



MR. COLDWELL    REFERENCE TO REMARKS OF MEMBER FOR PEACE RIVER

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege; I did not want to raise this while the hon. member was speaking, but the other afternoon I endeavoured to correct a statement which was being made by the hon. member for Peace Paver (Mr. Low). I was told that I could not do that until the amendment to the amendment had been disposed of. I am in the very difficult position today of not having been able to say anything to correct what the hon. gentleman isaid.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My recollection is that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar stated that he had the proof of the statement which he made, and he wanted to prove what he had previously said. Of course I could not allow that. Today the Minister of Justice has corrected a statement which was directed to him. The other day the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) wanted to prove a statement he had already made.


Major James William Coldwell: I think probably you misunderstood, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member had made a statement that I had said something, and I wished to correct it. I think-perhaps there was a misunderstanding in that regard.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: If there was a misunderstanding, it is unfortunate, and I regret it. In any event I could not have allowed the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to make another speech at that time.


Major James William Coldwell: I understand that.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries. Would the minister state what action he intends to take in regard to the request of west coast fishermen that salmon fishing in December be allowed in part of area 3 owing to the fact that labour disputes interfered with fishing this year?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question, because it afforded me an opportunity to get in touch with the west coast. This winter run of chum salmon is a type of fishing which has never been fished in the past, for conservation reasons. However, because fishing stoppages last summer have resulted in adequate escapement of salmon for spawning this year, as an experiment it is intended to open the area from Satellite channel to Comox from December 15 to December 31.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it the intention to set up a special committee on atomic energy during the present session? He will remember that there was some discussion of this matter at the last session. I believe at that time he intimated that it was probable there would be such a committee during the 1953 session.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: No consideration has been given to the subject matter of the question as yet. However, when the time arrives to set up committees, consideration will be given and I will give an answer at that time.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say that I, too, think it would be a good idea to have that committee set up.



ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Defence Production. Has his attention been drawn to an article appearing in this morning's Ottawa Citizen dealing with the purchase for our armed forces of a quantity of apple juice, and would he care to comment thereon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I did notice the article. I had a word with my parliamentary assistant, the hon. senior member for Halifax. Perhaps he could throw some light on the subject.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question I would reply that Canadian apple juice, fortified or vitamized, is on the ration scale of all three of our armed services, and is purchased in volume for consumption. Purchases are made from the industry in Nova Scotia, central Canada and British Columbia.
Apple processors do not operate their plants on a year-round basis, and do not have storage space to hold large quantities available. It is therefore good business for us to purchase these seemingly large amounts from the processors, in season, rather than from wholesalers as required throughout the year. The purchases referred to in the press dispatch, to which reference has been made, constitute one year's supply for the army, navy and air force.



ESTABLISHMENT OF UNITED STATES FIGHTER SQUADRONS IN NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he has seen a dispatch in several newspapers today, including the Gazette and the Globe and Mail to the effect that United States fighter squadrons are to be established in Newfoundland at various points, and whether he is prepared to make comment.


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, I have seen these references, and I would be glad to make a statement in view of them. It had been intended that a statement would be made on the subject before this, but it was necessary, in the practice of international courtesy, to clear the statement with the United States authorities before it was made. That statement was cleared on November 25 and I am informed that it was issued that day by External

Affairs to the Canadian press. I do not think however that it has appeared in the press, except in the form to which the hon. member referred.
The statement is as follows:
In the agreement between the Canadian and Newfoundland governments at the time of the construction of Goose Bay air base, it was agreed that the base should be available to the USAF for the duration of the war and for such time thereafter as the governments agreed was necessary in the interests of common defence. The USAF have remained at Goose Bay with the consent of the Canadian government since the war.
In view of the increased international tension during the last three years the USAF and RCAF facilities at Goose Bay have been considerably expanded. The base is, in effect, a joint defence installation and is being used by both air forces in accordance with their agreed requirements.
As a result of this situation there have been USAF squadrons at Goose Bay from time to time.
I should add-despite the fact that this has not been cleared with the United States authorities, I think the house is entitled to the information, and newspaper reports make it necessary-that this is part of the Canadian-United States regional security arrangements under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Under these arrangements we have had considerable formations training in the United States, and they have had considerable formations training in Canada.
I recall for example the 25th brigade training at Fort Lewis, and almost all amphibious training of Canadian forces has been done in the United States. This is an arrangement of exactly the same kind, and it should not be regarded as anything else. It will involve from time ,to time United States squadrons visiting Canadian stations and being stationed there for limited periods of time, subject of course to our preliminary agreement in each case-except with respect to the leased bases -all in accordance with the arrangements we have worked out. In every case-except in the leased bases-the station will continue under Canadian command.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is it intended to extend this principle to other parts of Canada? The minister made reference to the temporary stationing of units in Canada. But, so far as, Goose Bay is concerned, is it not on a more permanent basis?


Brooke Claxton: No, there is no intention of stationing any squadron in Canada at the present time. Goose is the only place contemplated within the territory of Canada, except the leased bases.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Not the squadron personnel at Torbay?


Brooke Claxton: No.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Francis Higgins: Are the facilities of these airports to be increased to take care of this additional use?


Brooke Claxton: Torbay is to be expanded to take care of increased supply requirements of the United States air force, particularly pointing toward the northeast, to Greenland. But it is not intended at the present time to increase the operational activities at Torbay.



PHOTOGRAPHY-INQUIRY CONCERNING PERMISSION FROM WASHINGTON

Major James William Coldwell: In
view of the statement of Mr. Clete Roberts, I should like to ask if it is correct that before he was permitted to take pictures of the Royal Canadian Air Force he had, first of all, to clear them with Washington-or at least our air force had to clear with Washington before permission could be given to take those pictures of our own air force.


Brooke Claxton: I am not aware of that matter. I shall have to look into it. However, we would not permit United States photographers to take photographs of Canadian stations without having Canadian permission.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not what he said. He said the Canadian air force had to clear with Washington before permission could be given for him to take the pictures.


Brooke Claxton: I think it would be necessary for him to clear the matter, for purposes of security, and to make arrangements for joint examination before they were shown.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alcide  Cole@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, on November 25 the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie) asked the following question as reported at page 62 of Hansard of that date:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. I am sorry that I did not send him notice of it, but I imagine that he will be able to answer it. In view of the fact that the post office in the city of Medicine Hat is closed on Saturday afternoons, will he give serious consideration to keeping it open on those afternoons? It is a big handicap to the people to have to come in to the city on Saturdays.
Since this question was, at the time, taken as a notice, I now wish to answer it as follows:
Medicine Hat post office closes all wickets on Saturday afternoons at 1 p.m., which is the practice in a large number of city post offices.

The Address-Mr. Dupuis
O.'her phases of postal business, such as receipt and dispatch of mail, are provided as usual.
The wickets are closed in the majority of post offices on the afternoon of the day that is observed as the weekly half holiday by the majority of business houses in the community, which in Medicine Hat is Saturday, for the following reason:
(a)	There is a decided falling off in the demand for service from the public, and
(b)	The observance of a weekly half holiday makes it easier to provide a 44-hour week to the employees in the post office concerned.
This is the first complaint that we have received from Medicine Hat with regard to the closing of wickets on Saturday afternoons, but if it is the wish of the majority of the patrons that Wednesday afternoon be observed instead, the department would have no objection.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. L. Deslieres for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Hecior Dupuis (Si. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I was just saying at the adjournment last night that the Liberal party can face the coming appeal to the people with serenity. We are proud of our most worthy chief, Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent, who still has the confidence of the nation. Nobody ever thought that the present government was perfect, but I do not hesitate to say that its leaders have always shown a sense of real comprehension of the aspirations of the people and have endeavoured to serve their interests to the best of their ability, and with an ardent desire to assure the highest standard of living ever known here, contrary to the situation existing under some Conservative governments, and especially during the period of 1930 to 1935.
I will admit that it is time for change. That will be, I think, the slogan of the opposition. It may be time for a change, as I said yesterday, in the leadership of the Conservative party in this country, and also in the ideals of that party. As to the other parties represented in this house, I do not think that their respective principles or doctrines would be beneficial to our country, and I do not think that they can count on a large support

among the electorate. I wish I had better news to give to my friends on the other side of the house.
While Sir John Macdonald1, Laurier, Borden, King and now St. Laurent have exerted themselves to assure national unity in our country, we see on the other hand politicians provoking the minority, thus creating dissension by declarations such as the following, which has not been denied and which was made by the present leader of the official opposition. I will quote an excerpt from an article which appeared in Everybody's Weekly, a British publication, on September 30, 1944, containing an interview of the man who at that time was premier of the province of Ontario:
"Bax", said the latter to the English M.P., "I want British stock for Ontario. We can take thousands and thousands of your people. The one thing that can keep the French-Canadian pressure within bounds is a strong Ontario, peopled by British stock."
That was said by the present Leader of the Opposition.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the hon. member is reading what has been handed to him, and I excuse him to that extent. But I would point out that what he probably does not know is-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hector Dupuis: Never mind. I like these interruptions.


George Alexander Drew: What the hon. member probably does not know is that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is rising to deny that he made a statement that has been attributed to him. I think he should be allowed to do that.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that what the hon. member probably does not know is that at that time it was quite clearly demonstrated that the interview had not taken place and that fact was recognized at the time and generally understood. I can only add at this point that the hon. member is making a wonderful contribution to the national unity which he pretends to advocate.


Hector Dupuis: I know quite well that the Leader of the Opposition regrets having uttered such words.


Mr. Brooks:: He never uttered them.


Hector Dupuis: Really, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to compare the Leader of the Opposition to a criminal. There is no doubt about that. But he makes me think of a man, on the morning of his execution, getting on the scaffold and imploring the hangman for mercy, and telling him that he will not do it any more.

Those words have never been denied before. I find that they indicate a great magnanimity, a great patriotism and a good sense of mutual comprehension!
On another occasion the same gentleman proved what use he was making of national unity when he declared in a radio speech which he delivered on August 9, 1944, the folowing words as reported the next day in one of his friend's dailies, the Toronto Star.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hector Dupuis: That is all right. Maybe I make a mistake once in a while, but I hope that I will not live long enough to make as many and as ghastly mistakes as the Conservative party has made ever since confederation has existed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hector Dupuis: Just a minute. I know it is not very pleasant but we have some questions to settle here. The report stated:
Mr. Drew termed the family allowance bill an obvious bribe and said "there was every reason why this measure should meet with approval in Quebec where there was a very important election approaching.
It was not written by anybody else but the paper that reported it; and mind you, nobody ever touched that speech of mine. If I am reading a bit, I am just following the example given me by the Leader of the Opposition who read his speech right through. The report continues:
The premier-
That is the premier of Ontario at that time, now the Leader of the Opposition. He has probably not changed his mentality but rather his way of expressing himself in order to try to get some votes.
-asked, "Are we going to permit one isolationist province to dominate the destiny of a divided Canada? I hope that each one of you will answer a resounding "no" which will be heard in every part of the province of Quebec."
I assure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) that the resounding "no" has been heard in every part of Quebec and in the country at large and by our English-speaking fellow citizens of other provinces who believe that harmony and comprehension are the basis of the future prosperity of the country. Yes, this resounding "no" is still in the ears of all good Canadians and the disastrous political fate of the one responsible for such an outrage to millions of Canadians will be the ransom of this unpatriotic appeal.
It is good to say these things because after all there is no statesman, no politician who has the right to insult or provoke any race in this country. It will take very many
The Address-Mr. Dupuis speeches by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), who was elected by accident, and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche), who was also elected by accident, before the people will forget such seditious remarks. All those who stand for national unity have already repudiated the author of such attacks against millions of Canadians. I know the broadmindedness of my English-speaking fellow citizens, and I am sure that they do not concur in such subversive language. I want to assure my colleagues who speak the English language, Mr. Speaker, that, notwithstanding my origin, notwithstanding the language I speak in my home, I am proud of one thing, not only of being a French Canadian but of being a Canadian, whatever my origin may be. At the same time I cannot support anybody insulting the millions of the minority in this great country.
Yes, it is time for a change. I repeat that it is time for a change, not on this side but on the other side of the house, in the ideals of the nation's destroyers of this calibre. Canada will never take the chance of placing its destiny in such hands. That is my own feeling and I am sure that I echo the opinion of the majority in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has referred to two other hon. members as having been elected by accident. That is not in accordance with the rules of the house and I think the hon. member must withdraw those remarks. I could not on account of the interruptions follow the hon. member closely enough, but I think he also accused certain hon. members of sedition. If so, I would ask him to withdraw those remarks also.


Hector Dupuis: I will say "non-amicable
speeches" instead of "seditious". As far as those two members being elected by accident is concerned would the words "by luck" be allowed?


Mr. Knowles:: The hon. member ought to know.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose that might apply to all of us.


Hector Dupuis: My modesty forbids me to say the contrary. Coming back to the chances of my dear friends on the other side, of other opposition parties, particularly the C.C.F., I must say that the province of Quebec, together with all other provinces except Saskatchewan, believes in private enterprise and will not adhere for a long time, if it ever does, to a policy of state control of industries. It is too bad for my friends of the C C.F. party but really I do not see any chance for them in the whole of Canada.

The Address-Mr. Dupuis
I turn now to the Social Crediters. You know, Mr. Speaker, I am analysing the chances of these parties because once in a while people get up on the other side of the house and say, "Wait for the next appeal; you are going to have to take responsibility for this, that and the other thing when you appeal to the people." I am just giving my own opinion about what I think.


An hon. Member:: It is not worth much.


Hector Dupuis: This is not an election speech. It is a speech I can make in this parliament just the same as if I were on the hustings because what I say on the hustings I can repeat in parliament. I do not use different words and I do not have different feelings.


Mr. Argue:: How many thousand reprints are you getting?


Hector Dupuis: I am not going to get one reprint of my speech, and I never have. The people know that the representative of the constituency of St. Mary always does his duty and that is what I am doing at the present time. As to the Social Crediters, I have only a few words. Apparently this party seems to carry on the administration of the government of Alberta to the satisfaction of the people of that province but I find it strange that its leaders have thought it wiser not to put into force the doctrine of the founder of social credit who repudiated Canadian Social Crediters for this very reason. Have they realized that this doctrine is a doctrine of Utopia? I do not know. I was told that a large number of Social Credit supporters were only disguised Tories. That is not a good recommendation as far as I am concerned, and there is good proof of it. Considering the matter further, if we look at the new cabinet that has been formed in British Columbia we find many ministers who were at one time prominent members of the Conservative party, so if they are not disguised Tories they are at least converted Tories.
To summarize my remarks, and before I address a special request to the government,
I must say that the majority of Canadians find that they are fortunate to have in charge of the direction of the affairs of our country men of the type represented by those who compose the present government and who belong to the party responsible for the prodigious strides our country has known during the twentieth century, which will be that of Canada, as predicted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I come now to my request that I mentioned a moment ago. Before doing so, I must say that my remarks have not been based on hatred or vengeance, but I say to the Leader

of the Opposition that if you spare the rod you are liable to spoil the child, and if my remarks lead him to change whatever opinion he may have had in the past I will be the first one to be glad of it.
Once more I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chev-rier) to a matter I have mentioned before. I ask him to give special consideration to the request of thousands of people for the abolition of the tolls charged on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges. These are the only two government bridges on which a toll is levied. I understand that the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard) will introduce during the course of this session a motion to abolish these tolls which I will be pleased to second. I know about the high cost of construction of the Jacques Cartier bridge but it is no more than that of the Quebec bridge on which the toll was abolished after an agreement with the province of Quebec. I wonder if the same thing cannot be done for the Jacques Cartier bridge.
The south shore of the St. Lawrence opposite Montreal has developed amazingly and the population is increasing very rapidly. For example, one can refer to the town of Jacques Cartier of ten years ago when it had a population of at the most 700 people whereas today it has a population of 30,000 to 35,000. There is a reason for that. These people were previously citizens of Montreal and they had to leave the city and build homes on the south shore because of the expensive construction costs involved in complying with municipal construction regulations. These people still work in Montreal. They have to use the bridge every day and, although they combine together and travel for instance five in a car, they have to pay a fee each day which, at the end of the month, represents quite a large sum for those workers who have been forced to migrate to the south shore, if I may express myself that way. I hope the minister will give the matter special attention.
In addition, on week ends especially, a real bottleneck for traffic is created there. People have to wait for blocks and blocks and blocks before they can get on the bridge. If there could be some understanding arrived at with the province of Quebec, as was the case with the Quebec bridge, we could probably expect to give satisfaction to that part of what I call greater Montreal.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell every member of this house that he can count on my support for every move tending to better living conditions in this

country and to assure perfect comprehension between citizens, irrespective of their origin, creed or language.
(Translation):


Mr. Arthur Masse (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of unduly extending this debate. However, I am duty bound to place before the house the problems of my constituents.
Following the example set by previous speakers, I am happy to offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have performed their duty in a manner that honours their electors.
May I also be permitted to offer my congratulations and best wishes to the two new members of the cabinet as well as to our new colleagues, the hon. member for Riche-lieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) and the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque).
As I previously stated in this house, the electors of Kamouraska are mainly farmers, which is normal for agriculture is the main source of income of our people, since 76 per cent of the territory of my constituency is made up of forests. There are not many industries, yet our workers are quite skilled and only awaiting a favourable occasion to show what they can do.
When I assumed the task of representing the electors of Kamouraska, I thought it my duty to take every possible means to promote industrial expansion and development in the district. For the natural increase of the population being considerable, five or six hundred of our young men and women are forced, every year, to look for employment elsewhere after completing their high-school or technical education. A study of our vital statistics has enabled me to grasp the extent of this problem. This is the reason why I am opposing any mass and uncontrolled immigration.
I know we have large unsettled areas and I understand that it is our duty to accept new citizens when it is in the interest of the economy of the country as a whole to do so.
As the population of the constituency of Kamouraska is made up of farmers, I will speak first of the agricultural situation in the province of Quebec and convey to this house the observations which have been suggested to me. Twenty-two per cent of the
670,000	acres of the constituency of Kamouraska are devoted to agriculture and, in spite
The Address-Mr. Masse of sound price support legislation, present economic conditions make our farmers somewhat uneasy. These last few years, thanks to a well managed economy, our farmers have enjoyed prosperous times. I must admit that they work hard from dawn to dusk and that theirs is not a forty-hour week.
In my district, this year, the hay crop has been plentiful. Grain production, though, is far below standard. Taking into account a possible drop in beef or pork prices, it must be recognized that there is no adequate relationship between feed prices and the price of products such as milk, meat or eggs. Farmers gain little profit thereby.
Such being the case, I wonder if it would not be advisable to establish in the east a branch office of the grain exchange. In this way our merchants and farmers would be able to control the value of the goods they buy. I am perfectly aware of the situation and I would like this matter to be studied seriously.
I know, however, that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has shown a great solicitude toward the farmers, but I wonder whether the officials of the Department have given him adequate information about agriculture in Quebec.
Besides, Mr. Minister, you have endowed my constituency with an agricultural centre which is all to your honour. The experimental farm of Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere benefits from your generosity. Moreover, you have authorized the construction of a new research laboratory and I know that this building will receive all the personnel and equipment that it requires, so that it may be adequate to the beauty of the site it occupies.
However, our fairs do not receive the assistance one may expect and the regulations of your department should be, in my opinion, more flexible, in order that we may apply them more readily to our type of farming.
We should give our agriculture enough publicity if we wish to avoid, as between our urban and rural population, a state of unbalance which might become dangerous for those in charge of administration. Up to now, our agricultural societies have borne alone the whole burden of expenses. A glance at the shifting of Quebec's population shows that in 1871, 77 per cent of our people lived on the land and 23 per cent in the cities.
Now, in 1941, our urban population represents 63 per cent and our rural population 37 per cent of the total. Those figures rather lead us to believe in the existence of a certain unbalance, which it will be necessary to correct in the interest of Canada's economy as a whole.
180	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Masse
I bring my remarks on agriculture to a close by congratulating the Department of Agriculture on having provided for grants to our farmers, under the Canada Grain Act. This measure has been enthusiastically received in the province of Quebec and I am convinced that it has proved most popular among our farmers. However, I wish the act were more precise with regard to grain mixtures, so that buyers would have no misgivings about what they are buying.
During the month of August, it was my privilege to attend a meeting of the Federation of the Catholic Farmers' Union held in Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere. I was present at all sessions and admired the seriousness of their discussions. Three of the resolutions that were sent to the federal government had to do with the adoption of a Canadian flag, an envoy to the Vatican and bilingual pension cheques.
The adoption of a flag:	This request was
also sent to me by members of La Societe Saint-J'ean Baptiste. I understand that one reason why the adoption of that measure has been delayed is perhaps the distance which divides the different racial groups comprising our nation. The flag must hold in its folds the good will of a united nation. Far from loosening the bonds of what we have most at heart, Canadian unity, it must draw those bonds closer. No nation can live without the union of all its forces, without that respect which gives confidence, without that love which unites the power of men.
Why shouldn't we send an ambassador to the Vatican since other countries have thought and still think that religious differences must not enter into consideration in the matter of deciding whether or not to send a representative to the only state which is absolutely independent? But there again, such a gesture should not be interpreted as something which might divide the various elements constituting the nation.
We come now to the question of bilingual cheques. Why shouldn't the Department of Finance send out bilingual cheques, so that our brothers in the maritimes, our neighbours in Ontario, the western farmers, and our Newfoundland friends may thus feel the unity of our nation? Our nation is complex not on account of differences in opinion but because of the distances which separate its various elements.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention very briefly another point. Since August, I have


received a great many messages from those of my constituents who belong to the Union of Electors of the province of Quebec. They want the rate of payment of family allowances to be doubled. I know that family allowances and old age pensions have greatly benefited and helped many people. I am aware that the cost of living is very high, but I am confident in the future. I shall be only too glad if economic conditions permit such an expenditure.
However, we must remember that old age pensions are paid by a Liberal federal government; the Liberal federal government takes upon itself the whole cost of old age pensions to people aged 70 and pays half the cost of pensions to those between 65 and 70 years of age. I am therefore satisfied that such a request cannot be immediately granted unless the necessary revenues can be found for that purpose without the government having to increase our already high level of taxation.
Mr. Speaker, I have already asked the house to do something for destitute and crippled people. A government that has already come to the assistance of our aged citizens is duty bound to help the handicapped. However, requests of that kind should not be detrimental to our economy and tend to increase the cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by asking the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) to have a survey made by the engineers of his department of the damages caused by erosion in some parts of my constituency, at Riviere-Ouelle in particular. I have already indicated in this house the causes of this erosion which it might be very easy to remedy in some cases and in so doing we will contribute greatly to alleviating the concern of owners of properties bordering on the river.
I have made these few remarks as a contribution to the improvement of the situation and also in the interest of my constituents.
I know that the state cannot replace the farmers themselves but it is its duty to inform, educate and find new markets, in order to ensure the welfare of the farmers of Quebec and of the whole country. The best way to foster Canadian unity is through the boundless confidence of every Canadian in their leaders and the present government of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent gives us every guarantee in that respect.

(Text):


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion Wesl):: should like first, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Yesterday an hon. member rose to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) a question concerning the latest arrival of cigarettes into Canada from the United States. The tobacco business not being foreign to me in any way, having grown tobacco, manufactured it, wholesaled it, retailed it, smoked it and chewed it, I felt I could say something of interest on the subject. At the moment I see this problem perhaps in a more serious aspect than many hon. members.
We have in this country, over the course of several years, developed very fine types of tobacco. We had to produce the very finest type in order to compete with the United States product in the world markets. For instance, Great Britain was formerly buying the United States product. As everyone here knows, ever since the party opposite, which now holds the reins of government in Ottawa, has been in power, they have extracted from the tobacco industry excessive and exorbitant taxes.


An hon. Member:: They are doing pretty well.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Someone said, "They are doing pretty well". They could do better. The policy of the Liberal party has been to crucify the tobacco grower; in any event they have been doing it for years. We now find this cigarette, as many people must know, coming into Canada to retail in the large chain grocery stores at 33 cents as against our ordinary cigarette selling at 39 cents. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, this big difference of 6 cents in a package of 20 cigarettes arises from the difference in quality of the various brands. Anyone who has smoked this new brand knows that it is what you might call an outdoor cigarette. Anyone who would dare to smoke it in the house would be chased out by his own wife or his neighbour. Anyone who has attempted to smoke even two or three puffs of it knows that it is manufactured out of what we call distress tobacco.
I have no interest in any way, shape or form in any tobacco business, including those fields that I covered a few moments ago; but at stake in this country is the interest of tobacco producers in many parts of Canada, especially in Ontario. I have particular reference to flue-cured tobacco, burley and plug, and also 'the cigar tobacco which is produced in Quebec. It may be that these people have complied with the law with respect to dumping duty, customs regulations and tariffs and all that sort of thing, but if our manufacturers are to compete with that particular brand-
The Address-Mr. Murphy and I recognize that the same manufacturer can produce different brands of the same cigarette-some help will have to be given to them. It is going to have a terrific impact on our tobacco growers, especially those in Ontario. If the manufacturer in this country is to compete against that type of tobacco he will have to use a similar type of tobacco to produce a similar cigarette to sell at a low price. That will mean a lessening of the demand for the higher types of tobacco, which we have taken years to perfect.
I hate to think of what will happen next year to the tobacco growers who have a huge investment in tobacco plantations in this country. I hate to think what will happen not only when they come to plant, but also when they come to sell. We have lost our British market for most of this tobacco

that is the better class of tobacco-and if the manufacturers are to compete against this particular brand, then the producers will be crucified because of the lack of action on the part of the government.
Many of these people grow tobacco on land that is not suitable for anything else. Anyone who is in the tobacco business knows that. There is a way out. Like other nations, we have subscribed to treaties and trade agreements. There is a clause in the Geneva trade agreement that would apply to the subject which I shall also discuss in a few minutes. I am referring to the sugar beet industry and the importation of refined sugar from Cuba. As I recall it, article 19 is the governing clause. The essence of the article is that any country whose primary producers are suffering because of the importation of goods of any kind may protect those producers. That is the essence of protection which can be afforded to our producers. It applies not only to tobacco growers in Ontario and elsewhere, but to others as well. It is now the responsibility of the government to do something. We would not be the first country on the face of this earth that has subscribed to trade agreements and at the same time availed itself of the escape clauses provided in the agreements.
Before the session opened I noticed several ' instances of Liberal members, who of course had attended the Liberal meeting here in Ottawa some few weeks ago, warning the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the other ministers about the radio tax and the television tax. Their complaint was that their constituents should not be burdened with these picayune taxes on radios and that in their areas a television tax should not be imposed. Our party has gone on record in respect to radio licence fees ever since I have been in this house. We have opposed them for many years. Many of us in the official opposition have, on more than one
182	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Murphy occasion, stated on the floor of this house that we are opposed to any government levying a tax on television in Canada, especially in those areas that are now, and will continue to be, serviced by United States outlets. In the course of his speech on Monday last the leader of this party devoted some time to the question of television, and I fully subscribe to what he said.
There is another matter which concerns many business people in -this country. I refer to the sort, of double talk that we have been hearing from ministers of the crown with respect to whether we are going to have a decrease in our taxes. When the Minister of Finance was in British Columbia some few weeks ago, apparently attempting to mend some political fences that are in a bad state of disrepair, he made a speech which implied that the government had tax reductions in mind. This was recorded by the press of Canada. A reference to tax reductions was hurled across the nation that same night by the C.B.C. in its national news broadcast. However, the next day the newspapers had an interview with the minister, and he was reported as having said that tax reductions could not be expected in the next budget. I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because it brings to mind the same tactics used by the same minister when he presented his budget last session. The first part of that budget seemed to indicate a reduction in taxes. When the ten o'clock news came on the air the news was hurled across the nation that the minister had brought down a tax reduction. When the speech was completed we found, of course, that taxes were not decreased but were increased. I say, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians have had enough of this twoway presentation of fiscal policy which in one breath promises tax reductions, and in the next takes them away or even increases them. We have the same illustration in the Quebec by-elections. As reported in the press, the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) made the statement down there that tax reductions are warranted. Yet, in the same campaign the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) said the government needed the money, and that taxes could not be reduced.
If they are allowed to continue, these political manoeuvres-because that is what they are-will be detrimental to the country. They serve only to create a state of confusion as to what might be expected by way of taxation.
I do not think that is fair to the business people or to the wage earners in this country.
Today people must plan ahead. This way of conducting the affairs of the country beclouds the issue and confuses the Canadian taxpayer.


Let me say this same Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), about whom I spoke a moment ago, has, since December 10, 1946, accumulated surplus after surplus each year, to the extent of well over a million dollars a day. This, I would point out, is taxation in excess of the cost of government, in excess of the cost of social security, in excess of the cost of our defence program, all of which were adequately provided for by parliament. In respect of defence requirements, the amount proved to be more than the government was able to spend. This record of overtaxation, which takes away a million dollars each day, was never the intent and purpose of parliament and was never, in my opinion, intended to be the fiscal policy of this country. Yet the government has extracted this huge amount of money from the Canadian people over and above the requirements granted by parliament.
The wage earner who goes home each week, or at the end of every two weeks, with his pay cheque is greatly disturbed about the amount of money he must pay in taxation, particularly when he sees the extravagance and recklessness of the government. ' No wonder that in the last few months we find that when government representatives have appeared before the people in by-elections, they have been defeated. Prior to the last two, nine of those by-elections were won by Progressive Conservative candidates.
In New Brunswick only a few weeks ago the party which has held office almost as long as the one in office here in Ottawa was rebuked by the voters of that province. And, remember, it is the voter who has the power to rebuke. I feel satisfied that when the Canadian people have the opportunity at the next election they will do across the country what they did in New Brunswick only a few weeks ago.
I should like at this time to refer to a few of the items so ably covered by my leader last Monday. I refer to these cases of extravagance and reckless buying for defence purposes. I would refer, first, to an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail some few days ago. I am sure, as my leader said, this article can be relied upon.
I would refer first to rugs and carpets costing $839,903. I notice that the item for carpets amounts to $643,000-practically $645,000. If that carpet were to be laid over a sidewalk three feet wide it would extend some 37 miles.
There is an item of $450,000 for linoleum which, I would hope, would not cost more than $3 a yard. I am sure the carpets could be bought for $10 a square yard. The linoleum

The Address-Mr. Murphy
would cover a sidewalk three feet wide and 80 miles long. That is a little more than anyone would care to walk, for light exercise.


John Horace Dickey: Has the hon. member read the proceedings of the defence expenditures committee, at the time when all these matters were dealt with much more fully than they are in the press clippings to which he is referring?


Joseph Warner Murphy: I would hope that when the defence committee meets again it would not be throttled by a huge Liberal majority.


John Horace Dickey: That is a pretty poor answer.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Then, enough raincoats have been purchased to last those requiring them for the next fifty years. Yet this Liberal government is now asking the veterans who fought in two world wars and are preparing for a third to pay such extravagant amounts for this department-and no doubt the same thing applies in other departments. It is unfair to the veterans and to everyone else in this country. These people are placed in the position where they must spend dollars out of their pay cheques to make these unnecessary expenditures. That is the way the public feel about it today.
We had a good illustration of this at the last session when the hon. member for Greenwood, who sits in front of me, brought evidence that the government had ordered some 60,000 serving forks for an armed personnel of 100,000. The government was ridiculed time after time. Someone had the courage to bring the old fork into the house- and I do not know what he intended to do with it. However, I was satisfied that it was not the kind of fork that would be used on the table every day. That purchase of 60,000 serving forks for an armed personnel of a little over 100,000 was just about as much as the people of this country could stand.
After the government had been subjected to ridicule time after time, they got the order down to 40,000, and then to 24,000. I see now it is down to 14,500, and I am still wondering what the armed services will do with 14,500 serving forks. Will we have them for the next 50 years, and let the veterans who fought in the last two wars pay for them?
A few days ago the Prime Minister took two hours and a half in an attempt to make a defence. In this connection I should like to quote an editorial which appeared in the Sarnia paper the day after his speech. I make reference to this editorial because it reflects the thinking of Canadians from coast to coast. The editorial in the Sarnia Observer of November 26 is headed "P.M. Provides Ammunition For Opponents In Election".


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have allowed wide latitude in quoting from newspapers during this debate, but I have not yet allowed an hon. member to quote from a newspaper any article referring to what has been said in the house during the present debate. If I were to allow that we would find ourselves in a position where hon. members in the house would be debating with someone outside the house.
To decide what articles should be allowed to be read is a difficult problem. On every occasion I have endeavoured to allow editorials to be read if they referred to something that had taken place before the house assembled, or if they could be considered to contain expert opinions. However, I have tried to keep away from permitting controversy in the house with someone outside.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I appreciate Your Honour's fairness in all cases. Perhaps I might be permitted to make reference to something that is not an editorial but I believe would prove interesting to hon. members. This appeared last night in the Toronto Telegram, and I am sure many hon. members will have seen it. It deals with the $3 million item to which the Prime Minister referred the other day when he said that we would be spending only $3 million anyway. Well, some few sessions ago we heard another right hon. gentleman say, "It is only a million dollars. What is a million dollars?" What I now hold in my hand is a cartoon bearing the title "But it's The Same Old Song". On the right side I see the picture of a very fine-looking gentleman who, as a rule, leads the house in the absence of the Prime Minister. The name I notice here is "C. D. Howe". At the top of his picture is, "Hey, you're in a higher key, ain't you boss?" The title of the song is, "What's a million?" On the other side is, "You'll only save $3,000,000." That is in a different key-probably a higher key-and they are both trying to sing that song, but unfortunately it is not very good harmony. But as I notice the music written here, I do not know who could sing it anyway. However, that is quite some feat in singing.
I noticed the other day that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) had to sing for his dinner some place down in New York. I should like to see close harmony like that among the ministers of the cabinet; but we apparently have evidence that it does not exist in all cases because we find contradictory opinions expressed respecting when they are going to lower taxes and when they are not going to lower taxes. We have the statement made a year ago that a million did not mean very much; and now of course we have this new song. I think they will get
184	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Murphy a title for it-I do not know whether it will be copyrighted-but I do not think we will find it in the Liberal propaganda.
Mr. Speaker, what I intend to deal with for the rest of the time at my disposal is a matter which also affects the primary producer in Canada. I am referring now to those in Ontario who produce sugar beets. I do not pretend to speak with authority for those in other parts of Canada, but I am sure that there are other members in this House of Commons, in other parties, who are vitally interested in this predicament in which the producers and processors now find themselves owing to the importation from Cuba of some 30 million pounds of Cuban refined sugar already this year.
In order that the house may get a better understanding of this unfortunate situation, I think I should give some basic facts. I want to say first that sugar beets are grown in the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario. In the last three years-and I have the figures-Ontario has produced in two years more than any other province; and Alberta, I think, last year produced more than Ontario in either of those years.
In order that hon. members may realize the extent of this particular industry, may I say that we have in Ontario some 6,000 growers. This crop is grown in the counties of Kent, Lambton, Essex, Huron, Middlesex, Elgin, Perth and Oxford; and as a matter of fact this year a considerable acreage was planted in Wellington. It is really a hard crop to grow, from a manual labour standpoint, and it is an expensive crop to harvest.
Over the last several years the sugar industry has faced several ups and downs. As a matter of fact, in the early thirties Cuba was shipping into this country an amount of sugar which reached a peak of some 40 million pounds one year. That amount was later reduced, and then curtailed completely because of the change in the Customs Act which placed a value for duty purposes on refined sugar coming into Canada from Cuba. That condition existed up until the time of the outbreak of war when a sugar administrator was appointed, and in fact lasted until 1949. Unfortunately this year the growers find themselves in this position. In less than a year and a half after the government made an agreement with Cuba we have in one year -the last twelve months of that first eighteen -no less than approximately 30 million pounds coming into Canada at a price which is, or has been thus far-and will no doubt continue to be-much lower than what our producers can produce this crop for. The result is that sugar has dropped in Canada from some $10.20 per hundred in January of


this year to $8.60 per hundred, Montreal. Worse still, in Ontario we have not been able to move the 1952 beet sugar to the regular markets-for instance, in the Windsor, Hamilton and Toronto areas-because we find that the market is already glutted with refined Cuban sugar.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this industry found itself in considerable difficulty some few years ago when the present leader of our party was premier of the province of Ontario. Because of the necessity for increased acreage or increased production of sugar in Canada, it was necessary to encourage the growers to grow a greater acreage, and our present leader at that time came to their assistance by paying some $675,000 over the course of three or four years. The sugar industry in Ontario was revitalized and made its contribution as a war effort.
There are other considerations here, and I think if I quote a paragraph from a brief which I have just received from the chamber of commerce in Chatham it will serve my purpose. Chatham is in the heart of the sugar beet industry in Ontario. There are two huge refining industries in Ontario, one in Wallaceburg and one in Chatham. This industry, of course, affects the grower and the processor but also practically everybody in business as well as a great number of people engaged in labour. This industry incidentally has been an important factor in encouraging these new Canadians in this country to find immediate employment either in the field or in the processing of sugar or at other times to find jobs in the fruit and tobacco markets and in general farming throughout that part of the country. The industry has been no small factor in encouraging these people; and I think all hon. members will agree with me that they need some encouragement, and this in a most practical way. I know that hon. members will be interested in knowing this. I find that over the course of the years many of these immigrants or, shall I say, new Canadians have obtained their start in Canada maybe by working in the fields, and today we find them to have some of the finest buildings and some of the finest farms you can see in any part of Ontario.
The first paragraph of this brief which was sent to me and which, I understand, was sent to all the ministers in the cabinet, reads as follows:
The sugar beet and beet sugar industry in Chatham and district, which represents an annual income of $12 million per year to growers, field and factory labourers, merchants, truckers, professional men and others in our community, is threatened with extinction.

This crisis arises from unrestricted quantities of Cuban refined sugar unloaded in the largest urban market of Toronto and Hamilton, which have been served by our beet sugar industry, for 51 years. Until this year, no Cuban refined has come to Canada in twenty years, not even during war-short years. This Cuban sugar, produced by native labour which does not enjoy the same high standard of living as Canadian labour, is being unloaded at nearly one cent per pound less than the same sugar is sold in the United States, despite the fact that the freight haul to Canada is longer, and the United States market absorbs about 50 per cent of Cuba's combined raw and refined sugar productions.
In the United States the beet grower is protected by a quota. The United States does bring in sugar from Cuba but only on a quota basis so that the primary producer there never has his position as a producer jeopardized through any threat by Cuba or any other nation sending refined sugar to that country. We find that in 1951 a statement was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on May 8, which is recorded at page 2829 of Hansard, with reference to an agreement between Cuba and Canada respecting sugar and products which we hoped to sell to Cuba. On that occasion he said:
In the case of Cuba, I wish to make an announcement of considerable importance. The government of Canada has ensured the purchase on that market, by Canadian refineries or otherwise, of 75,000 short tons of Cuban raw sugar, within each of the calendar years 1951, 1952 and 1953, out of supplies made available by Cuba to the world market.
The last paragraph on the same page reads as follows:
The Cuban government has now undertaken to revalidate until January 1, 1954, important tariff concessions which were originally granted to Canada at Geneva, including amongst others, codfish. wheat flour and potatoes. This will be of definite interest to our maritime provinces. Cuba has withdrawn four detailed concessions from us which she made at Geneva. None of them has accounted for much trade, and Canada is being compensated by a small reduction in the Cuban duty on codfish.
We all assumed at that time we would benefit very greatly by our increased exports to Cuba of these various products. I wish to place on the record the figures as to the trade we have had with Cuba, and remember that the Canada-Cuba raw sugar agreement announced on May 8, 1951, was effective from that date. Our imports from Cuba for the first six months of 1951, January to June, were $2,776,000. For the period from January to June, 1952, our imports were $10,-
200,000	odd. Our exports to Cuba in the period from January to June, 1951, were $9 million odd and in the same period in 1952 were $13 million odd. In other words, our imports from Cuba in 1952 were four times as much as they were in 1951 and our exports to Cuba were about 50 per cent more.
I also want to place on the record the amount of the increase in our trade with
The Address-Mr. Murphy Cuba with respect to the particular articles I mentioned a moment ago concerning which the minister hoped that there would be an increase in trade. The articles involved are wheat flour, potatoes and salt codfish. The minister was interested in the export of these articles to that country. I will not break down the figures because it would take too much time. The figures are for the period from January to September in each case. For 1950 the figure is $5,941,000, for 1951, $6,472,000 and for 1952, $4,530,000. The point I wish to make simply is that since the agreement became effective our exports to Cuba of the three products where we hoped there would be an increase have decreased and not increased. I think that is most important, and I say it is no wonder that the sugar beet growers of this country are very much disturbed about their present predicament.
The growers in the various counties of Ontario have several million dollars invested in equipment. They rotate their crops, and they find themselves in the position where they have a great deal of equipment that is not usable for other farming purposes. Unless they can establish continued use for it in the production of sugar beets it will remain idle. I fear that what has already happened in the province of Ontario will also take place elsewhere throughout the dominion. Most of the sugar that has come into Canada within the last few months-in fact a boat was unloaded at a certain port only a few days ago-has come into Ontario. As soon as navigation opens next year we will find that boat loads of Cuban sugar will be shipped to the head of the lakes and distributed throughout the west. Then the producers of Manitoba and Alberta will be very much concerned about the importation of refined sugar from Cuba. The same will apply to the province of Quebec.
I have no doubt that within a few months Cuba will do as it has done in the United States. It will be in a position to package its refined sugar in five and ten pound lots and sell it wholesale to the various stores in the usual manner. After the opening of navigation next spring we will no doubt find that the sugar beet growers not only in Ontario but elsewhere in Canada will be wondering if they will be able to afford to grow sugar beets for another year and make contracts with the Dominion Sugar Company or other sugar processors in the Dominion of Canada.
No grower can afford to take a loss of some $30 an acre on sugar beets, and that is the loss they are taking today. The cheques that were sent out not long ago from Chatham to the growers were some three or four hundred thousand dollars short, and that is

The Address-Mr. Murphy only the initial payment. The growers know as well as I do that they cannot meet the competition of the product coming into this country from Cuba. These growers suggest that the government should consider ways and means, which are open to it under the Geneva trade agreement, that will allow them to stay in business as producers in Canada, and so that their industry will not be sacrificed and crucified by this or any other government.
There is available under the Geneva trade agreement the same escape clause of which one other country not too far away from our boundary has availed itself in recent months, and no doubt will do so again. I say that in all fairness to the Canadian producers we in this country who are subscribers to the agreement must also avail ourselves of the escape clause, which was put in there for a purpose, in order that these people who have so much invested may be protected. This industry, which means so much to our own economy, must have the assurance that it can continue to stay in business and not have its interests jeopardized. I do not think that there is any segment of the agricultural development of this country which can be sacrificed because each means too much to our economy.
We find the tobacco industry of this country threatened with ruin. We also find the sugar beet industry threatened with ruin. That statement applies not only to the producers but to many people who find labour there at different times of the year. We need not confine ourselves to those two industries. We see what has happened to pork products in this country, to cheese products, to milk products, to apples and to oats. It is about time that these primary producers received some consideration from this government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are other aspects of this agreement about which I would like to place statements on the record. I feel that there may be some reason for Cuba's recent overproduction. She may want a larger quota of the sugar production of the world. That of course is something for the experts and the minister in charge to consider. Now is the time, I think, for steps to be taken by Canada's senior government to stop the unrestricted flow of refined Cuban sugar to Canada-to save the sugar beet crop and the sugar beet industry. Otherwise it seems doomed to go out of business in southwestern Ontario-in not only southwestern Ontario but the other provinces of the dominion. The industry is contributing many millions of dollars and the effect of its loss on our agricultural and general economy would be incalculable. I feel that there should not be any delay, Mr. Speaker. There is no reason for delay and no reason why this


government should now throw any responsibility on any provincial government where sugar beets are being grown.
A few years ago the leader of our national party had the courage to take steps to keep the sugar growing industry in business not only in our own province but elsewhere. The sugar beet producers in this country find themselves now at the mercy of this present government because of the policies of this government, and no one else is responsible. I feel and the sugar beet producers feel that some of these experts and bureaucrats in various departments have had the idea that the producer was protected, and have said: Well, we will accept an importation of
75,000	tons a year over the next three years; but did they or did they not know they were selling this industry down the river? That is certainly what they did because they are crucifying the sugar beet industry not only in Ontario but in other provinces of Canada.
I feel there should be no delay. Although in retrospect there is a great deal of wisdom, the only solution I see is for this government to now recognize its own mistakes and repair them before any further loss is suffered by these producers in Canada. I think that with all their huge investments here they are entitled to have protection. This difficulty is not of their own doing, of their own choice, and they cannot afford to grow the product in view of losses they now face. I do not mind repeating that the basic price for sugar beets depends on the price the processor can obtain for his sugar and his other byproducts.
What surprises everybody in this country is that when the delegation came down to see the Right Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) some time in October, to present a brief representing the growers not only of Ontario but of other provinces, they did not at any time refer to dumping duties. No press reporter appeared at the conference but, after it was over, perhaps as an alibi, we find in the newspapers the indication that the interested farmers were blaming the government for dumping Cuban sugar into Canada. As I understand it, the word "dumping" was never used by any member of the delegation. Whoever, on the government side, at this high level, gave such information to the press gave false information.
I want to go on record, Mr. Speaker, as saying that we may be faced here with such a situation, not only with respect to tobacco and sugar but other primary products which I spoke of a moment ago, because of these uncertain times; that it is necessary for the government notwithstanding the fact that

we are subscribers to the Geneva agreements to protect our own local industries. I refer to farming as an industry in Canada. It means too much to have to make these sacrifices now or at any time.
In the early 1930's we did have action by the then Conservative government, when the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was prime minister of this country. We face the same situation today and we still have the same remedies. The producers do not object to raw sugar coming into this country but they do claim, and I think with all justification, that there should be a quota on refined sugar coming into Canada as there is in the United States. They are not asking for any unusual subsidies as are given in the United States to producers of sugar beets, or as are given in Great Britain. Great Britain had to produce its own sugar during the war and made a huge success of it. The prices they are receiving for sugar beets in Great Britain are far in excess of what the primary producer gets in Canada. ,
If these conditions continue to exist only one thing is going to happen: the sugar beet industry in Canada will be ruined without any doubt, because Cuba is in a position to supply all of Canada's requirements for refined sugar. If that happens all of the people in the various provinces I mentioned a few moments ago will be affected. Every taxpayer, every citizen of the Dominion of Canada will be affected, because no government can wreck any industry-whether it be farming or tobacco-without affecting everyone else in the dominion. Therefore I urge, Mr. Speaker, that other members in this House of Commons, not only from Ontario but from other provinces and other parties, take an interest on behalf of these people who today find themselves in such a sad plight owing to the action of the present government. We feel too that the government has its own selfish reason for protecting any sort of an industry in this country. The government is the greatest shareholder in any industry in Canada today. They are the tax collectors and they share the profits although they contribute nothing in the event of losses. We are going to find losses. I gave you plenty of evidence of that.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that my voice is not good, even for football.


Mr. Wylie:: You had better vote for the west, anyway.


Joseph Warner Murphy: You can bet your bottom dollar I will vote for the west anyway. Perhaps some of you fellows from the west will also speak about the sugar industry in Alberta and Manitoba.
The Address-Mr. Herridge
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I may say that I intend to continue this argument when my voice is in better shape. I believe it is important that all the facts be placed before the members of the house so that they can weigh them, regardless of the party which they represent, and I do hope that they will find access to the minister's office so that they can make proper representations on behalf of these unfortunate people. I have not any hesitation in saying that not only are these people, some 6,000 in western Ontario and many thousands in other parts of Canada, disturbed about their predicament, but the members who represent those particular ridings have a responsibility to place their constituents' case before this high court. If I were a Liberal in the House of Commons I would hesitate to go into these ridings and say, "I am sorry, my friends, but I could not do anything for you; the government in power today is in a position where they say you just have to take it on the chin the same as anybody else." So far as I am concerned, I am in this position. I can go to any place in western Canada or any other place in Canada, and I can assure these people that when Mr. Drew forms the next government they will get action without any delay.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I rise this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to support the subamendment moved on November 24 by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). For the sake of continuity, I believe it would be advisable to read that amendment.
That the amendment be amended by deleting paragraphs (d) and (e) and by substituting therefor the following:
"We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(a)	To recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial administration;
(b)	To implement their proposals to the dominion-provincial conference of 1945."
A few days ago the member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) made an excellent speech in which he reviewed the historical developments in Canada so far as health insurance programs were concerned and so far as the promises of this government and previous Liberal governments were concerned throughout the years. Yesterday the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in his usually lucid, comprehensive and allembracing manner, dealt with, and I think very clearly, the need for a national health insurance program in Canada and the capacity of the Canadian people, based on the wealth of Canada, to pay for this program easily.
1S8

The Address-Mr. Herridge
This afternoon I intend, in my humble way, to more or less supplement the arguments provided by previous speakers, and to try to provide further evidence of the increasing need for a national health insurance program in Canada, as well as the obvious ability of the Canadian people to pay for such a program. Finally, I would simply point to the scheme introduced by the Labour government in Great Britain under circumstances far more difficult than would be experienced or are experienced in Canada.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, the principles of the C.C.F. health policy follow the broad lines of the national health service in Great Britain, that is generally speaking, allowing for the fact that in Britain you have a unitary state government and in Canada we have a federal system. Rather than make bald assertions or give opinions I believe it is much better, in supporting an argument for a national health plan, to produce evidence.
The first evidence I want to produce as to the need for a plan is to quote from the remarks made by the member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) as found in Hansard for June 21, 1951, at page 4457. This is what he had to say:
. . . from 15,000 to 20,000 die yearly of ailments which could be cured or prevented by timely medical care; that a third of the people of Canada do not have the services of a family doctor, and wait too long before seeking medical care; and that only 20 per cent of the people of Canada are able to afford all the medical care that they need.
That is the voice of a prominent member of the Liberal party supporting the argument for national health insurance. I know this, Mr. Speaker, that when the member for Spadina speaks, he speaks with some knowledge and as a result of a close study of social problems in Canada and in the constituency which he represents. I am sure that a perusal of his speeches in this house will prove to anyone that he makes a careful study of any subject before he speaks on that subject, and when he speaks he demonstrates his attachment to liberal policies-spelled with a small "1" -and humanitarian principles.
What do we find in the evidence as to the health of children at the present time? We hear it stated repeatedly in this house that the children of the country are the greatest asset this nation has. How are we treating our greatest asset at the present time? I quote from the Montreal Gazette of February 7, 1946:
Dr. Jules Gilbert, director of health education for Quebec: "In our primary schools, 80 per cent of the pupils suffer from physical defects."


Fancy a prominent director of education in one of our greatest provinces being able to make a statement such as that in a country so rich in natural resources and in natural wealth as Canada. Without question, similar conditions exist in other provinces. Report after report made by persons interested in this subject, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, indicate a condition similar to that mentioned by Dr. Jules Gilbert, director of health education for the province of Quebec. In many cases, it is a totally unnecessary condition. Are we, Mr. Speaker, as representatives of the people, going to sit idly by year after year without taking the necessary action, and allow these conditions to continue?
In the Globe and Mail of December 6, 1950, I find the following news report:
In a survey carried out in London, Ontario, it was shown that 63-7 per cent of separate school children have defective teeth, and in some schools the rate is as high as 80 per cent.
We know that a similar condition exists in many other places at this time. When you hear of defective teeth existing to that extent across this country you know it is not only evidence of a lack of medical supervision and attention after birth, but in many cases it is evidence of a lack of pre-natal care as well. Is this a continuing process? What happens to these children in later life? To indicate what happens I want to quote from the Montreal Gazette of November 14, 1952.
In a Kitchener Remembrance day address-
That is the last Remembrance day.
-Lieutenant-Colonel H. V. Matthews of Toronto declared that more than 50 per cent of youths trying to enlist in Canada's armed forces are physically unfit.
After all our talk of this grand and glorious country, which it is, and in the knowledge of the wealth abundant in this country, the production of this country, we in this group believe that is a shocking state of affairs. It indicates that what has proven to be the condition of children in primary grades continues to exist until young men reach a sufficient age to volunteer to join the armed services. It is continuing evidence that many of our young people do not receive the necessary medical attention. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is a shocking illustration of our failure to conserve our human resources by properly utilizing our natural resources.
In continuing that line of argument I want to present some further evidence of the

failure of this government and previous governments to meet this problem. Again I quote from the Globe and Mail of February 5, 1952:
Dental records of recruits joining Canadian army show nine out of ten need dental treatment, according to dental officers at defence headquarters. Most of these recruits are in their twenties or late teens.
When the Korean brigade was assembled at Petawawa in the fall of 1950, 6,061, or 90 per cent of the men, required dental treatment. As all the work necessary could not be done in time, a team of nine dental officers was sent to Korea to finish the work there.
That is an illustration of the continuing lack of care of young men and women growing up in this country. That is the condition of those who were accepted. What about the physical condition of those who were rejected? Over 50 per cent were rejected after making application to join the armed services. The figures I have given refer to the fittest, the cream of the crop. The general need, Mr. Speaker, based on this evidence, must be even greater than we actually realize. That is why we in this group continue to say that only a national health plan will reveal the true situation and remedy the conditions that exist today.
The evidence I have given illustrates the position with regard to physical health. I now want to give some further evidence with respect to mental health in this country, which is a growing and increasingly serious problem at this time. Again I quote from the Montreal Gazette of April 30, 1951:
Dr. J. C. Meakins, president of the Canadian Mental Health Association, speaking in Montreal, said that Canada has one million citizens permanently, partially or temporarily disabled by mental ill health at a cost, indirect or direct, of $800 million a year. In 1945 the population of Canada's mental health hospitals was 50,000, by last year it was nearly 65,000.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of the members of this group, it is questionable whether there is any other social problem with which is associated more public ignorance concerning the facts, the suffering involved and the need to meet the problem with knowledge and with social planning. A federal report published in 1947, dealing with this question, indicates that the largest group of persons who are mentally ill come from those people with marginal incomes. That means that it is an economic problem. It is an indication that those with above marginal incomes can do something to prevent the development of mental ill health. But in many cases those in the marginal groups, those with the lower incomes, need the means to do the things that are necessary to prevent the development of mental ill
The Address-Mr. Herridge health. In the Montreal Gazette of February 11, 1952, I find the following:
Dr. J. D. Griffin, director general of the Canadian Mental Health Association, said that there are as many patients in Canada's mental hospitals as in all the general hospitals combined. In addition to this, 30 to 50 per cent of all patients consulting family doctors are suffering from illnesses either caused or accentuated by emotional or mental factors.
Poor mental health cripples, in considerable measure, the working efficiency of 10 per cent of our population. It disables more people than tuberculosis and cancer combined. Anxiety states and neurotic disorders are important factors in industrial absenteeism and poor production, in marital discord and broken homes and in social dependence and delinquency.
We have further evidence of the enormous direct price we are paying because of our neglect in this very important matter. In our opinion, Mr. Speaker, the only possibility of saving this enormous waste of lives, of saving the consequent production for the Canadian economy, and restoring those thousands to happiness, is through the establishment in Canada of an over-all national health program.
I want to refer to a theme that I dealt with at some length a year or two ago, namely the question of patent medicines. Quackery always gets my back up wherever it arises-I do not want the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Ferrie) to think that I am referring to him. I cannot stand that sort of thing, and throughout the years I have bought a number of books dealing with the patent medicine racket. I see the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) paying great attention at this time, which I appreciate, but there has been a great increase in the production of patent medicines in Canada in recent years. Because of their inability to pay for proper medical care many Canadian citizens are forced to turn, or think they are forced to turn, to quack remedies which, although they still cost money, are cheaper than proper medical care under present conditions. Canadians spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year on patent medicines, many of which are sold as a result of exaggerated advertisements.
I am sure all of us know individuals who have faith in patent medicines. I know a great many people who feel they cannot afford operations and cannot afford proper medical treatment, but who will buy these patent medicines in the hope that they may be helped. Hope springs eternal in the human breast. I have known people who have gone year after year wasting their limited resources on quack medicines of numerous kinds.


Mr. Studer:: Socialism is a patent medicine.
190	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, and I would jolly well like to give you a big dose of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be good for what ails him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We cure all those suffering from political ill health.
But, Mr. Speaker, since the end- of the war, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, the gross value of the production of the patent medicine industry has jumped from the figure of $60,331,000 in 1945 to $89,249,000 in 1951. The gross value of patent medicines only produced in Canada indicates a growing use of those medicines. My source is the dominion bureau of statistics industrial and merchandising division. These figures in respect of the gross value of patent medicines only, produced in Canada, are as follows: In 1947, $8,560,000 worth of quackery; in 1948, $12,827,000 worth of quackery; in 1949, $13,083,000 worth of quackery; in 1950, $14,334,000 worth of quackery and in 1951, $16,285,000.
Here we see a continued increase in the amount of patent medicines purchased. The Globe and Mail in a New York Times special dispatch of April 4, 1951 says this:
U.S. federal trade commission ordered "Carter's Little Liver Pills" to drop word "Liver" from the trade name of their product because the pills have no therapeutic value in the treatment of the liver. According to the order the pills have no medicinal effect other than the temporary relief of an ordinary laxative.
I do not think this government has taken action in that respect. I believe Carter's Little Liver Pills are still sold as Carter's Little Liver Pills, because it was only recently I was talking to a constituent of mine who told me that he had bought them for some complaint from which he was suffering, in the hope that it would do him some good so far as his liver was concerned.
Then again I find this in the Globe and Mail of May 21, 1947:
Charles W. Crawford, associate U.S. commissioner of food and drugs, said among the products investigated by his department was a vapour-bath system for diabetes costing $2,200; an apparatus for administering electric shock for abscess of the liver, heart disease and cancer, costing $1,200; a device for administering an enema for arthritis, rheumatism, stomach ulcers and other ailments, costing $1,900.
People buy these quack remedies in an effort to find some relief from disease. Quite recently I was in the shack of an old-timer in my district who had spent more than $50 for some contraption sent to him from Montreal. He was sitting in his chair with his feet in a tub of water, two electrodes strapped to his legs and1 his hands wired to something else. He presumed that so long


as he continued using this mechanical contrivance for about 15 minutes each day he would be cured of some sort of skin disease, as well as a form of rheumatism or arthritis. He would carry out this treatment conscientiously for a period of a month or two after which, obtaining no results, he would turn to something else. That is the sort of thing people do. When they cannot afford to take proper treatment and to have proper medical attention they will buy these patent machines. This is happening throughout Canada because we have not at the present time a national health insurance program.
The Montreal Gazette of January 30, 1951 states this:
Mrs. H. E. Taylor, owner of Canadian Health Aids of Toronto, was fined $100 and $25 costs or one month when she was convicted of advertising cider vinegar and crude molasses as treatments for obesity, gallstones, heart disease and high blood pressure.
Joseph Singer, counsel for the federal health department, said after the conviction, "We are not interested in obtaining a large fine. The crown wants to put a stop to this tremendous racket which has gone from one end of the country to the other."
I submit that if the crown wishes to put a stop to these rackets, then the easiest way to do it would be to have a national health insurance program which would make it possible for everyone to consult a doctor, to take hospital treatment and to secure the medicines and drugs they require. I am sure that would be the most effective way of stopping this patent medicine racket, and the sales of various quack medical appliances.
And, in passing, I cannot refrain from saying how delighted I am to see that I have the rapt attention of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson).


John Lambert Gibson: I am learning something.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Rackets are developing
because quackery continues and will continue so long as we in Canada fail to use the natural resources and the healing waters we have in such abundance, given to us by the Creator. Quackery is rampant and the nation's healing powers are neglected because we have not a national health insurance program and have not the required co-operation between federal and provincial governments.
I mention this because I am particularly interested in one aspect of the subject. We all know the tremendous toll that arthritis and various forms of rheumatism are taking in Canada at the present time, and have taken throughout the year. That toll seems to be increasing. Yet we find thousands upon thousands of people who, not being able to afford other treatment, are turning to patent medicines and quack appliances at a time

when we have right here in this country the means of preventing a great deal of suffering, relieving many people and curing many others. Mr. S. Katz in Maclean's magazine of June 15, 1952, says this:
Preventative care for arthritis and rheumatism: "Research has shown that 90 per cent of arthritics need not suffer any disablement if they receive early treatment."
I know that, from experience extending over many years. In the constituency of West Kootenay which I have the honor to represent we have a number of splendid hot springs. Among these are the Ainsworth hot springs, the Halcyon hot springs, the St. Leon hot springs, the Nakusp hot springs, all of which are mineral waters coming out of the ground at temperatures of from 130 degrees up. These have proven very beneficial in the treatment of certain types of rheumatism.
I might say that the first dollar I ever earned in Canada as a young man was with a string of pack horses I owned, packing in supplies for men who were doing some building some ten miles back in the mountains at the hot springs near the community of Nakusp. I never forgot that experience, because those were the days of the wild and woolly west. I shall never forget the first pack horse I ever owned. We used to pack about 150 to 200 pounds on their backs. The load on the first horse was a case of clam chowder on one side, a crate of strawberries on the other side, and two cases of whisky on the top. When they got to the destination that night they had what was known as clam chowder whisky cocktails. They took the lid off the coal-oil can-it was a five-gallon can-dumped all the whisky in the tin, dumped all the clam chowder in on top of it, and boiled it. I am not suggesting that was a cure for rheumatism, but I never forgot that, not taking part in the ceremony myself.
From that time on I have been interested in that spring. Unfortunately it is still a small development. There is a bath built, and even today, an average of 500 to 600 people walk over a ten-mile rough mountain trail in order to get relief from various forms of rheumatism. The trees and the buildings are hung with crutches which people have left there. They are people who could not afford to go to expensive institutions, who could not afford to go to places where they had to pay any considerable amount of money. Working people went and took these treatments. I have taken men in on pack horses and saddle horses when I had to rope the man on in order to keep him on, and he has asked me to let him off before I got there but I refused to do so because if I took him off the horse I could not get him back on
The Address-Mr. Herridge again. I have had men almost screaming in agony when I had to keep them on the horse to take them to the springs. I have seen those same people walk out two months later either completely cured or generally relieved.
The point I am coming to is this, Mr. Speaker. A small percentage of our population know of these places and can find their way to them. In our district we happen to have a famous hot springs known as Halcyon hot springs on the upper Arrow lakes, a few miles above where I live, which has been developed since the early days of this century. Shortly after the first world war an organization known as the White Cross was formed under General Burnham, who was a doctor in the Canadian armed forces and also in the armed forces of the Serbian government in the first world war. General Burnham's whole life has been given to the study of treatment for rheumatism and to the relief of persons suffering from rheumatism. This is an excellent building. He has carried on this work without any thought of profit. All that General Burnham has had out of his work in 35 years has been his necessary food and lodgings and the price of an occasional trip to Vancouver or somewhere on business.
This spa has become well known all over North America. People come there for treatment from New York, the southern states and eastern Canada. They include people of wealth and people with little money. General Burnham has provided hotel accommodation there, meals, all the treatment you want in the baths, and medical attention- he is a doctor-for $4.50 a day. He has not raised his rates and he refuses to raise them regardless of the increase in the cost of living and things of that sort.
I have personal knowledge of thousands of people being benefited by treatment at those springs. General Burnham tells me that in the early stages certain types of rheumatism can be definitely cured by taking treatments in those hot springs; that in the second stage rheumatism can be arrested, and that in the third stage at least a great deal of relief can be found through the use of these beneficial waters. I know this from an experience of my own mother who suffered from arthritis in her later years. While there was no possibility of her being cured, the occasional treatment she was able to take at Halcyon hot springs meant that she was relieved of pain for a considerable period during and after taking that treatment.
Here in Canada, Mr. Speaker, we have multitudes suffering from various forms of rheumatism and arthritis; there are multitudes in the early stages who could be cured, multitudes whose complaints could be

The Address-Mr. Herridge arrested, and many who at least would find some relief in taking these hot springs treatments. Why is it not possible for these people to take these treatments? For financial reasons. The great majority of those who suffer from these unfortunate complaints are not able to take advantage of the natural healing provided by the Creator in Canada in the hot springs existing throughout the country. I think here is a splendid opportunity for federal-provincial co-operation in a national health insurance plan. Here is an opportunity for us to put our natural resources to work and to provide a great amount of healing and a great amount of cure with respect to some diseases across this country.
Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), because I am likely to do otherwise later on, for the excellent work that is being done in the development of Radium hot springs in Kootenay East. I have had an opportunity to visit the baths since their recent improvement, and I am sure that -the minister, the department, his officials and all those concerned deserve to be congratulated on the splendid development that is taking place at Radium hot springs. The springs I am speaking of are equally good; they are splendid waters. If only we could get a development like -that in these other springs I mentioned, coupled with a national health insurance program that would make it possible for people suffering from arthritis and various forms of rheumatism to seek and use these healing waters, we would have gone a long way to relieve -a great deal of unnecessary misery that exists in Canada at -this time.
In pursuing this subject I wish to quote, again from the Montreal Gazette of November 4, 1952, a man who I -think is a competent authority. Dr. Campbell Gardner of Montreal, surgeon in chief at Queen Mary veterans hospital and an assistant professor at McGill university, speaking to the women's guild of Christ Church cathedral, Montreal, stated:
I believe we cannot afford not to give complete medical care for all, just as we cannot afford not to give pure water to all. If some drink typhoid laden water, the epidemic will quickly spread to those who have a pure water supply. Likewise an epidemic of influenza beginning among those unable to obtain adequate medical care will quickly spread and affect us all.
Mr. Speaker, I think we all know that -the need is obvious. It has been demonstrated in evidence from many sources. There is no doubt that the demand is there. Labour organizations, veterans' organizations, farmers' organizations and others have in the

past urged this government, and are urging them today, to give effect to legislation that will provide a national health insurance program.
I am always interested, Mr. Speaker, in the local touch. In picking up my paper this morning, the Nelson Daily News-which is the best daily paper published in a city of its size in Canada-I was interested to read that on the very day my leader was moving a subamendment to the address in reply to -the speech from the throne, advocating a national health insurance program, the Kootenay boundary central farmers' institute were meeting in Nelson. On that very day the delegates attending that farmers' meeting unanimously passed a resolution to this effect: . . . the meeting decided to petition the federal minister of health and welfare to consider the matter of a federal health insurance plan, with or without provincial participation. A copy of the resolution will go to H. W. Herridge, M.P. for Kootenay West.
I am very pleased that my people never forget me. The need, Mr. Speaker, is recognized by all who face facts. Our capacity to meet this need is greater than that of any other nation on earth in proportion to our population. Why delay? In Great Britain the Labour party for years proposed a national health insurance plan. The Labour party's proposals were opposed for years by the Conservatives of Great Britain. The Conservative party of Great Britain opposed the plan right up to the finish. On the second reading of the bill in May, 1948, which gave to Great Britain their present national health insurance -plan, the Tory party to a man voted against that legislation.
But today, Mr. Speaker, no government in Great Britain dares to rescind the legislation that has given the people of Great Britain an over-all health and medical service. Here is what the London correspondent of the Wall Street Journal had to say in the issue of November 27, 1951:
. . . one pillar of socialism-
Mind you, only one pillar.
-"socialized medicine" is certain to remain intact . . . The "free" health service set up by the late Labour government is so popular that it can no longer be made a political issue here.
I predict that if the government took action in that direction, suited and adapted to Canadian conditions, it would not be long before national health insurance could no longer be a political issue in Canada. Proof of the success of the health insurance plan of Great Britain is found in the health of the nation, which was never better. The administrative success of the program is recognized by all fair-minded people throughout the democratic world, and the cost is

being met in Great Britain regardless of the unusual financial difficulties in which she finds herself.
I have proven the need in Canada without question, and I think the majority of the members of the house realize that need. We have the capacity to meet the cost based on contributions according to ability to pay. With that knowledge the C.C.F. urges the government to accept its responsibility in this matter this session and institute a national health insurance plan that will be for the advantage of the people of Canada of today and succeeding generations.


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, in his speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as well as in the course of his political campaign in the province of Quebec, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) stressed the difficulties that have arisen in dominion-provincial relations with regard to taxation, but he is wary of suggesting means of arriving at some permanent form of agreement in the matter. In my opinion that shows the irresponsibility of his attitude. I believe that the electors of Quebec have good cause to doubt the sincerity of the Leader of the Opposition and are bound to examine his political past before passing judgment on the matter.
I must say that the political background of a man still is the best way of weighing what he says as a member of the opposition against what he would do should, he ever win an election. In that connection may I be permitted to draw the attention of the house to the following statements of the Leader of the Opposition on provincial autonomy, giving the dates they were uttered, and as reproduced in he Canada of Thursday, September 4, 1952. On February 23, 1935, he said:
If everything had to be done all over again, who would be mad enough to establish in Canada ten governments instead of one?
On November 10, 1936, he said:
Canada must do away with the costly inefficiency of ten governments which, in most cases, do what a single government could accomplish.
On January 26, 1939, he had this to say:
I declare myself in favour of consolidating national ties and depriving the provinces of all powers incompatible with those of the central government, when these powers are not required for the administration of the province.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: That is the way to say it.


Wilfrid Lacroix: On April 24, 1941, he said:
The integrity of a nation can be safeguarded only through a strong feeling in favour of centralization.
On November 10, 1936, he had this to say:
Canada should remedy the costly ineptitude of ten governments.
The Address-Mr. LaCroix
As for his friendliness towards our compatriots of the province of Quebec, this is what he had to say on November 29, 1936:
I do not think it unfair to remind French-Cana-dians that they belong to a vanquished race.
Again in August, 1944, on the occasion of the plebiscite, he said:
Are we to allow an isolationist province to dominate the destiny of a divided Canada? I hope that every one of you will reply with a resounding "no" which shall be heard in every part of the province of Quebec.
All these remarks were uttered while the Leader of the Opposition was either in power or the leader of his party in Ontario. I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition here in this house that whether or not he likes it his political past dogs his footsteps. I believe the province of Quebec to be firmly attached to its motto, "Je me souviens". It certainly is not the present Leader of the Opposition who is capable of solving the problem of fiscal relations with Quebec. I have far more confidence in the ability of the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to arrive at a permanent settlement of this question.
Section 91 of the British North America Act enables the federal government to raise moneys by any form or system of taxation in order to ensure an efficient administration for the promotion of peace and order in this country. On the other hand, section 92 grants to provincial governments the exclusive right to implement direct taxation in the provinces in order to enable them to levy the funds necessary for the administration of their provinces.
On the face of it, it seems that both governments enjoy the same rights of taxation and, to my knowledge, this opinion has never been questioned by our courts, for no provincial government has ever dared to institute proceedings in this regard, probably being convinced in advance that a final ruling would grant the same rights to both governments in this field. In any event I am convinced that, regardless of the government in power, Quebec will never surrender the rights guaranteed to her by section 92, any more than the federal government will surrender those which it claims are guaranteed to it by section 91.
Obviously the fathers of confederation had not foreseen that one day Canada would be a great nation and that we would be involved in international problems demanding tremendous expenses which the beginning of our federal existence could not foreshadow. This is an unfortunate situation, for it is evident that the federal government, like the provincial governments, may embark upon a

The Address-Mr. LaCroix wild rush toward the same fields of taxation, although according to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) himself, they have now reached the extreme point of saturation. Consequently a solution must be found which, without depriving the federal government and the provinces of the privileges they enjoy under the constitution, would ensure their security in the field of revenue, without having to increase the burden on an already overtaxed population.
I believe it would be in everybody's interest to revise and specify as soon as possible the limits of taxation possibilities granted each government; for temporary subsidies, because of vested interests, leave the receiving government at the donor's mercy and produce an entirely inacceptable situation as far as my province is concerned. In view of this, may I be allowed to submit to the government the following solution which, I believe, would have the advantage of abolishing the system of subsidies, which is sure to be considered in time as a final withdrawal of the provinces.
Subsidies could be replaced by a permanent arrangement which would provide, under our constitution, for the annual remittance to each province of a percentage, to be determined, of the total income and corporation taxes collected by Ottawa in that province, while leaving the latter in full control of succession duties. As far as Quebec is concerned, there are special reasons to retain succession duties owing to the close relationship between the requirements of our French civil code and our successions.
According to figures provided by the Department of Finance, the income and corporate taxes in Ontario for the year ending March 31, 1952, yielded a total amount of $998,517,170.22. Under the recent agreement between the federal government and the government of Ontario, providing for withdrawal from these two fields of taxation, the province of Ontario will receive annually a grant of $123,327,363.07. This amounts to a little more than 12 per cent of the total revenue collected in a year by the federal government in Ontario in these two fields of taxation. My information is that the province of Ontario yields the largest amount of income and corporate tax.
An agreement providing for an automatic refund to the province of Quebec of a percentage, to be agreed upon between the central government and the province of Quebec, of the total amount of income and corporate taxes collected annually in Quebec would recognize, I think, the undeniable right of the province to levy direct taxes, would simplify collection, and at the same time

allow for the variations in Canada's economic situation. I believe that in time it would prove to the advantage of both governments, since the federal government would not have to enter into temporary financial agreements which at the end of five years, or perhaps sooner, might seem quite heavy on the budget. Unless both governments come to some permanent agreement one may well expect that, should a depression come about, the two above-mentioned taxes will be applied in a manner that will soon bring about an economic disaster and a real threat to our Canadian economy.
For the people of Quebec an agreement is essential because otherwise corporations will continue to pay to the province of Quebec a 7 per cent tax which, added to the federal tax, makes a total of 54 per cent; while in Ontario and the other provinces that have signed agreements, of a so-called temporary character, corporations will pay one tax only amounting to 52 per cent. Such a state of affairs is bound to be detrimental to Quebec's industrial development, since many large industrial concerns which obtain their raw material from outside Quebec might resolve, in order to avoid paying 2 per cent more on capital and profit, to move their installations to the province of Ontario.
It would also be possible to implement, through an agreement between the two governments, the proposition that a single form for both personal and corporation income tax be set, each government collecting separately the share required under their respective legislation. This would undoubtedly provide the public with an opportunity to understand better the burden laid upon them by each government.
I cannot be reckoned as a political admirer of Mr. Duplessis and my feelings in this connection are well-known. Nevertheless I do believe that Mr. Lapalme, the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, would also welcome an agreement defining once and for all the taxation powers of each government. The pretext of fiscal autonomy must cease to be used as a continuously resorted to political expedient, without the least solution ever being suggested.
Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty from my seat in the House of Commons to make these suggestions, which are not perfect but, nevertheless, deserve to be studied.
The present Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who is most favourably disposed towards my province, will not hold office eternally. We are by no means sure

that his successor, acting under the inspiration of an essentially centralizing bureaucracy, will not adopt as his fiscal mottoes the declarations made by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) on February 23, 1935, November 10, 1936, January 26, 1939, April 24, 1941, and so on. Such an attitude will prevent Quebec from controlling its educational, hospital and other services, services which are our very own, which are guaranteed by the constitution, which are essential to the maintenance and development of a French and Catholic culture which in turn provides this whole country with a really invaluable intellectual asset.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister has already made many efforts to arrive at an agreement in this matter. I believe there should be a solution. If the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec could manage to save our federal system of government, whatever the effort, they would be doing this country immense service. In a land as rich and diversified as ours, it is the only system compatible with true democracy.


Mr. G. M. Ferrie (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to congratulate the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In doing so I want to say that we should have no fear for the Liberal party in this country when they can go out and persuade men of such calibre to run for membership in this House of Commons. They have proven themselves beyond doubt to be men of real ability, and I wish them well from now on.
Just yesterday the member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) said that a great event was taking place in Toronto tomorrow, a football game. Next week an event is taking place in the city of Ottawa, and it is another kind of game, an election. Both the candidates for mayor have said that they are running on a ticket for higher federal grants. I believe it is time, Mr. Speaker, that someone said something in this house about these grants. In Canada we have a constitution, the British North America Act. In that act it is stated that no government shall pay taxes. The city of Ottawa is claiming that grants should be paid to the city from the federal treasury for the services that are being rendered to the people of Canada. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada are rendering a service to this city. Why should the people of Ottawa ask the people of Canada to help them pay their taxes?
The Address-Mr. Ferrie
Today between 38,000 and 40,000 people in the city of Ottawa are working for the people of Canada. If it were not for the buildings that are here, if it were not for the fact the government is here, would there be such a place as Ottawa? Many years ago it was known as Bytown, and it would still be known as Bytown if it had not been chosen as the capital city. I want to say that if the government is going to give this grant to the city of Ottawa, then let them give grants to the 4,200 other municipalities in the Dominion of Canada. The municipalities in the western provinces are just as much entitled to those grants as the city of Ottawa. These two candidates have appeared on the platform and asked the people of Ottawa to elect one of them as mayor of this city, but both say that they want higher federal grants. When the estimate covering this grant comes up I, for one, am going to propose that it be cut to $1. I am sure that the people of Canada would be well satisfied to see these grants reduced. These people in the city of Ottawa are just as much entitled to pay taxes for improvements as anyone else in any other part of the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, don't they?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I want to say how pleased I am, Mr. Speaker, to see this announcement: "U.S.A. lifts livestock ban on March 1". I want to say also that we have a great feeling of pride in the outstanding performance our Department of Agriculture has given in cleaning up the foot-and-mouth disease around Regina.


Mr. MacDougall:: A world record.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: As has just been said, it is a world record. I want to add my small voice to the others in saying how thankful we are to see the United States market opened. It will be of benefit not only to the people of western Canada but to the dairy farmers of eastern Canada who will have a market for their cattle in the spring. I hope that market will stay open forever.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to make my annual speech about the defence highway. I am not going to pass up the opportunity this year. I still maintain that the Department of National Defence should render a service to the people of western Canada by building a highway from Edmonton to Winnipeg. Why do I say that? The reason is that some time in October there was a movement of troops and guns from Wainwright down to Petawawa. The movement took place over this highway I have mentioned, and by the
68108-13i

The Address-Mr. Ferrie time they had proceeded a few miles there were ruts in the road which cars could never begin to navigate.
If one watches the news from Korea, one finds that at the end of every week we are told how many planes were shot down. If you will look at the news you will find that most of those planes have been shot down as a result of anti-aircraft fire. If the Department of National Defence wanted to move guns up to the northwest corner of Canada, they would find that they could not possibly do so over any road that we have in western Canada. Once again I say that we are entitled to that road not only because we live there but because we have shown Canada and the world that we can produce. No one can say that the Dominion of Canada cannot afford to build a highway of that description. They can afford it because the wealth that comes out of those three western provinces would pay for it in a very short time.
I should like to say a word about another highway, namely highway No. 35 from Nipawin to Flin Flon and the largest village in the province of Saskatchewan. I am not sure that it is not the largest village in Canada. I refer to the village by the name of Creighton. It is only a town, but it is big enough to be a city. Flin Flon has
12,000	people. The people who live in that mining area cannot go west. They have to go east and south about 150 miles before they can start to go west. That is not fair. These people have gone up into that country and produced wealth. The city of Flin Flon has paid around $80 million in taxes. Surely they are not asking too much when they ask the federal government to help them to build highway No. 35 from Flin Flon to White Fox or Nipawin. I had the pleasure of flying over that proposed highway last summer. I flew from Prince Albert, and followed the proposed highway through the slash, through the bush and across the muskeg in a plane up to the top of Cumberland lake. I then flew down from the top of Cumberland lake to Cumberland House. I am sure there is nothing up there that cannot be overcome with the machinery we have these days.
In the province of Saskatchewan we have a minister who says things and has them printed, but they are a little bit far-fetched. I refer to Mr. J. T. Douglas of Saskatchewan.


Arza Clair Casselman: I thought it was Jimmy Gardiner.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: If you were half as good as Jimmy Gardiner you would be all right.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: How do you mean?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Any way you like to take it. J. T. Douglas has said to some of the people in Flin Flon that he has made application to the federal government to help them to build this highway. I have been waiting for two years. Twice I said on the floor of the house that he should make application. At this time he says he has made application. He has done nothing of the kind.
What is the reason for this? We do not understand why Mr. Douglas, the minister of highways in the province of Saskatchewan, should not want this highway built. I am sure he would get a sympathetic hearing in Ottawa if he would just humble himself and ask for a little help.
I should like to bring to the attention of this house one or two things that have been said by some of the members from Saskatchewan who sit with the C.C.F. Some of these hon. members have made certain statements. I look around me and I see my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). He made the statement in Saskatchewan at his own nomination meeting, and at two or three other nomination meetings, that we as Liberals would not co-operate with him or with their party in any way, shape or form. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, and I want to let the people of Saskatchewan know, that never once since I have been down here has any member of the C.C.F. ever come to me and asked me to co-operate with him in getting any measure through the house. They never came in any way, shape or form. At one time we Liberals from western Canada were in a little difficulty in trying to get through this house a grant of $65 million for the farmers of western Canada. I think some people here realize just exactly what it cost us to persuade some of the members of this house to support us.


James Arthur Ross: It will cost you your seat.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I hope you heard that from another man from western Canada. That is the Conservative idea, that we should not get it.


James Arthur Ross: It was just one-tenth enough.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: As far as we went at that time we did our utmost to help the farmers of western Canada, and we not only had kicks from the east but we had kicks from the west. The point I am trying to put over, Mr. Speaker, is simply this. When we were in that difficulty we decided that we might need some help. The hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith) went around to the leader of the C.C.F. party and said: "We might need the help-


James Arthur Ross: No wonder there was trouble brewing.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: -to put over this legislation." He said, "All right, I shall go and round them up." The hon. member for Moose Mountain said, "Those C.C.F. members from Saskatchewan are gone." The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said, "My C.C.F. members are not gone," and he started out to round them up. Then he came back and said, "They are gone," and as a matter of fact they had gone.
These are the C.C.F. members who are the great boys, who say, "We are out for the farmer; we are out to help him." Because they could not get everything they sulked, they beefed; they said, "If we cannot get all the loaf we will not take any of it. We will just let the farmer down. We will not-vote for him at all."


An hon. Member:: Where was the hon. member for Souris?


James Arthur Ross: Come down to Souris riding and you will find out.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Let me say that is not the only time this has been done. They get out in the province of Saskatchewan and tell all sorts of stories about what the Liberals are doing here in Ottawa. They tell us we are the ones who are always wrong, that we are the ones who are doing injury to the farming population of western Canada.
Right now we are being accused of failing to put health insurance into operation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said that.


An hon. Member:: Off centre.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Yes, he is off centre, too. He has said that Liberal members should get up and say something about health insurance Well, let me tell him that I have forgotten more about health insurance than he will ever know. In the municipality I represent we have had a form of health insurance since 1928. At one time I went down to Toronto and bought a 50-bed hospital-and I bought it alone-for the use of the people of western Canada. That hospital was put into operation. Let me ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if Winnipeg has even hospitalization? I say to him he has not yet sold it to the people of Winnipeg. It has been sold to the people of Dauphin, but it has not been sold to the people of Winnipeg.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not know the extent of the free medical services we have been able to build in Winnipeg?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: But you have not free hospitalization and free medical care such as we have. You should be selling that, before you try to sell it to us in other parts of western Canada.
The Address-Mr. Ferrie
Then, in the second place, why do you not sell it to Ontario and Quebec? You should have no trouble in selling it to us, because west of Winnipeg we are health-insurance conscious. We know all about it, because we have tried it. We have a great number of municipalities in Saskatchewan and in Alberta and quite a few in Manitoba that are giving free medical care. He should try to sell it to the people of Ontario.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that you will vote for it?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I will not vote for your motion, that's a sure thing. Any time 1 vote for a C.C.F. motion there will be two moons in the sky.


John Lambert Gibson: You have to have some pride.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Broad-minded Liberals!


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I never voted socialist in my life, and I am not going to. So far as we in our province are concerned, when we started this medical care we paid for it.


An hon. Member:: It is not free, then.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: We are not yelling to anybody to pay for it. We taxed our people and paid the bills, and we are still doing it. And we are not doing what the socialist outfit is doing in Saskatchewan. I have in my hand a card put out by the C.C.F. government. On the back of it they say exactly what they are going to do. The card indicates that operating and case-room facilities are free. The lady who held this card had to avail herself of these facilities, and had paid $5 for her ticket in 1947. She went to the hospital and, although she was not confined to bed, she had the required work done. This work has to be repeated every so often. What has happened? Well, they say that, in addition, it will cost her $35, and she has said that she is not going to pay it. This Mrs. Kemper has been asked to pay the $35 and her reply has been, "No, I won't pay it". That is the way the C.C.F. do it.
An hen. Member:	With their free
hospitalization.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Yes, with their free hospitalization, as one hon. member says. What did they do in this case? They sent her a final notice, this time from the city of Toronto, because they dare not do it in Saskatchewan. The notice in this instance was received from the Medical Audit Association at 32 Front street west, Toronto, and it points out that if she does not pay she will be sued and that legal fees will be added.


John Lambert Gibson: The wolves of Bay street.

The Address-Mr. Feme


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: These are the things that happen under the C.C.F. government, the controlled outfit in Saskatchewan. These are the things we are against. In the municipalities of Saskatchewan we have spent thousands upon thousands of dollars for medical care, and I do not think anyone would find a case where we acted in this way.


An hon. Member:: And did not put them in jail, either.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: What I have described has happened in Saskatchewan; yet these C.C.F. members are asking us to go ahead and to put something into operation, without knowing where we are going.
Then let us go back a little and see what happens. In 1944 an outstanding piece of legislation was set out in the speech from the throne. Everyone in this building in those days was talking about family allowances. To make a long story short, some of these people including Premier Douglas and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) are saying that they were responsible for placing this security legislation on the statute books. Let us consider that 1944 vote on the speech from the throne. It has been mentioned before in this house, and I think it should be mentioned again. When the motion was brought on the floor of the house a vote was taken, and the then leader of the Conservative party in this house, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), said there was only one piece of legislation in that speech from the throne that really mattered. He said that as the family allowance was going to be a benefit to all the people and the children of Canada, he persuaded his party to vote for that bill or to vote for the speech from the throne; and he did vote for it.


James Arthur Ross: Where did you get that
quotation?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: From his own account. If the hon. member looks at it he will And it at page 384. All the Conservatives voted for it.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member said he persuaded his party to do so.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Yes. That is what he himself said. You can look it up in Hansard, if you like to do so.


James Arthur Ross: What page?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: April 25, 1949. He made a speech, and he knows this because I asked him about it. He said he did. That is exactly what happened. The Conservative party of that time voted with the Liberals on the speech from the throne when the family allowance measure was in that speech. What happened with regard to all these people
(Mr. Gibson.]
who never do anything wrong, who are always trying to tell us that we are the ones who do not do anything but exploit the people? What did they do? The C.C.F. members from Saskatchewan voted against this speech from the throne. I will ask them what would have happened if the Conservatives had not voted with the Liberals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government had a
majority.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: The government might have gone down. Then how long would it have taken for even the Liberal party or anybody else to sell family allowances to the people of Canada again? Let us see who they were who voted against this speech from the throne, these men who said that they did not want family allowances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I submit that the hon. member has no right to interpret a vote of non-confidence, a vote on the speech from the throne, as a vote on any particular measure that might have been mentioned in that speech from the throne. He is trying to show that the C.C.F. voted against family allowances, which is completely false. If he is fair he will tell you that, when the vote was taken on second reading of the family allowances bill, every member of the C.C.F.- indeed every member present in the house, in all parties-voted for it.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to bring out is just exactly what the hon. member says. He voted for it when he knew the country was for it. He did not take any chances at all. These are the gentlemen that voted against the speech from the throne: Blackmore, Bryce-, Burton, Castleden, Cold-well, Dorion, Douglas (Weyburn), Fair, Gillis, Hansell, Hlynka, Johnston (Bow River), Knowles, Kuhl, Maclnnis, Marshall, Nicholson. This last gentleman has just been nominated to run against me. Then there was another great man who got to his feet here the other day, talking about all that they were doing, that they were the only people that had pushed anything. I refer to Noseworthy. Noseworthy voted against it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Against what?


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: You are crazy. You used that argument in the 1949 election and you are going to try it again. It will not work this time.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I can see that we have got their goats, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say this in closing; it is getting near six o'clock. We have been told by the C.C.F. party in the province of Saskatchewan that everything we do is wrong. I have a quotation here, but I will not take up any more time. Here is Premier Douglas telling the people to vote against the marketing policy of this government. What does the marketing policy mean? It means the sale of our wheat and the floor price of our cattle. I should have liked to go into that matter, but I cannot do it now; I will do so, however, in the budget debate. I will speak with regard to the speech which was made by Mr. Douglas in protest and also with regard to the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) and his price for cattle. I should like to say something about that. Mr. Speaker, it is six o'clock and I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Ferrie the debate was adjourned.



CIVIL SERVICE


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement with regard to a matter concerning which I think a good deal of misunderstanding will arise if it is not corrected promptly.


George Alexander Drew: What is the nature of the statement? What is the subject matter? If we
are told that, we can indicate whether or not we agree to the statement being made.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The subject matter is a story in this evening's Citizen to this effect:
The garnisheeing of wages of federal government employees is expected to be permitted under legislation which may be introduced at the current session of parliament, it was learned today.
I think it would create a great deal of misunderstanding if a story like that went out. I may say that there is no foundation for that story. There is no intention to introduce any such legislation. The reference in the speech from the throne which is quoted in this newspaper article to this effect-and I am now quoting from the reference in the newspaper-
... A measure will be submitted designed to place the crown in substantially the same position as a private person with respect to liability for acts committed by its servants.
-is only partially quoted. The full text of that selection from the speech from the throne goes on in the speech itself as follows: . . . for breach of duty arising out of the ownership or occupation of property, and for salvage claims . . .
Exposing the crown to suit for the acts of its servants in connection with breach of duty arising out of the ownership or occupation of property has nothing to do with the garnishee process at all, and it is not the intention of the government to introduce legislation permitting the garnisheeing of civil service wages.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I move that the house adjourn until Monday at 2.30 p.m., if that meets with the approval of hon. members.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 6.05 p.m.


Monday, December 1, 1952