1952-12-04

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, in view of the fact that it has been announced that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) will be leaving tomorrow, I wish to direct a question to him. I ask whether, since Mr. Currie's appointment was announced on April 21, 1952, he has received any positive recommendations from Mr. Currie in regard to the subject matter of his inquiry, in writing or orally, and if so is the minister prepared to convey to the house some information as to the nature of the recommendations which have been made.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Currie's appointment I have seen him about this matter on one occasion only. That was when he was in national defence headquarters carrying on his inquiry. I asked him to see, me and he did. I then asked him if he was getting all the information that he wanted and he said he was. I told him that if at any time he wanted further powers or more information such would be made available to him.
I have had no other communication of whatever kind with him.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister read to us a letter from Mr. Currie, assuring us at the time of his appointment that he would proceed with the utmost speed to make inquiry into this matter and communicate his views to the minister, may I ask if the minister has pointed that out to him and has he not indicated that it is very desirable that we have the report at the earliest possible date.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I have not interfered with Mr. Currie's investigation in any way whatever. He knows as well as the Leader of the Opposition that it is desirable that a report should be made at the earliest possible date.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I ask one further supplementary question. To the knowledge
of the minister, has Mr. Currie seen the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in regard to this matter within recent weeks?


Brooke Claxton: I have no information bearing on that at all. Had Mr. Currie seen the Prime Minister I am sure the Prime Minister would have spoken to me about it. Since he has not done so I assume that Mr. Currie has not seen him.


George Alexander Drew: There seems a strange lack of interest in such an important matter.



NATO CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) arising out of a Canadian Press dispatch appearing in this morning's paper. Is the minister in a position to assure the house that Canada, at the forthcoming NATO conference, will not agree to any increase in its military commitments under NATO for the coming year?


Brooke Claxton: When we form part of an alliance, Mr. Speaker, we do so in good faith. At the meeting of the council to be held in Paris on December 15, we will sit down with the other thirteen members of the North Atlantic alliance to consider what should be done. Everything that is suggested will be considered. I shall certainly not be in a position, under our constitutional practice, to make any additional commitments without reporting back to the cabinet. So far as I know, there has been no suggestion that we should make any further commitments for military activity.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister say what steps are being taken by the government with respect to the recent storm damage in Newfoundland?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: The attitude of the federal government towards such catastrophes in provinces has
322

Inquiries of the Ministry been stated by the Prime Minister on several occasions, and it has been that property rights are primarily a matter for the provinces. It is only in cases where the losses in such catastrophes are beyond the financial ability of the province to handle that the federal government does assist. So far we have received no request from Newfoundland for such assistance.
We do know, from our own fisheries officials, that the storm damage is very severe, more severe than any in the last twenty years. We do know that the government of Newfoundland has set up a cabinet committee to assess the damage. When they have completed that assessment, they will take the steps that they think proper in the circumstances.



FLOOD CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fernand Viau (St. Boniface):: I should
like to ask the Minister of Resources and Development the following question: Will the long range Manitoba flood control plans being now completed, which include a hydrographic survey of the Red and Assiniboine rivers, also include a hydrographic and topographical survey of the Seine river, which flows through the city of St. Boniface, the municipality of St. Vital and the rural municipalities of Tache and Ste. Anne, and which every year causes untold damage to the urban and rural populations of those areas?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Hydrographic and topographic surveys of the mouth of the Seine river and of the Seine river flowing through St. Boniface are included in this study.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Will the Minister of Resources and Development state whether the government is considering reducing down payments on N.H.A. housing from 20 per cent to 10 per cent?


Robert Henry Winters: I can only say that the government has a great many things under consideration, and that policy in these fields is announced in due course as it is arrived at. '


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask a question of the Minister of Resources and Development supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees)? Has the minister been advised of the resolution passed recently by the Liberal association of Winnipeg North, asking that the down payment under the National Housing Act be reduced to 10 per cent and also that the interest rate on housing loans be lowered? Will consideration be given to both of those requests?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I would reply that consideration is given to every reasonable request.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are not Liberal requests reasonable?



SHACK ON FEDERAL PROPERTY DESTROYED BY FIRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the press report correct that the tarpaper shack which was yesterday destroyed by fire, and in which an Ottawa family lost their possessions and in which one of their children lost its life, is the property of a federal government agency and rented by that agency to the family for $10 per month? Secondly, if so, will the Acting Prime Minister indicate what assistance, if any, the federal government or the federal district commission as landlord will render this family in their present circumstances?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister):: I have not had sufficient time, Mr. Speaker, to get all the facts. I have determined that the Department of Public Works is not the owner of the shack. I have not had time to receive any reply from the federal district commission. The impression I have gained is that this is a squatters' shack, built there without ownership of the land or authority from anyone to build it. However, the matter will be investigated and if there is anything further to report I shall let the hon. member know.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Since the Minister of Labour is absent, I shall direct my question to his parliamentary assistant. Has the Minister of Labour received a resolution from the Ontario

Women's Liberal Association urging that the orders in council prohibiting discrimination in government contracts be amended so as to include discrimination for reasons of sex? If such a request has been received, will the parliamentary assistant say whether it will be accepted?


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: The hon. member has kindly sent notice of his question to the minister. On his behalf I wish to thank him. This resolution was received by the minister last Monday, and as soon as the minister has an opportunity of giving consideration to the resolution, a proper reply will be sent to the association.



RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I was not able to furnish him with a copy of the question before I came into the house, for which I am sorry. If the minister is not in a position to answer the question today, he may take my question as notice and bring in an answer at a later date.
Does the minister know whether there is any foundation for the rumour that a railway line is to be built from some point on the Northern Alberta Railway in the Peace river country to Great Slave lake to serve the mining interests there?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I have not heard of any such rumour, Mr. Speaker. I think if it were to be built by the Canadian National Railways I should know something about it. So far as the other railway is concerned, I cannot speak for it. If there is anything in addition to what I have said already, I shall be glad to give it to the house at a later date.



ALLEGED ILLEGAL MIXING BY TERMINAL ELEVATORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wrighf (Melforl):: Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce seen the report in this morning's press that the Saskatchewan farmers union has threatened to take court action against terminal elevator companies for alleged illegal mixing of grain? Can the minister give his assurance that amendments to the Canada Grain Act will be placed before parliament at this session in order to guarantee that such practices will not take place?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have seen the press notices, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell the hon. member that the regulations covering the mixing of grain by terminal elevators are precisely set out in the Canada Grain Act. At this time, I know of no amendment that can be made in the act which would strengthen the situation. If Mr. Phelps or anyone else can give proof to the board of grain commissioners that the regulations are being violated, appropriate action will be taken. I may say, however, that I have read several very wild statements by Mr. Phelps recently about illegal practices all over the prairies. Personally, I place very little stock in the report in question.



CANADA SAVINGS BONDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Acting Minister of Finance):: Yesterday the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Meeker) asked me the following question, as Acting Minister of Finance:
Is he aware of the fact that job printing work in connection with the recent Canada savings bond issue was done in the United States? Why was this, and can the minister assure this house that Canadian printers will be given an opportunity to do this work in the future?
The answer is as follows:	It is not true,
as the hon. member's question states, that job printing work in connection with the recent Canada savings bond issue was done in the United States. As part of their sales promotion program the payroll savings organization in Ontario purchased bulletin blanks from a firm in Stamford, Connecticut. These bulletin blanks were not printed to order and do not constitute job printing. Six thousand four hundred and fifty of these blanks were purchased at a cost of $206.99. To have charged the art work and lithographing plates against an order of this size in Canada would have cost many times more than this figure.
Approximately $102,000 has been spent for printing forms and publicity material for the seventh series of Canada savings bonds, all of which, with the exception of the bulletin blanks, has been spent in Canada, so that the cost of these blanks represents about l/500th part of the total amount expended.


Mr. Graydon:: Watch that this is not the thin edge of the wedge, then.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question was asked about the advertising of Canada savings bonds in the United States. In view of the

Inquiries of the Ministry article itself, I was wondering whether the fact that a squirrel was put on a limb has any significance with regard to having them printed in a foreign country.


An hon. Member:: No answer is required.


Mr. Cruickshank:: You fellows are out on a limb anyway.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question. Has the Regina manifesto been brought to the attention of the responsible minister?



TELECOMMUNICATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question which was asked some few days ago by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) in connection with the announcement I made concerning a reduction in rates on telephone calls between Newfoundland and the mainland. He inquired whether that statement covered a reduction in rates on calls on Sundays and after six o'clock.
I am informed that the statement which I made does not cover such calls but that the companies concerned would prefer to see the new agreement go into force in order to determine the effects of the new rates and at a later date to consider whether rates between Newfoundland and the rest of Canada could not be reduced on Sundays and after six o'clock.



TAX AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon.. J. J. McCann (Minisier of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to table an order in council passed today having to do with the remission of interest on instalments paid pursuant to the provisions of section 47 of the Income Tax Act, and relating to the fiscal periods ending prior to May 1, 1953, by corporations which were liable to tax on net income under the corporation tax act, 1939 (Ontario), where these are insufficient as a result of the deduction of an amount or amounts calculated under the provisions of section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
In that connection I wish to make the following statement as it is of interest to business corporations in Ontario.
As a result of the tax agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Ontario, signed on October 29, 1952, being made retroactive to January 1, 1952, corporate taxpayers carrying on business in Ontario may have underpaid instalments of federal income tax. In view of the inequity of charging interest on the deficient instalments of federal income tax caused in this way, the provisions of the Financial Administration Act have been invoked to remit such interest, in so far as the under-remittance of instalments relates to the 5 per cent tax formerly deductible under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, and for the period up to the 31st December, 1952. In the result, corporations formerly paying corporation tax in Ontario will not be charged interest on the deficiency in their instalment payments of federal income tax to the extent that these instalments have been reduced in anticipation of the obligation to pay Ontario corporation tax, provided that their position is corrected before December 31 of this year.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the number of questions on the order paper is getting to be quite large and that the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne seems to be going to continue for a while yet, I wonder whether arrangements could be made for order paper questions to be called for answer fairly soon? Perhaps they could be taken once a week?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the subject and make a statement later.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact that the Acting Prime Minister is going to look into this subject, I might say that if questions on the order paper are to be answered in the near future, I must ask hon. members to confine questions which they ask to those which should properly be asked on the orders of the day, namely questions that are urgent. I have allowed considerable latitude this session because questions on the order paper were not being answered.

The Address-Mr. Jutras



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 3, 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. Rene N. Juiras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, today I propose to deal with the trade policies of the government as related also to the trade policies of the official opposition. In western Canada we are probably more aware or more conscious of the importance of our export trade than are any other parts of Canada. Through experience we have learned that our prosperity, our standard of living, is directly tied up to the markets that can be found for our products outside of Canada. Consequently, anything that is said or done about this vital question of export trade is of great interest, and indeed of great concern, to all of us in western Canada. As a matter of fact, this question of export trade affects not only that part of Canada but all parts of Canada since history and the record prove that when our export trade was high, the country went through a period of prosperity.
Naturally, we were interested when the leader of the official opposition announced that he was going abroad, particularly to the United Kingdom and to Europe, on a factfinding tour in order to find a solution for some of the problems and then to offer suggestions upon his return. From press releases we found that when he returned to Canada he was rather reticent in his remarks and in the announcement of his policy. As a matter of fact, from the press releases it would appear that he more or less took the attitude: "Elect me first, and then I will tell you what my policy is." However, shortly after his return he was out on a tour of the western provinces, and then he toured some of the eastern provinces. Of course, since the house has been sitting we have heard gradually the announcement of that policy and the echo in the official opposition in the house. We find now that their policy is simply to revive, or to retransplant into Canada, the old Tory school of England who advocate the creation of British commonwealth and empire blocs, higher tariff walls and self-sufficiency, to some degree at least, regardless of the cost to the country.
When the Leader of the Opposition was in my province, he was naturally asked many questions on the policy itself. It is obvious that he tried, to the best of his ability, to
hide the true identity of the policy, through various means of using fancy words and press denials. However, this policy is so well known that I am sure nobody can forget it, particularly in western Canada, and it was soon recognized. I am not surprised at the Social Credit party swallowing this from the official opposition, because, as we know, most of the Social Crediters are Tories in background.	;


Mr. Blackmore:: That is an absolute falsehood.


René Jutras: They are just ordinary Tories, with a variety of bibles thrown in. I was more surprised, however, to see the socialists fall for the same policy as well. The only explanation I can find is that they see a possibility of their dream coming .true, because they have always dreamed that we would get back to the conditions of the 1930's, and those are the conditions under which they thrive.
At any rate, we find that the official opposition is now advocating the very same policies that were advocated and that were put into force by them during the 1930's. As I said, the leader of the official opposition has not said too much on the subject. However, when he was in the United Kingdom no doubt he spoke with greater confidence, and I find in the London Daily Express of October 8 of this year the following. This is in direct quotation marks, which indicates it is taken from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and it has to do with his policies. He says:
This is no new and strange idea. It would merely be a return to the situation which existed until 1939.
So that he is quite prepared, apparently, to return to the conditions of the 1930's, and is quite conscious that he is returning to those conditions. His other policy of advocating greater use, as he puts it, of resources within the country means, as was pointed out to him by a newspaperman in Manitoba, a restrictive policy to a certain degree. He denied that categorically. I read from the Winnipeg Free Press of October 31 an editorial entitled "Double Talk":
Mr. George Drew, speaking in this city Tuesday at a Conservative meeting, once more denied that he is advocating higher tariffs and a policy ol protection when he urges the greater use in domestic manufacture of our primary raw material. This is a distinction without a difference. What is worse, it is a refusal to identify his policy by its correct name.
I find that when the Leader of the Opposition went through Nipigon, Ontario, he also made a speech, and in explanation of what he meant by this policy he used an example

The Address-Mr. Jutras which I think illustrates the point very well. I quote from the Ottawa Journal of October 18, 1952:
Opposition Leader Drew yesterday indicated that conservation of resources for the primary use of Canadians will be an important plank In the Progressive Conservatives' general election platform.
Mr. Drew said the "manufacturing clause" in Ontario provincial legislation has ensured the processing of forest raw materials in areas where the people would benefit from employment and income in the north.
The clause restricted the export of unmanufactured forest products and ensured the continuance of pulp and paper mills around which have grown prosperous communities.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether there is a more striking example of the result that can be obtained from a policy of restriction of this nature. As a matter of fact, if you take that very industry, the paper industry in Canada, which is dependent upon markets outside of Canada to the extent of 90 per cent of its production, and apply any policy of restriction to it, and there is retaliation in other countries, it is easy to see in what position the industry would find itself in a very short time. It is quite obvious that once more the Leader of the Opposition has not yet outgrown his provincial outlook.
To justify this revival of this policy of the 1930's, the official opposition has drummed up the cry that we have lost our markets in Europe, that we have lost our markets in the commonwealth, and that we have lost our markets in the United Kingdom. Of course, the record is there and nothing could be farther from the truth. This is not new; this was the cry that they used in the 1945 election and they used it again in the 1949 election. We have had this repetitious cry ever since the end of the war, that we were losing markets. One does not have to analyse the statistics or even look at the record. It seems to me that the answer is quite obvious.
Since the end of the war our population has increased by 20 per cent. Sixteen billion dollars' worth of new capital expenditure has been poured into this country to expand production. As a matter of fact, the production of the country has increased by 100 per cent. It stands to reason that we must have found some markets outside, and that our export market must have expanded to take care of this 100 per cent increase in production, and at the same time permit the country to go through the greatest prosperity it has ever known. It is a matter of record indeed that the export trade of the country has gone up by 75 per cent since 1939, and as a result, as I just mentioned, we are going through a period of prosperity.
(Mr. Jutras.]

It is also a matter of record that at the present time a family of four earns one and a half times as much-and I mean in real terms-as it earned in 1939. The record of the figures of export trade speaks for itself.
When the Tory Conservative government turned over the reins of office to the Liberal party in 1935 the total export trade was in the neighbourhood of $700 million. This increased to over $3,000 million in 1948 and stood at $4,000 million in 1951, the last complete year for which we have statistics. As a matter of fact, there is every indication at the present time, according to the figures that are available, that this year will also be a record year so far as exports are concerned.
It is good to remember that under this policy they are advocating at the present time, this government took over a condition of unemployment, relief and despair throughout Canada in 1935. It is a matter of record that in less than a month the Liberal government signed a trade agreement with the United States, and this was followed by twenty trade agreements with twenty different countries, with the result, as statistics show, that there has been an increase and a betterment of conditions in the country gradually. May I say this for the benefit of those in the other corner, particularly those from western Canada. It is also a matter of record that by 1939, before the war, or from 1935 to 1939, the gross national income of the farmers of western Canada had increased by 90 per cent as a result of this policy of finding greater markets and expanding markets throughout the world and removing as many trade barriers as possible. It is also a matter of interest to wheat producers that when the Liberals left office in 1930 they left a carry-over in wheat of some 30 odd million bushels. When they resumed office four years later there was a carry-over of over 200 million bushels of wheat which, in those days, was considered an abnormally high carry-over, and no doubt exerted a downward pressure on the price of grain. The result was, as we know, that grain prices at that time were very low. This, again, indicates the effect of this type of policy.
I should like to apply the test of Liberal trade policies to the last grain crop of which w-e have record, namely, that of 1951-52. This crop was valued at $1,500 million, one of the most valuable we have had in this country. If we compare the value of that crop with the value of crude oil production in Canada, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) did in Toronto, which amounts to $120 million, we at once realize the importance of the western grain crop when it

reaches a figure of $1,500 million. And the current crop is expected to reach a figure of $1,800 million.
So that at the beginning of that crop year- just to show what the Department of Trade and Commerce was able to do, through the very able management of the minister of that department-we began that year with a carry-over of 190 million bushels. To that were added deliveries of 718 million bushels, making a total of close to a billion bushels of grain that had to be disposed of.
It must also be remembered that in that year out west the weather conditions were unsatisfactory in the fall. The grain that was delivered was in very poor condition. As a matter of fact 66 per cent of the crop was delivered in tough, damp or non-straight grades. The non-straight grades accounted for 66 per cent of the crops. About 100 million bushels had to be put through the driers, because it was not in a condition to be kept or shipped.
Despite these facts-and this is also a great tribute to the Canadian wheat board-despite these great difficulties, and the difficulty of movement, having in mind the fact that the grain cannot be hauled any great distance in that condition without heating or spoiling, it is a matter of record that, even under those very bad conditions, not a single bushel of grain was lost.
And so, Mr. Speaker, the board marketed 650 million bushels of grain, 141 million domestically and 509 million by export. This is the second highest export of grain in the history of the nation, despite all the difficulties I have mentioned, and the condition in which it was delivered.
The disposition of this export grain is also most revealing. Dealing first with the export of wheat and wheat flour, we find that the Department of Trade and Commerce sold wheat to 86 different countries in six continents of the world. They sold 386 million bushels of wheat, representing an export increase to the extent of 37 per cent over the previous year. That is not losing markets.
The distribution of that wheat is of special interest. I find that 63 per cent of the amount exported went to 20 countries in Europe

and I would ask the opposition to take note of that. Then 3 [DOT] 5 per cent went to 17 countries in Africa; 14 per cent to North America, 4-8 per cent to South America, and some smaller amounts to Oceania. Twenty-three areas of the commonwealth took 45 [DOT] 4 per cent. Then of course the United Kingdom, which is still the leading buyer, bought 127 -6 million bushels, or 36 per cent of the crop. That is a very large amount for
The Address-Mr. Jutras local consumption in the United Kingdom. Even the United States, which has a surplus of wheat, bought almost 39 million bushels from Canada.
Turning now to barley exports we find that the government exported 70 million bushels of barley, or three times the amount exported last year. This, too, is an all-time record, so far as the export of barley is concerned. It is of particular interest, too, to note that whereas formerly 80 per cent of the barley went to the United States, the biggest buyer of barley from the 1951-52 crop was in Europe. We sold to eight different countries. Belgium was the biggest buyer, with a purchase of 18 million bushels, Japan came next with 15 million, the United States 10 million, the United Kingdom 7-7 million, Germany 5 [DOT] 8 million, Denmark 3 [DOT] 3 million, The Netherlands 2 [DOT] 8 million and Norway 2 [DOT] 4 million.
The story is the same so far as the export of oats is concerned. There again 70 million bushels were exported, double the amount exported the year before', and again an alltime record. It went to ten different countries. Then, oatmeal and rolled oats were shipped to 26 countries. In connection with oats the United States was the biggest buyer with a total of 58 million bushels; Belgium was next with 8-3 million; and The Netherlands bought 1 [DOT] 8 million.
So that the total export of the five principal grains was 505-3 million bushels, again the highest export figure in the history of this nation. This grain was valued at $860 million, and represented 20 per cent of the total value of exports of the nation.
I hasten to point out that, in spite of these large exports of feed grains throughout the world, the domestic market was well cared for. As a matter of fact, there were left over 20 million tons of feed in Canada, which works out to roughly something more than one ton of feed to each feed-consuming animal in Canada. As a matter of fact this represents an increase of 33 per cent over the previous year.
Not only have markets been found outside Canada, but a local market, right within our boundaries, has been developed. Under the freight assistance program this new market has been developed right here in Canada. It is interesting to note that whereas the average amount of feed going to eastern Canada over the ten-year period from 1931 to 1940 was 12 million bushels per year, that figure has now increased to anywhere from 70 million to 75 million bushels per year. So that the increase is from 12 million to 70 million.
I wish therefore to tell hon. members from the east, from the maritime provinces, that

The Address-Mr. Jutras those of us in western Canada appreciate this market within Canada and we are ready to co-operate with them at all times in its development. Unfortunately when coarse grains were brought under the Canadian wheat board there was some criticism from feeders in eastern Canada who were a little disappointed in the way they were being affected. I warned them at the time that they were bound to be disappointed because I am afraid a great many supported the idea of the inclusion of coarse grains in the operations of the wheat board because they did not believe in such a system of marketing and were under the impression that the board would not be able to get the highest price and consequently they would get cheaper feeds.
Naturally they were caught short in their supplies in the first year and there was some criticism. I should like to place on the record the prices actually received by the farmer in western Canada for the feed sold in eastern Canada. I think upon a dose examination of the facts they will find that the fluctuations under this system of marketing were not as great nor was the margin as wide as some of them believed they would be.
Feed wheat No. 1 paid the western producer $1.49 basis Fort William, and the low on the market was $1.44 with the high being $1.56. It will be seen that the margin was not so great. No. 1 feed barley paid the western producer $1.21 basis Fort William, with the market in eastern Canada showing a low of $1.11 and a high of 1.48. Oats paid the producer 77 cents a bushel, with the market low being 77 cents and the high $1.08. It will be seen that the fluctuations and the disparity were not very great.
Attempts have been made to alleviate the situation and some time ago the western co-operatives suggested to Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces the setting up of a central buying agency to ensure supplies for eastern Canada. This appeared to be a sensible suggestion and it should work	to	the	advantage	of easternCanada. However, in a venture of this nature	the	first	requisite is a	staff of
competent and experienced men and there is a possibility there may be difficulty in getting such staff.
In order to show their good faith the western co-operatives offered to pay 50 per cent of any losses during the first year of operation up to $100,000. That offer is still pending and it may help to smooth out the differences between the east and the west.
I believe that this marketing policy has worked to the advantage of the eastern and western provinces. It has eliminated some
rMr. Jutras.]

of the fluctuations and while the western producer has not received the highest prices he feels that he is getting a reasonable and fair price when all factors are taken into consideration.
I have attempted to analyse the export situation in connection with this mainstay of western agriculture and I think I have demonstrated that not only have we not lost world markets, we have constantly expanded' our markets throughout the world. The history and experience of this country indicates that that is the only way we can ensure prosperity. We should trade as much as possible with every country in the world and build up markets wherever they can be found so that there may be a greater demand for Canadian products.
The record shows that not only has the Liberal government attempted to get greater markets for Canadian products, they have endeavoured on every occasion to enlarge the markets of other nations. That is why we have joined in these various international agreements which I think should remain in effect. We have attempted to reduce trade barriers and we have concentrated on expanding the trade of this country, thus increasing our standard of living. Any government that would adopt restrictive practices or even mention that they contemplated adopting such policies would do great damage to the economy of the country.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I propose at this time to draw attention to the war in Korea and Canada's part therein. The speech from the throne contains the following:
The sacrifices of those directly involved in the United Nations police action in Korea and the anxieties of their families are an inevitable and most regrettable part of the price we are paying to prevent another world war.
I am sure that we all want to express our sympathy to the families that have been bereaved and to the men who have been wounded.
I notice that the Canadian casualty lists show a steady increase and the seriousness of the war can be gauged from these lists. The casualty list dated Ottawa, November 23, and sent out by Canadian Press was as follows:
A Korean casualty list Saturday included four men killed in action and one officer and six men wounded.
The list brought to 1,234 total casualties suffered by Canadian troops in Korea, including 231 dead, 890 wounded, 28 missing, 84 injured in action and one captured.
The navy has reported three dead and three injured.
That was the 153rd casualty list that had been issued. On May 12 of this year the 108th

casualty list was issued and showed the total number of casualties at that time as 784. In the six months from May to November 23 the increase has been 88 killed, 319 wounded and 20 missing. As an indication of the increasing seriousness of the war in Korea I should like to refer to the casualty lists in this way: In the first nine months since the brigade was in Korea the casualties were at the rate of 42 per month; in the following seven months the rate was 58 per month; in the last six months, that is from May to November of this year, the rate was 75 per month.
How serious are our casualties in Korea in comparison with other wars? In the first place, casualties should be shown as a percentage of the fighting troops, not of the total enlistment. Only in this way can a true picture be obtained. For every man who is actively engaged with the enemy there are at least four who are in the rear areas or on the lines of communication. The heaviest casualties are suffered by the infantry. In world war I, according to the casualty figures shown in the memorial chamber of this building, the infantry who were in France and Flanders suffered 68 per cent of the total casualties.
Consider the casualty list of Dieppe. In that action 5,000 Canadians participated. Six infantry battalions and other formations landed on the beaches and all non-fighting personnel of each unit had been left in England. Dead and wounded were approximately 3,000, or 60 per cent of the total fighting strength of the Dieppe force.
In Korea we have a brigade consisting of supporting units and of three infantry battalions: the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Royal 22nd Regiment and the Princess Patricia's Canadian Eight Infantry. The front line fighting strength of each battalion may be estimated at 600, or 1,800 for the three battalions. On these men has fallen the brunt of the fighting and of the casualties.
The total battle casualties, if we omit those listed as injured or captured, amount to 1,149 and of that number I am assuming most are infantry men for I have not the figures for the tanks, signals, engineers or artillery. Had there been no rotation of battalions and had the original brigade remained in Korea from February of 1951 to the present time without replacement, the fighting strength of the brigade would now be one battalion, not three.
In other words, the casualties have been approximately 68 per cent, the same heavy casualty rate as at Dieppe. The only difference is that at Dieppe the casualty rate of 60 per cent was suffered in a period of nine hours and the casualty rate of 68 per cent in Korea has been spread over 22 months.
The Address-Mr. Churchill This is not a police action in Korea; it is war, with all its horrors, its suffering, and its bloodshed.
On November 25, I asked a question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) in these words as given in Hansard at page 63:
. . . are tanks used by Canadian forces in Korea so short of ammunition that they are permitted to fire only two shells per tank per day?
The minister replied in these words:
... I can say that during relatively static periods on any battlefront ammunition is rationed in the sense that guns of all types are allowed a certain number of rounds per day. That is so that they can build up stocks either to meet an attack or, in this case, to meet the possible contingency of an ultimate armistice. We. certainly are not going to give the number of rounds per day that are to be fired by any Canadian artillery until they have been fired. The hon. member knows very well indeed that it would be highly improper to do so even if it referred only to the Canadian forces. But in this case our ammunition is supplied from United States sources. We are on the United States supply line and get precisely the same treatment as the Americans get. I am sure that the American military authorities in the United Nations would be the first to refuse this information.
I was not asking for a disclosure as to the number of rounds that might be fired each day by the artillery. I was inquiring whether there was a shortage of ammunition. My experience would lead me to conclude that a ration of two shells per gun per day means there is a shortage of ammunition.
I think you would have to go back to the year 1915 to discover a parallel to this situation. In May of 1915, according to the British official history of the war, very frequently battles had to be brought to a conclusion because of a scarcity of ammunition; and the common phrase used in the order was "the battle must now cease". You will find that expression in the official history of the war, 1915, page 37. A cessation of hostilities due to lack of ammunition occurred at the battle of Festubert in which Canadian forces were engaged.
It might be appropriate at this stage to mention that the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry first battalion, which has just returned from Korea, has had a casualty list of 36 killed, 2 missing believed killed, and 196 wounded-a total of 236 casualties in eleven months of service in Korea. The original Princess Patricia's serving in France in May of 1915, at the time of this shortage of ammunition, suffered very severely during a twenty-four hour period from the evening of May 7 until the evening of May 8. Six hundred and thirty-five men of the original Patricia's answered the roll call on the 7th of May. When they were relieved on the night of the 8th they mustered only 150.
330	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Churchill
At that particular time, in May, 1915, a dispatch was published in the London Times dated May 12, from the Times correspondent in France in these words, and I quote:
The want of an unlimited supply of high explosives was a fatal bar to our success.
That dispatch resulted in editorials in the newspapers, the stirring up of public interest in the question, the organization of a ministry of munitions, the appointment of Lloyd George as the head of that department, and a general increase in the production of ammunition. If a shortage of ammunition in May, 1915, resulted in that type of attention and action, what about the situation we are facing today?
My question was based on a Canadian Press dispatch from Tokyo which appeared in the Globe and Mail about ten days or perhaps two weeks ago. The last paragraph reads as follows:
Bill Boss, Canadian Press correspondent in Korea, reported today that the tanks are allowed to fire only two shells a day apiece from their 76 mm. main guns and quoted one officer as saying that, "rationed as we are, we've had to pass up targets galore".
I discovered subsequently that the full dispatch had not been printed in that paper but had appeared in the Calgary Herald. It went on to say they were not permitted to use their machine gun ammunition from the tanks except in case of enemy attack.
There are two sentences in the minister's reply to my question which deserve attention. Speaking of the rationing of ammunition he said, and I quote:
That is so that they can build up stocks either to meet an attack or, as In this case, to meet the possible contingency of an ultimate armistice.
I fail to understand what is meant by "to meet the possible contingency of an ultimate armistice". Does that mean that artillery fire should be kept to a minimum while armistice negotiations are continuing, in order not to exasperate the enemy? If that is the case, why fire at all? If you do not harass the enemy with fire he is free to make all manner of preparations on his side for a surprise attack. If our gunners are passing up targets galore, the enemy is obviously being very bold and very active.
Armistice negotiations have been going on for the last seventeen months, and for at least the last six months the point at issue has been narrowed down to a method of exchanging prisoners; but the armistice still lurks around the corner. During the last six months Canadian casualties have been 88 killed, 319 wounded, 22 missing, or a total of 429. We suffer 429 casualties, and yet restrict


harassing fire on the enemy while we await an armistice. No army could fight under those conditions. Forces in contact with the enemy cannot be looking over their shoulder for the dove of peace without running the risk of being surprised by the enemy. Let us recall the German attack on the Ardennes in December, 1944, a very critical period in the last war.
In November, 1918, every soldier in the Canadian army knew an armistice was expected at any moment. Was there any let-up in the relentless drive of the Canadian corps? On the morning of November 11, Canadian troops continued to advance, and those who were in support were warned to be ready to leapfrog the forward troops and push onward if necessary on the 12th. There was no rationing of ammunition in those days to meet the possible contingency of an armistice. In May, 1945, every soldier in the Canadian army knew that German resistance was on the point of collapsing. Yet, on the 4th of May we find, and I quote the official historian:
. . . divisions of the second Canadian corps were still advancing northward and still meeting opposition.
That is found in "The Canadian Army, 1939-45", page 270. As late as noon of that day, impending attacks by Canadians were cancelled by the army commander on instructions from General Montgomery's headquarters because the German surrender was at that time being negotiated and was about to be signed, as it was the same day. There had been no rationing of ammunition down to two shells per gun per day.
The second sentence in the minister's reply, to which close attention should be given, reads as follows:
We are on the United States supply line, and get precisely the same treatment as the Americans get.
I suppose the minister would include the South Koreans. In other words, if there is a restriction on the use of ammunition or a shortage of ammunition all formations in the army in Korea get the same treatment.
At this point, it would be interesting to refer to another dispatch from Korea, and again I am indebted to the Ottawa Citizen of November 24. This dispatch is from the Kumhwa front, Korea, and the headline reads: "Allied officers sick at heart; appalling loss of men in fighting for Kumhwa." The dispatch describes the attack by the Korean second division on Sniper ridge and by the United States seventh division on Triangle hill. The battle commenced on October 14. On October 24, the Koreans relieved the United States division. The Chinese counterattacked on October 31 and overran Triangle,

inflicting heavy casualties on troops who refused to retreat. Then the dispatch reads as follows:
The allied situation at this point was made extremely difficult by restrictions that cut back sharply the rate of allied artillery fire in order to save shells.
This paralyzing order came just as the communists completed the massing of more than 200 field guns and thousands of mortars on the front.
Then the high command, appalled at the communist fire power, threw economy to the winds and poured guns and shells into the sector in the greatest artillery mobilization since the second world war.
Had the commonwealth division taken over Sniper ridge and Triangle hill from the U.S. seventh division, we would now be mourning the annihilation of the Canadian 25th brigade because of a paralysing order to cut back the rate of artillery fire in order to save shells. If the 25th Canadian brigade is involved in a major action in December, will there be ammunition available against counter-attack? Is there a shortage of ammunition in Korea? There is no secrecy or security involved in this matter because these dispatches have informed the world that all is not well on the allied side in Korea.
What is the nature of the Korean conflict? General Van Fleet, commander-in-chief of the eighth army, has given the answer in an article reprinted in part in the Ottawa Citizen of November 24. He was commenting on the increased use of South Korean troops and their employment with allied forces, and considered this arrangement suitable-I give his words-"for the type of defensive warfare in which we are engaged-static positions with little movement in mountainous terrain". That is the Korean picture; a mountainous country, with the armies deadlocked in static positions and the emphasis on defence. It is not a repetition of world war II but of world war I.
The terrain precludes the continuous trench system of the western front system of 1914-18, but obviously favours the fortification of mountain strongholds. It is generally accepted that, under these conditions, the defenders are more favourably situated than the attackers. With observation posts in the hills and sufficient fire power available, the passes through the hills can be denied the enemy without the necessity of actually occupying the low ground with troops. Veterans of the Italian campaign would recognize, I assume, many similarities in the Korean battlefront. Monte Cassino, the anchor of the Gustav line of defence in Italy, is an example of the value and strength of a fortified hill position. Consider Vimy Ridge of the first world war. It 68108-221	i .	|
The Address-Mr. Churchill was not a mountain, of course, but a commanding hill position. Fortified by the Germans it was proof against all attack during 1915 and 1916, and cost the lives of 50,000 Frenchmen. This position was taken only by a major assault in 1917.
If our military plan in Korea is to remain on the defensive, and I think it should be, if the warfare is static and not mobile, then I should like to know something about the nature of our defensive preparations. My observation has been that under static conditions of warfare there is every opportunity to establish enormous dumps of ammunition. It is under mobile conditions that supply lines tend to break down and that restrictions on the use of ammunition have to be imposed. Look at the situation in which we find ourselves. There is no submarine menace; we have an airlift and the railway system in Korea is functioning. There are 38 trams daily moving from Pusan to Seoul. They have 60 modern diesels, 360 steam locomotives, and we have air supremacy to protect our supply lines. We have the industrial capacity of the North American continent, and still we are told by correspondents in Korea that there is a shortage of ammunition under these static conditions.
Now, someone may say that I am trespassing on the forbidden ground of the higher military command. My answer is that if the reports are authentic about a shortage of ammunition in Korea or of restrictions on the use of ammunition, even in the face of enemy attacks, then a complete explanation of the conduct and direction of the Korean war should be given to parliament without delay. Have we anything to say as a Canadian nation in regard to the conduct and direction of the war in Korea? A few months ago some concern was expressed about the employment of Canadian troops at the prisoner of war camps. Has anything yet been said about the ammunition supply in Korea or about the methods of defence? These seem to me to be of much greater importance.
What is our military position in Korea? Have we sent merely token forces to meet our obligation as a member of the United Nations? Have we given hostages to fortune? What is our means of communication with the commander of the eighth army? If our 25th brigade should be assigned a role in Korea that, in the opinion of our brigade commander, would result in needless loss of life, has our brigadier any authority to raise objection? Have we at eighth army headquarters any Canadian officer of sufficiently

The Address-Mr. Churchill high rank to influence decisions? The British have a major-general as liaison officer with the United Nations staff in Korea.
We have now two major commitments abroad, namely, in Korea and in Europe. In the future, we may face other commitments of an international nature. How are we protecting Canadian interests under these circumstances?
These questions are not academic. Military doctrine and military methods differ. Continental powers with large populations, such as Russia, Germany and the United States, have tended to be more prodigal in their use of manpower than have Great Britain and Canada. Profiting by the lessons of world war I, the commonwealth armies husbanded their manpower and used armoured vehicles and unlimited supplies of ammunition. The result was only one-third as many casualties as in the first war.
General Montgomery was criticized by some people for what they called overinsurance. General Montgomery believed in expending ammunition, not men. So did General Crerar. On February 8, 1945, when the assault by British and Canadian troops was launched against the Reichwalde forest and the Siegfried line, the artillery under his command fired 160,000 shells just in a few hours.
What is the policy in Korea? If my information is correct, United States military teaching has emphasized attack and has paid less attention to defence and withdrawal. British and Canadian military instruction has given much greater emphasis to defence and withdrawal, owing to wide experience with expeditionary forces fighting against superior numbers; and we are fighting against superior numbers in Korea. We are supposed to be on the defensive. How effective is our line of defence? The 155-mile front has its flanks on the sea. We cannot be outflanked. Sixty per cent of the line is held by South Koreans, 25 per cent by United States troops, and 15 per cent by other United Nations forces including, of course, the commonwealth division and our Canadian brigade. We should be able to resist a frontal attack. The only course then open to the enemy who cannot outflank you is, under these circumstances, an airborne assault behind our front line. But we have air superiority which effectively prevents an airborne attack.
After seventeen months of static warfare, are we so dug in in depth that the enemy cannot effect a penetration of our lines? Is our defensive fire plan so effective that we cannot be surprised? It does not appear so.
The third battalion of the Princess Patricia's is now in Korea. Its first task, its initiation


into warfare, was to counter-attack, to assist the Black Watch, who had been overrun. Canada then issued its 153rd casualty list. Yet in the Globe and Mail of November 28 I read that two Chinese attacks on Sniper ridge on November 27 had failed because allied defensive fire was intense and accurate. The question that arises in my mind is this: What was the defensive fire plan on the commonwealth division front? Were our troops short of ammunition?
In fact, the whole plan of defence in Korea puzzles me. Are our troops still eking out an existence in foxholes? Do we need an organization in Korea similar in purpose to the German Todt group to build defensive lines of permanence that provide full protection for the troops and that are proof against anything except an all-out major effort? Consider the German defences in Italy in the recent war. They had three substantial defence lines. They had the Gustav line, the Adolf Hitler line and the Caesar line. Our official historian, Colonel Stacey, in dealing with this matter says of the Hitler line:
The line depended for its strength upon a formidable barrier of concrete and steel structures ... a number of these were miniature fortresses . . . and each was flanked by additional anti-tank guns manned by crews whose living quarters were secure concrete burrows twenty feet below ground.
Of the Gustav line he says:
On the German side carefully sited weapon positions on the valley floor and in the mountains to north and south permitted the enemy to sweep the whole of the fortified zone with fire, while deep shelters protected the defenders against our air and artillery bombardment.
One can think of other lines of defence such as the Atlantic wall, the Siegfried line of 1939-45 and the Hindenburg line of 1917-18. These are all examples of the art of defence, where the defender has an adequate zone of fire and has adequate protection for the men who are in this defensive position.
What are we relying upon in Korea? Are we relying on concrete gun emplacements, pill-boxes, mine fields and barbed wire or are we relying upon air power and counterattacks by infantry?
Reports from Korea indicate that the Chinese have increased appreciably the number of their mortars and guns. Have we done the same? If not, are we planning to do so? Should we not now double the artillery component of the brigade, increase the mortars, and add more heavy machine guns? For defensive static warfare, these are the weapons. Have we the multiple rocket projector in Korea? Its effect was devastating in northwest Europe. Should we double our tank strength? No great increase in personnel will be required to do this, but even if there were

sn increase in artillery personnel, for example, we would save on casualties that are inflicted on the infantry.
The experience of the two great wars has been that each successive year there was an increase in the fire power of the opposing armies. More guns and more ammunition were available. Part of the success of the Canadian corps in 1917 and 1918 was due to the fact that it had more artillery pieces and more machine guns than had other corps. Its machine gun strength was doubled in 1918 almost overnight. Under static conditions, with guns properly sited and with observation posts established, the Canadian corps was impregnable. At the battle of Hill 70 in the summer of 1917, the Germans launched 13 counter-attacks. Each counter-attack was destroyed by artillery and machine gun fire. Not one German reached our front line despite these desperate efforts. Cannot the same methods be used and similar results be achieved in Korea? The lesson of the war of 1914-18 is that men unaided by tanks simply cannot make an effective break-through by frontal attack. Not even Chinese are proof against artillery and mortar and machine-gun fire. Fire power rather than counterattacks by infantry should be the defensive plan in Korea.
Another problem arises. Is the war in Korea now being considered as a war of attrition? I have seen several articles that have suggested that the Chinese cannot long endure the heavy losses they have suffered. Some Canadian officers, in conversation with me, have ventured the same opinion. There are at least three things wrong with this opinion. In the first place, the estimates of Chinese casualties have been grossly exaggerated. If they were true, General Van Fleet says: "There wouldn't be a live Chinese or North Korean opposing us." You will find that quotation on page 39 of the Reader's Digest for December. In the second place, a war of attrition against an enemy whose population exceeds 400 million is simply ridiculous. In the third place, the concept of the war of attrition by means of offensive action was applied in 1916 and 1917 with grievous effect to the wrong side; for the casualty lists published after that war showed that the allies had suffered greater losses than had the Germans in those very years when the military commanders were claiming that Germany's lifeblood was being drained away. And we of the British commonwealth expended 250,000 lives in the Ypres salient alone. War by attrition does not necessarily affect the other side.
The Address-Mr. Churchill
I suggest to the Minister of National Defence that for the instruction of our present generation of military officers we proceed rapidly with the official history of world war I. Our competent official historian will be able to deduce many a lesson on the effective use of fire power against superior numbers and on the tactics of defence under static conditions. These lessons will be valuable for officers whose practical experience has been only with mobile forces in the advance, efficient as they proved themselves to be under those circumstances.
There need be no conflict between politicians and military leaders in those matters. I am putting forward various suggestions in the hope of obtaining the type of information that I think should be available to parliament. I am in agreement with the minister. He is already on record in Hansard of 1952, volume I, page 1080. These are his words:
When we have men in battle facing a foe abroad we put above everything else the necessity of supporting, in every way, those men who are risking and giving their lives in order that peace may be restored and freedom preserved.
How do we support these men in every way, these men who are risking their lives? We must support them by having some part in determining the conduct of the war in Korea. Canadian military experience is, at the very least, the equal of United States military experience. Is Canadian military experience playing a part on the higher levels in the Korean conflict? We must support these men by providing the arms and ammunition. In the third year of any war, there should be not a trickle but a flood of ammunition. We must support them with adequate fully-trained replacements. Will the minister assure the house that that is being done? We must support them by retaining effective political control over our forces and not relinquishing that control to the military. That is in the British and Canadian tradition. What assurance can the minister give us on that point?
What is the future in Korea? For those who are interested in the subject-and I imagine every member of the House of Commons is-may I suggest that they will find a brief and well written survey in the International Journal of the autumn of 1952 by G. H. Stanley, who is at the Royal Military College at Kingston. In the last issue of the U. S. News and World Report, which is dated December 5, there is a good summary of the Korean situation, and the various proposals are there balanced one against the other. I have no time to go into that, but I do suggest that parliament should seriously consider Canada's position with regard to decisions that may be made in connection

The Address-Mr. Croll with the war in Korea, because on those decisions depend a great many things and the lives of our soldiers may be at stake.
For our Canadian forces in Korea I have nothing but admiration-for their courage and for their devotion 1o duty. They are Canadians; it follows that they have no superiors on the battlefield. I hope that the fortune of war will not strike down any one of our battalions as the Gloucesters were struck down. Should our brigade be called upon to storm a ridge like Sniper ridge or Triangle hill, and hold it without sufficient artillery support, I am confident that they will face their hour of trial with fortitude and determination.
We are engaged in Korea not in a police action but in a war. We have lost the equivalent of the fighting strength of two battalions. We are calling upon our young men to sacrifice their lives on the field of battle thousands of miles from home. Are we taking every precaution to see that. not one of those lives is needlessly lost?


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: This house is fully aware that national health insurance ranks high on the government's list of unfinished business. It is the next great step towards social security. I think that it affects every one of Canada's 14,009,429 people, and I would not be exaggerating if I said that it is a matter of life and death for some of the people of this country.
If you are a wage earner with dependents you are all right until you get sick and then you are licked. The subject of health insurance is scarcely a new one. It has to my personal knowledge been discussed and debated in the house at least since 1945, and it was by no means a new subject then.
It may be of interest if I recall to hon. members that today there are 39 countries in the world that have national health insurance plans. Most of them provide not only for medical but also for hospital services. Many of them provide for sickness and maternity benefits. Lest there should be anyone in this house who thinks that only socialist Britain and Soviet Russia have taken this step, I want to point out that the other countries include Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Iceland, New Zealand, Guatemala and even little Panama. Nor is health insurance a post-war freak, for the earliest scheme of health insurance was set up in Austria in 1883, almost 70 years ago. It is only fair to say that these schemes are by no means perfect or Utopian. All observers who have had an opportunity to view these health plans admit that they are handicapped by shortages of technical staffs and hospital facilities. But


that does not deter those countries from setting up health insurance plans. It is significant that in every country where a health insurance plan has been set up it has acted as a spur to hospital expansion, encouraging and accelerating building and medical facilities.
In Britain, to take only one recent example, the number of doctors, nurses and laboratory technicians has increased faster since the health plan was set up in 1948 than ever before. We find that Canada is behind many countries in providing adequate health care at costs which the people can afford. A nation with the second highest standard of living is twelfth in infant mortality rate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame!


David Arnold Croll: Let me read you just a few
health statistics which will help us to understand the problem that is involved. Every year in Canada the following deaths occur because of sickness and disease: Tuberculosis, in 1950, 3,583; in 1951, 3,418; communicable diseases, in 1950, 5,577; in 1951, 6,999; infants under one year, 15,324 in 1950 and 14,584 in 1951; infants at birth, under one day, 3,996 in 1950 and 3,637 in 1951.
Here we have nearly 30,000 deaths a year, most of which are caused by lack of proper living conditions and medical care. Just think of it! Thirty thousand people die every year, more than a quarter of a million every ten years, and most of the deaths could have been prevented.
Nor is my list of statistics complete by any means. Let me recall some figures that were given the house several years ago by a former minister of labour. He pointed out that out of 1,014,491 men examined under mobilization regulations 55 per cent were unfit for front-line service and 285,055 were unfit for service anywhere, in any capacity.
I have here a report contained in the Ottawa Journal of November 12, 1952, in which Lieutenant Colonel H. V. Matthews of Toronto, speaking before an armistice gathering in Kitchener, said:
More than 50 per cent of the youths trying to enlist in Canada are unfit for military service. We reject more people than we accept.
In other words, out of more than a million Canadians examined, more than half had health defects which made them unfit for military service. These figures are only for men of military age. What about the women and children, and the older people? We can assume that these shocking figures can be projected across the entire population of this country. A balance sheet of national health would contain a staggering figure of human lives lost or impaired, of millions of manhours los4, of untold pain and suffering and

sickness. The net result is a wastage of human life, manpower and money which dwarfs understanding.
Faced with this appalling balance sheet of health, no one person in the House of Commons or in the country will deny that everything possible must be done to help remedy the situation. There is of course no simple prescription for national health. It is compounded of many ingredients, and there may not be general agreement on all of them. But one vital ingredient is beyond dispute: It is simply this, a better distribution of all health services. No prescription for national health which does not include this can possibly be effective. We must find the means of providing better health for all, regardless of ability to pay. We must remove the price tag from health, and share the cost of illness. We must make sure that economic needs do not prevent Canadians from having access to the health care they need. Patients must have the right to choose their doctors, and the doctor his patients. Doctors are not to be servants of the state, but are to be free to serve their patients.
I am just as much opposed to socialized medicine as is any doctor. I do not want to see our doctors on the government payroll. But we need the help and guidance of the medical profession in a constructive spirit to help solve our problem. In common with many others in this country I believe our answer is to be found in some plan of national health insurance underwritten by the dominion and administered by the provinces for the benefit of all Canadians.
I am well aware there are some objections to national health insurance. I suppose the first objection is that our medical facilities in Canada are not developed sufficiently to support a comprehensive plan of national health insurance. That may well be true. But let us not lose sight of a few things. First, I do not believe our medical facilities are less either in quantity or in quality than those of most other civilized nations. I know that our doctors, our nurses and our technical people are second to none in the world. I know of few countries that can boast finer or better equipped hospitals or clinics.
No doubt it may be said, and with truth, that we have not enough of these things. But what country has? I do not wish to make unfavourable comparisons with any other country; but I would ask whether Canada is in any worse position medically speaking than Norway, New Zealand or Panama. I cannot believe it. Yet these small nations are among the 39 which have introduced national health insurance.
The Address-Mr. Croll
Of course we have not enough medical and health facilities; no country has. But if we are going to sit back and wait until we do, then you know when we are going to get health insurance: just about never. I am convinced that greater health facilities will come with a health insurance plan. That has been the experience of every country that has adopted such a plan; and it is significant that in no country was a plan abandoned because facilities proved unequal to the task.
Today we may lack personnel and facilities which are deemed sufficient; but is that a good enough reason for not starting a plan, even in a limited fashion? It just cannot be argued that a country as rich as we are cannot bed down its sick and remove from its people the constant fear that illness may strike their homes tomorrow and throw them on charity.
The next objection of course may come from members of the medical profession. It is regrettable that the subject of national health insurance should be viewed with such suspicion, alarm-and worse-by a considerable number of Canadian doctors. Yet such is the case. The stock reply we get from the doctor is: Why should I become a civil servant? This feeling, which I call civil service phobia, dies very hard. Leaving aside for the moment the slander against civil servants, whom I personally have found to be diligent and conscientious, I believe that this reaction from a portion of the medical profession betrays a lack of understanding of the whole subject of health insurance.
I do not suggest that doctors are not fully aware of the need for expanded health services. No one has better opportunity than has the doctor, who meets the problem a hundred times a day. But I feel the medical profession are under a misconception of the true meaning and purpose of national health insurance. No one is proposing to take away from the doctor or the patient freedom of choice in their dealings one with the other. No one is proposing to make doctors civil servants or to turn patients into slaves of a bureaucratic medical system. By our administration of social services in this country we have amply demonstrated that we can have welfare without tyranny. Another objection to health insurance doubtless will be its cost. I can only ask hon. members to refer to the health figures I quoted earlier.
This country cannot afford to be without health insurance. Of course health insurance cannot be had for nothing. We must not mislead either the people or ourselves on that score at this stage of our thinking on the subject. I do not think that anyone can do
336	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Croll any more than hazard a guess as to the cost. It depends upon the extent of the plan and one thing is sure: the more extensive, the more expensive. I say again: Can we afford to be without health insurance? Once that question is answered we can go on to examine the problem of the cost. The Toronto Star of February 15,1950, contained the following:
Public medical care programs for persons receiving public assistance are now in operation in four provinces. Ontario was the first to establish, in 1935, a public medical service for persons on relief. In 1942 the service was extended to old age pensioners and families receiving mothers' allowance. In 1943, Saskatchewan put into operation a more generous medical care service for all recipients of public assistance, and since 1947 similar programs were put into effect by the governments of Alberta and British Columbia.
These programs are helping to build experience and to train administrators of health insurance in Canada.
I quote that because I happen to know something of that problem. I am no great authority on health insurance, but the house will be interested to know that as minister of welfare for Ontario in 1935 it was my responsibility to look after the people who were victims of the depression. At that time one in ten residents of Ontario needed medical care. Acting in my capacity as minister in consultation with the medical association we found a formula that provided medical care for those people on a fee-for-service basis. We paid the medical association which in turn paid the doctors. This was the first province-wide health plan in Canada. As the article indicates, that plan has been continued in Ontario as a model arrangement. In 1942 it was extended to old age pensioners and those receiving family allowances. It was copied in 1945 in Saskatchewan, and in 1947 by the Alberta and British Columbia governments.
As a supporter of health insurance and as an innovator, I have some appreciation of the administrative problems involved. I think I have some idea of the intimate and precise study and preparation required before we can take the next step.
Before I say anything further may I indicate to the house that I had the privilege of hearing the report by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Time did not permit him to relate more than a small portion of the achievements of that department, and they are many and great. The government's record on health and welfare must be described in glowing terms. I support what has already been done and I associate myself with its accomplishments. The minister has
[Mr. Croll.1

been consistently an advocate of health insurance. He has been intimately concerned with the sick and the ill. It may be that he thinks he has moved as fast as circumstances and conditions will permit. I think he is moving a little slowly. For that reason I am prepared to push him, but I am not prepared to shove him.
Let us see what courses are open to us. The government could present a bill on health insurance, we could debate and criticize it, and as a government measure it would have to pass. I do not think anyone in this house suggests that that course of action should be adopted. On the other hand, the minister could present a bill on national health insurance, its principle could be adopted, and then the bill could be referred to a committee of this house or to a joint committee of both houses to consider and report back. In that case the committee would be limited to making inquiries within the scope of the bill. I do not think that that is good enough.
Then the government could appoint a committee of this house or a joint committee with wide powers to study health insurance in the light of modern needs, conditions and accomplishments, with instructions to bring in a report which the government might or might not adopt in part or in whole. I think that that is the proper course to follow. I ask the government to set up at this session a joint committee of both houses to prepare a blueprint for national health insurance.
We in this house know very little about health insurance; the public knows even less. The public feel that they need it, they want it, but they are not quite sure what it will entail. They have a feeling it would be for their good. There has been a great deal of talk in the house about the number of studies that have been carried on, but the fact is that only two studies of this problem have been made in the last twenty-five years. I cannot emphasize that too strongly.
In 1928 the standing committee on industrial and international relations investigated insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity and brought in two reports. On June 1, 1928, they brought in a report dealing with the legislative jurisdiction, and I quote:
That the evidence of the justice department makes it clear that the responsibility for such legislation rests on the provincial authorities, it being within their jurisdiction under the provisions of the British North America Act; but that it would be within the power of parliament to contribute by grant to such provinces as adopted such legislation, following the precedents set in the matter of technical education, highway construction, and. more recently, the Old Age Pensions Act.

The Address-Mr. Croll
On May 1, 1929, the same committee Drought in a further recommendation as follows:
That with regard to sickness insurance, the Department of Pensions and National Health be requested to initiate a comprehensive survey of the field of public health, with special reference to a national health program. In tnis, it is believed that it would be possible to secure the co-operation of the provincial and municipal health departments, as well as the organized profession.
That date of May 1, 1929, is significant. Everyone remembers the hungry thirties. At the end of the thirties we entered a war and we did not come out of it until 1945. It is significant that in 1948 definite steps were taken, not only to comply with this recommendation but to go even beyond the recommendation.
In 1943 we had a special committee on health composed of top civil servants which was known as the Heagerty committee. They did a very able job, but the Heagerty report is now ten years old. We are living in the penicillin age. Scientific progress has been rapid in recent years and the demand for better care and the cost of providing it have both increased sharply. We are faced with a whole new set of problems in the field of health. Surely the friends of health insurance recognize the need for an up-to-date study by members of this house.
The impression is often given here that the British introduced their health scheme overnight. No such thing. A parliamentary committee studied it and brought in a report; and they had before them the Beveridge report which has used it as the basis for recommending the present health plan. Then I hear many people say: Oh, you have been promising it since 1919. That is true. Does it ever occur to those who make the statement that this is not an overnight project? It was 1911 when Lloyd George first introduced health and unemployment insurance in Great Britain but it was 37 years later when the act came into effect. It was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt, not Franklin, first suggested health insurance in the United States. They still have not got it. The last report was made on health insurance following a request by President Truman in September of 1948, a significant year because we did something about health at the same time. President Truman wrote to Oscar Ewing, who was the federal security administrator, and asked him to make a survey; and Mr. Ewing did so. He told the President there were four phases to health insurance, and I quote from page 91 of
"The Nation's Health-A Ten-year Program". This is a United States government publication.
Phase one
Federal legislation to settle the basic policies of a system of government insurance and to decide important details; and to provide for a three-year "tooling-up" period before the date on which insurance benefits are made available.
Phase two
The tooling-up period during which procedures would be worked out co-operatively by professional groups, localities, states and the federal government; agreements arrived at with individuals and groups providing medical services; and the machinery for actual operations set up.
Phase three
Operations begin, services are provided up to the ceiling set by resources as they exist at the time.
Phase four
Expansion of services, as the accelerated increase and improved distribution of medical manpower and facilities lift the ceiling, until comprehensive services are available to everyone, everywhere in the country.
Mr. Ewing further told the President that would take ten years.
I think it would be unfair to the members of this house and it would be hazardous to the public to ask us to inaugurate a comprehensive insurance plan until we have much more information. Let us just deal with the question of cost for a few minutes. It has been suggested by a group in the house that the cost is likely to be $30 per capita. The minister has made the suggestion that it is likely to be $43 per capita, and the voluntary agencies suggest that $50 is a better figure. If for a family of three the cost will be approximately $12 a month, how is it to be paid? Is it to be paid entirely by the employer or by the employee, or is there to be a division? Is it to be a flat rate or a graduated rate or a combination of flat and graduated? What will be the government contribution?
Should we not know something about what has been done with the $160 million that we appropriated in 1948 which was for a five-year health grants program? How much of that has been committed? How much has been spent? How many new beds have resulted from construction? How are they distributed? How many people have they trained professionally?
What about the attitude of the provincial government? Should we not give detailed study to the provincial surveys? They have gone to a lot of trouble. Would I be wrong if I said that no one in this house has read them? Would we not be subject to very serious criticism if we did not first read the surveys and find out where the provinces stand?

The Address-Mr. Croll
I have a report from the Windsor Star dated October 24 which deals with the provincial attitudes to health insurance. It reads:
. . . Newfoundland has not yet reported . . . Ontario and Quebec did not comment . . . British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan are strongly in favour of some such plan. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are satisfied for the time being to leave it to the voluntary plans. New Brunswick, while seeing both advantages and disadvantages, . . . seems to oppose an immediate start. Manitoba favours health insurance in principle but feels that it is not feasible at the present time.
Not much comfort there. What about the private agencies? How many persons are covered by the voluntary agencies such as Blue Cross, physicians' service, insurance companies and co-operative organizations? Some employers at the present time are obligated to pay a portion of the employees' cost of health insurance. Will that obligation carry on if the voluntary agencies are integrated or taken over? Should the plan be an over-all plan or should health insurance be introduced progressively? As far as I am concerned, I can take my health insurance without wigs, toupees or false teeth on the first day it starts.
Is not a joint committee the proper place to study other health plans, to compare costs, question witnesses, arid give public bodies a chance to be heard? Will it not also be of educational value to the people of Canada in the interests of a clear understanding of what is involved?
Dr. Malcolm G. Taylor, director of the Saskatchewan health planning commission, is quoted in the Toronto Star of February 5, 1950, as saying:
Since, as appears evident, Canada is approaching the day of decision concerning health insurance, the important question is, what kind of health insurance?
The editorial goes on:
Dr. Taylor has suggested that this would depend on the answers to the following, among other questions:
1.	Should it be a national scheme, on the British model, or should there be ten different schemes, evolved by the provinces?
2.	Should professional associations have administrative authority? Should government funds be turned over to a profession or an association for distribution to its own members?
3.	How shall health insurance be paid for? Should it be entirely or partly financed by the state? Should it be compulsory or voluntary? Which of the three levels of government should participate and in what proportion? Should individuals pay according to a flat rate or by graded income tax levy? Should employers contribute?
4.	Should all services be provided from the start? If not, what should be included and what left out?
Now, it is quite true that the opposition will say that a committee is merely a stall,
IMr. Croll.]
but because that charge is made is no reason to refuse to set up a committee. With this government the public does not demand every promise in writing and notarized. They have given us their trust and confidence for almost two generations. We have not failed them. We, who have given this country every worthwhile social measure, intend to secure for the people whatever is required against the ravages of disease and ill health.
I have already indicated that there are many problems that need study. There are five particular aspects that have to be studied by some committee at some time. First is the question of health grants; what has been done with them and how effective they have been. Second is the question of provincial co-operation and how we can obtain it. Third are the voluntary agencies and how we can integrate them. Fourth is the attitude of the medical profession, how we can pacify them. Fifth is the question of costs and their distribution.
I think, in the light of these problems, it is clear that only a committee could now make progress to blueprint a health insurance program. We need to assess our manpower, facilities, knowledge, and funds to be used for health insurance. It is true that the time is short. It is not likely that any committee could be organized before the middle of January. If there should be a spring election it would be almost impossible for the committee to complete its deliberations. If, on the other hand, there should be an election in the fall it may be possible to bring in a report before we adjourn, which would be about the middle of May. I do not know, but I believe it is time we got at the job.
I have said that a committee could recommend a formula for health insurance, but it would do more than that. It would help prepare the country for health insurance and perhaps deal with the most pertinent problem before us: shall it be all or nothing at this time? In its wisdom it may well recommend a limited service to be increased progressively; that has been the experience with every plan that is in existence at the present time. It is quite possible the committee may find that the country is in a position to undertake immediately or within the very near future hospitalization or diagnostic treatment. The medical profession generally welcome the extension of hospitalization to the public, and I think they would co-operate fully. Perhaps that would be our first step. I am sure none of us is prepared to accept a half-baked plan that may well set back health insurance for a generation in this country.
When I said that health insurance ranks high on the government's list of unfinished

business I heard someone across the floor say "hear, hear." I believe it would be worth while, in the few minutes I have at my disposal, to look at the position of the other political parties in the house on health insurance. Their position is put forward in Hansard. The position of the official opposition is found at page 29 of Hansard for November 24:
For that reason there should be general agreement that the first and necessary step in dealing with this subject is to institute an inquiry which would be conducted by representatives of the medical profession, the hospital boards, the dominion, provincial and municipal governments.
The position of the Social Credit party is found at page 56 of Hansard for November 24:
The Social Credit kind of national health program 'would ensure that sufficient doctors, dentists, nurses, technicians, clinics and hospital beds would be made available first to take on the work as the scheme is extended.
In so far as the C.C.F. position is concerned, they say: "Health insurance here and now; we have had enough committees and surveys. What we want now is action." It is obvious from the statements on the record, and we who are parliamentarians know exactly what all the parties mean. We can reach only one conclusion. The Liberal party is the only party that can bring health insurance to the Canadian people because the Tories won't and the C.C.F. can't.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the Liberals won't unless they are shoved.


David Arnold Croll: My suggestion is that this is the time to begin. If we do not, we shall be answerable to future generations for our complacency and our failure. So long as a single life is lost unnecessarily; so long as one person endures suffering which could have been prevented; so long as sickness takes its needless toll, then we shall have failed in our responsibility to the Canadian people. I repeat my suggestion that at this time we can make progress in one way and one way only, by setting up a committee of this house or a joint committee to blueprint health insurance.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon 1 wish to direct some attention to the Canadian beet sugar industry as it relates to national defence. There are in Canada at present seven beet sugar facories. There are three in Alberta, all in *'he Lethbridge area, one in Manitoba and two in Ontario, as well as one in Quebec. These seven factories can produce an estimated 25 per cent of the needs of Canadians in respect of sugar. Both the sugar beet growers and the sugar beet factory owners are fearful that this valuable Canadian industry is in
The Address-Mr. Blackmore grave danger. It can be destroyed before long by the rising importations of Cuban granulated cane sugar.
The Chatham Daily News of November 7, 1952, carries the following headlines:
Sugar beet industry facing extinction.
Refined Cuban sugar floods domestic market.
By Ted Aitkin
In the lower right-hand corner of the front page appeared this headline:
Sugar beet marketing board urges Ottawa to protect sugar beet industry.
The same newspaper in its November 17 issue on page 11 carried this headline:
Cuban refined sugar forces down domestic beet payment.
As everybody knows, if domestic beet payments are forced down our farmers will be warned away from the production of sugar beets. Thus the industry could be easily destroyed.
Far too few Canadians realize how serious a situation this could indicate, first as regards Canadian sugar supply in case of war and even in peace, and second, as regards Canadian sovereignty.
Let me review some of the facts concerning the sugar supply in world war II. In Canada sugar rationing was introduced on July 1, 1942, and continued until November 3, 1947. Throughout most of this period the household ration was a half pound per person per week, plus a varying extra allowance during the home canning season. In 1945 the ration was reduced to about, six ounces a week. The industrial users of sugar such as bakers, confectioners, soft drink manufacturers, etc., were rationed at varying rates at varying times from as low as 50 per cent to as high as 90 per cent of the July, 1941, usage.
The total annual per capita consumption of sugar, direct and indirect, including the sugar content in jams, biscuits, confectionery, canned fruit, etc., is indicated in the first column below. The second column gives the total annual per capita consumption of sugar in all its forms, including the sugar content of glucose, corn syrup, honey, etc. The table is as follows:
Annual Per Capita Consumption
1935-39	Cane and beet sugar 94-7	Sugars of all kinds including sugar content of glucose, corn syrup, honey etc. 101-71943	72-1	85-61944	83-8	97-61945	68-9	79-21946	72-2	84-81947	89-0	100-21948	98-7	106-21949	99-3	106-5
The Address-Mr. Blackmore
By glancing at those figures we can readily see how seriously the people of Canada were limited in the matter of sugar consumption. Sugar is one of the absolute musts in the diet.
Let us see what were the main causes of this rationing, that we may be able to judge whether or not those causes can apply in any coming conflict in which Canada may be engaged.
First, there was a sharp reduction in the world output. The Philippine sugar industry was destroyed. The sugar industry of Java was destroyed. The sugar industry of many of the European nations, especially those that were occupied and overrun, was in large measure destroyed. Such countries as Poland and the Ukraine also had their sugar industry destroyed.
Production was greatly impaired in such countries as Australia, Fiji, Trinidad and Antigua. This impairment was caused by a variety of reasons. One would be lack of fertilizers, and there were many others.
The total falling off in the world's production of sugar amounted to 8 million tons. This falling off reduced the world sugar production from 31 million tons in 1939-40 to 23 million tons in 1945. These figures I take from a report of the wartime prices and trade board released in March of 1946.
Meanwhile the world population was increasing. We must make allowance for the rapid increase in the world population. Many people are afraid that we are not going to be able to produce all the food the world needs, even under the best of conditions. It is estimated that probably the world population is increasing at the rate of some 25 million a year, and that at this rate of increase the world population will practically double in the next 70 years. All those who are contemplating the production of food in the world should bear strictly in mind figures like that. Seventy years is not a long period. Babies lying in our cradles today will probably see that time and have to cope with the dreadful problems which will then prevail.
In any world war of at least the immediate future, we must expect still greater destruction of sugar production; for if matters continue as they are now we shall have Russia and her satellites, with a tremendous population, ranged against the United States and the so-called NATO and other free nations. That will mean that we shall have a world in conflict in two opposing camps, and all the rest of the world will be the battleground. There will not be much chance of producing 

sugar up to normal in most of the battleground and perhaps in much of the territory occupied and held by the great combatants.
Let it be borne in mind that we shall have submarines of far wider range, of far greater striking power and of much greater versatility in the next war than those we had in the last one; and submarines accounted for a good many cargoes of sugar. We shall also have aircraft of far greater range, striking power and versatility than those we had in the war just past. We shall have guided missiles, with all the fearful possibilities that could derive from their use in the matter of sinking cargoes of sugar that suppliers might attempt to bring to the Canadian shore. I am not mentioning the possibilities of the use of the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb. Just imagine what would be left of the finest of the sugar-producing islands if an atomic bomb or a hydrogen bomb were dropped on it. As sober Canadians in a responsible position we, together with the people throughout Canada, must take cognizance of these facts and must guide our future policies with our eyes upon those facts, not upon theories, no matter how much we might have loved those theories.
It will be argued that Canada might safely rely upon the United States to bolster the Canadian sugar supply in case of need. In world war II Canadians were fast wearing their welcome out as dependent neighbours of the United States in the matter of sugar supplies.
To bring this matter forcibly to the attention of all interested people throughout the country and throughout the house, I ask permission to read into Hansard a quotation from the United States Congressional Record of 1947, at page A507:
United States Press Criticizes Work of Sugar Pool. Extension of Remarks of Hon. Roy O. Woodruff of Michigan in The House of Representatives.
Thursday, January 30, 1947.


Mr.   Woodruff@: Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the Record, I include the following article from Sugar Facts, published at Chatham, Ontario, of January 15, 1947:
United States Press criticizes work of sugar pool- Editorial comment supports Representative Woodruff's charge United States contributing more than fair share-Canada attacked as one giving less.
A letter forwarded to Hon. Thomas A. Jenkins, chairman of the Republican congressional food study committee, with respect to the sugar situation has occasioned a flood of editorial comment throughout the United States. Author of the letter, Representative Roy O. Woodruff (Republican), of Michigan, wrote in part: "With our beet-sugar production up and Cuba's production up, one may well ask why our sugar bowls are empty and why so much fruit and vegetables cannot be canned for lack of sugar. The answer is found in the program carried out by the combined food board,

which has lately been expanded into the international emergency food commission. The combined food board was composed of the United States, Great Britain and Canada. The United States and its offshore territories make the greatest contribution to the pool, as they furnish over 60 per cent of the sugar consumed in this country in addition to sharing with other nations the 3,768,000 tons which the United States bought from Cuba. In short, United States consumers get only 2,125,000 tons from Cuba, and the remaining 1,643,000 tons are distributed to other nations by the commission. By comparison, Britain will provide less than 30 per cent of her sugar consumption, whereas Canada will produce only 18 per cent of its sugar needs.
"Sugar rationing continues in the United States with promise of only a microscopic increase in allowances, yet Canada recently declared a sugar dividend of three extra pounds per person to her household consumers. This dividend has been reported in the press as being justified by increased supplies of sugar. Canada is producing only 65 per cent of its beet-sugar plant capacity, with the largest beet-sugar plant in Ontario standing idle for the past 5 years."
Mr. Woodruff's letter goes on to quote J. H. Blackmore, M.P., who told the Canadian House of Commons, "I am utterly amazed at the indifference which prevails in this house and in the Dominion of Canada with respect to the sugar supply."
"It is obvious," wrote Mr. Woodruff, "that the administration in Washington has simply stood on the sidelines and let the American producers and consumers carry the load for other nations".
The press of the United States sprang eagerly to Mr. Woodruff's cause. The Tri-County Banner, of Blanchard, Mich., ran his letter under a page 1 headline, "Bureaucrats cause of sugar shortage, claims Woodruff".
The Bay City Times editorialized "He deserves the gratitude of the public for starting the ball rolling." The Detroit Sunday Times, reporting a speech by James Vernor, ginger ale tycoon, headed the story, "United States sugar shortage laid to new deal plan." The same paper, in another story, reports "In Washington, stacks of letters from outraged housewives, denouncing the sugar shortage and demanding relief, are being exhibited by congressmen."
The Los Angeles Examiner ran a banner headline, "Housewives' sugar fight urged" with a page 1 box "Want more sweets? Tell Congressmen." The Detroit Times of December 24 cried plaintively, "Europe got (our) Yule sugar."
Senator Bridges, Republican, from New Hampshire, warned Secretary of Agriculture Anderson to supply sugar, declaring that while Anderson is prepared to ask only 9 pounds more sugar per person in 1947, sugar industry experts have produced figures showing that were Americans to get their rightful share they would have 19 pounds more sugar per person than in 1946.
The Detroit Free Press quoted Chairman Jenkins, of the Republican food study commission, as saying, "The American housewife has suffered more than her share of the wartime sugar shortage as compared with the industrial user of sugar . . . any increase in the ration for 1947 beyond the 20 per cent extra already recommended should go directly to individual housewives." (The 20 per cent increases suggested by Jenkins are double the amount of increase considered likely for 1947 by the department of agriculture.)
Anyone reading that statement will readily see that if the war had gone on for two or three more years those protests would have
The Address-Mr. Blackmore registered in congress with such vigour that congressmen would have been forced to take action and Canada would have been without the sugar we had, little as it was. I hope we shall all bear in mind, inside this house and outside the house, that very solemn fact.
It will be argued that there is a world surplus of sugar production. That is no responsibility of Canada or Canadians. It seems to me that I have known a good many people who feel that because there is a world surplus of sugar we ought to do something about it. We do not have to do anything about it. Let those who are overproducing do something about it. Every nation certainly has an inalienable right to increase its production of any commodity to the point of self-sufficiency in respect of that commodity, provided that the nation is. well adapted for the production of that commodity.
There can be no conceivable doubt that Canada is eminently fitted for the production of sugar. Canadians can produce all the sugar they need in the province of Alberta alone, south of High River. In my own constituency where there are now three sugar factories, there could be two more. I am not saying there should be, but there could be. We are now constructing the great St. Mary-Milk river water conservation project, which will put water on 350,000 odd acres. Thirty thousand acres, according to the estimates of those who know, will support a sugar factory of 1,500 tons slicing capacity such as is the factory at Raymond, in my constituency, which can supply Canadians with roughly 5 per cent of their sugar needs.
We also have the Canada Land and Irrigation project. We have the Eastern irrigation project around Brooks and Rosemary. These all comprise land which is eminently suitable for the production of sugar. These irrigation projects together with others in southern Alberta would provide land for the production of all the sugar needed by Canada's present population. There may be objection to subsidizing the price of the sugar, or the freight on it, so as to move it down to Ontario and Quebec or out to British Columbia where it may be needed. But the simple fact is we can physically produce the sugar.
In Ontario there is room for many sugar factories. In Saskatchewan, in the Carrot river valley, sugar can be produced with great success, according to estimates. Sugar is also being produced in Manitoba. We have no grounds for supposing that Manitoba could not support another sugar factory. Therefore there is simply no conceivable

The Address-Mr. Blackmore excuse lor Canada's failure to produce sufficient sugar to meet her needs, and to do so under highly economic conditions, as I shall show before I finish my remarks.
It will be argued that the beet sugar industry is an uneconomic industry, unable to compete successfully with the cane sugar industry without subsidies and various kinds of help, the whole result being that by using the beet sugar industry the way we do we are making our consumers pay an unjustly high cost for sugar. I propose to read into the record an excerpt from the submission to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations by the Alberta co-operative sugar beet growers association in 1937. From a perusal of this excerpt in this report it will be easy for anyone to see that the beet sugar industry can hold its own quite successfully if it is not subjected to handicaps to which no one in his right mind would think of subjecting any industry.
When you stop to think of the kind of protection which is given our manufacturing industries producing agricultural machines, our manufacturing industry producing automobiles, and almost every other industry including wheat, apples, carrots, table beets, cabbages, and almost anything you can name, when you consider the protection given these you begin to say: "Well, an ordinary amount of protection to the Canadian beet sugar industry is only logical." I read:
To indicate the value of this industry to the agriculture of our district, the community in general and the Dominion of Canada, we submit the following figures relating to the 1937 beet crop: 235,481 tons of beets were produced from 19,829 acres of irrigated land-an average of 11-88 tons per acre; 75,603,700 pounds of sugar were manufactured; 3,813 pounds was the per acre yield of refined sugar; $3,040,000 worth of sugar was manufactured; $155 was the total gross return per acre; $77.50 was the gross return to the manufacturer; $77.50 was the gross return per acre to the farmer.
The farmers' costs approximated $60 per acre which includes $25 per acre paid for hand labour by the farmer. Those figures were given in a speech made by T. George Wood, manager, Canadian Sugar Factories Limited at Lethbridge, Wednesday, March 23, 1938. We believe that this land is producing more food value per acre than any other land in the dominion.
I believe it was, too. I continue:
Sugar beets of the highest quality can be grown, harvested and manufactured into refined sugar on all of our irrigated lands in Alberta. This industry has, in the districts where it is established, made a tremendous contribution toward the prosperity of both the urban and rural sections and to our national economy.
The annual returns from the Lethbridge northern irrigation district rose from $761,000 in 1935 to $1,057,000 in 1936, the first year the new sugar factory operated in that territory.

The sugar factory referred to is the one at Picture Butte.
I continue:
Average yields of sugar beets 1926-29
tons per
acre
Great Britain-	 7-70
Belgium	'	 10-98
Czechoslovakia	 10-12
France	 9-11
Germany	 9-91
The Netherlands	 13-10
United States of America	 9-63
Average	 10-7
What did Alberta do?
The average for Alberta for the same years was 8 0 tons per acre. For the year 1937 the average yield in Alberta was 11-88 per acre, while in the United States it was 11-77. As for the quality of beets in Alberta, the average sugar content from 1925 to 1937 was 16-6 per cent, while for the 1937 crop it was 18-16 per cent.
I wish to state now, Mr. Speaker, that 18-16 per cent would probably be one of the very highest sugar content figures to be found on the American continent, and perhaps ini most countries of the world-.
Since 1937 the mechanization of the beet sugar industry has progressed- tremendously and spectacularly. Now it is possible, by the use of remarkable machinery which has been developed, to carry on almost any process in connection with the production of sugar beets almost entirely by machinery. I saw this year a number of machines being pulled along by tractors. There would be two people standing on the machine and operating it, carrying out the work of digging the beets, topping them, and dumping them into a truck being driven alongside. The machine would travel just a little faster than a team would pull a -plow. Well, that is enough to show that the beet sugar industry has a wonderful future before it. It is not a thing that ought to be kicked around.
Since 1946, Mr. Speaker, Liberal government policy has permitted an enormous increase in the -cost of production of beet sugar. Nevertheless sugar from sugar beets at present prices easily surpasses other staple foods in respect of comparative cost -per calorie. To support this assertion may I read into the record- a statement which is printed in the November 20, 1952 issue of Sugar Facts, which the United States congressman thought worthy of quoting. The quotation is as follows:
Sugar Is a Bargain In Our Food Budget
With the price of proteins-steaks and roasts- what it is today, Canadians have a cheap energy food in sugar. It is estimated that in Canada and

United States today, about one-fourth of the energy requirement is met through eating sugar in various forms at fire sale prices.
Scientists claim the average person uses approximately 3,000 calories per day and witness how cheaply sugar-compared to today's high prices for other foods-can supply the much needed energy.
If food is purchased on a caloric basis alone, and flavor and variety disregarded, the costs for 1,000 calories are:
Cents
Sugar	 5-2
Margarine	 11-3
White bread		 11.6
Butter	 20 0
Bacon (rindless)	 21-2
Potatoes	 21'7
White milk		 28-8
Cheese	 30-5
Ham (whole,	smoked)	 53-5
Apples	 56 0
Prime rib roast (rolled)	 95.0
Of course purchases cannot be based on a caloric value alone, for a balanced diet of proteins, fats and carbohydrates is needed, but in terms of calories, sugar is the bargain in the budget.
Those figures seem to hew out from under them the ground upon which those men would stand who feel that we should import sugar from Cuba, because of the need to reduce sugar prices. I know that any Canadian government is likely to be under almost irresistible pressure demanding the admission of cheap cane sugar into Canada. Any Canadian government requires all the support possible to help resist such pressure.
The people of Canada, and some members of the House of Commons, will be interested to know that there are five agencies in the world today, several of them right here in Canada, that are seeking to destroy the Canadian beet sugar industry, for various reasons. First in Canada we have the owners of cane refineries. These men obviously would like to get rid of the beet sugar industry. Second, we have Canadians who have invested money in plantations in cane producing countries. There are some powerful men in both those classes. Third, there are the Canadian interests eager to sell abroad. It is easy enough, for example, for automobile or machinery manufacturers to say, "Well, bring in Cuban sugar. Let us have a chance to sell our goods abroad."
Fourth are the internationalists and world centralizers. No nation can be entirely free that is not able to produce its own needs of life. Now, there are men in the world-and if every member in the house does not know them, he ought to-who are seeking definitely to deprive nations of their sovereignty. Nothing could possibly be better designed to destroy Canada's sovereignty than to place her in a vulnerable position in respect of sugar. In case any government which internationalists might desire to control should
The Address-Mr. Blackmore be elected in Canada, the internationalist would say, "Now, look, you government of Canada, if you put your foot on the dotted line, you will get your sugar. But if you do not, we are not so sure about it."
That may sound grotesque; nevertheless it is real. If we do not recognize that fact and govern ourselves accordingly, our children and our children's children will suffer because of our neglect.
The fifth group are the doctrinaire unrealists enamoured of fallacious philosophies of international trade. There exists in Canada the widest diversity of opinion in respect of international trade. We have heard these opinions expressed right here on the floor of the house. We have heard extremes on both sides. Probably the extremes are wrong; but it is a very easy matter to make serious mistakes in respect of international trade and its over-all necessity and desirability. I am now making no comment on the matter, more than to say that every man in Canada and every woman in Canada will do well to review with the utmost care his philosophy of international trade, to see whether or not he or she has been making a mistake.
I have spoken this afternoon to help strengthen the hand of each minister striving to protect the Canadian beet sugar industry. I know in the present Canadian cabinet there are many ministers who realize the value of the beet sugar industry and who desire to protect it. But there are also men in the cabinet, I fear, who do not realize the value of the beet sugar industry and who do not want to protect it. I have spoken of those who desire to protect it, and I would venture the assumption that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is among those who so desire.
At a later time I shall have something to say about other aspects of the Canadian beet sugar industry. But I submit that anyone who takes into consideration the arguments I have presented this afternoon will realize with me that it is a policy bordering on absolute lunacy to permit enough cane sugar to come into Canada, to seriously impair or possibly destroy the beet sugar industry of this country.


Mr. Laing:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Certainly.


Arthur Laing: Would he give us some idea of what amount of protection he thinks would be required to maintain the industry in a healthy condition?

The Address-Mr. Beaudry


John Horne Blackmore: In order to give a statement of that kind-and I must say it is a most discerning and worth-while question- I would have to obtain a good many figures. Probably I shall be able to give them at a future time, and place the whole thing on Hansard so everybody can consider the matter. I am not sure that anybody knows at the present time just how low the price of beet sugar can go without driving farmers out of the production of sugar beets. That is the important factor. If the farmers cannot make enough producing sugar beets and delivering them to the factories to encourage them in production, they will produce wheat or tobacco or soy beans or other crops.


Arthur Laing: The hon. member is convinced that some protection is necessary?


John Horne Blackmore: I am convinced that protection is necessary for the simple reason that the Cubans have brought down the price of their sugar in the Cuban market, if I recall rightly, to a point under four cents per pound. They had to do this in order to avoid the imposition of anti-dumping measures by Canada. Just imagine any industry in Canada which must produce at the high prices which have prevailed in the last year and a half, having to meet competition which is created by the conditions which prevail in Cuba at the present time! Cubans are able to produce their sugar and have it carried by water right to Toronto, Windsor and Montreal and have it dumped there. I suppose it can be carried from Cuba for less than our producers must pay to have their product transported from the factory to the consumer. Does that answer my hon. friend's question?


Mr. Roland Beaudry (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, the gift of oratory is a great gift, but it should never be dilapidated in such a way as to obscure true facts or issues. When we in this house were privileged to listen to the ear-flattering utterances of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew), I am sure that I and other hon. members were inspired with greater reverence for the Creator of all things who with His usual wisdom in His munificence gives to those to whom He denies forensic ability the compensation of an added measure of patience so that we may bear with sound in order that eventually we may hope truth and fact will emerge.
On the second day of this session it was with no small degree of humility and with still more patience that we on this side listened to the opening oration of the Leader of the Opposition in the hope that this year he might say what he has never said; that he might at last firmly establish his position


or his right to the potential leadership of this country. But as usual it was a forlorn hope.
When on November 24 the Leader of the Opposition went ferreting out facts and figures in the field of defence expenditures we who were here in 1949 were reminded of his ill-fated adventure in a similar field. I am sure that no one living in or about Montreal will ever forget the extraordinary statements about Canadair made by the hon. gentleman nor his no less extraordinary mishap following those accusations. That memory will condition the reception in Montreal and Quebec and throughout Canada of the latest of these sorties by the Leader of the Opposition.
I think he should be aware by now that a keen mind for haberdashery is not necessarily a criterion of great political sagacity. While his detailing of military ties, raincoats, shoes, etc. was most interesting, I am sure, to one whose mind has a bent for trivia, it could hardly be taken by this country as evidence of leadership. I fear that as usual the Progressive Conservative party in its quest for what we call in French "la petite bete" has by-passed the main issue, which is good government and leadership. The attitude of the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat akin to that of a concert conductor who forgets the general conducting of a concerto in a search for fly specks among his notes.
There may be fly specks on the defence inventory ledgers in the form of overstocking of boots, ties, forks, knives and overcoats, but they are only fly specks. Before any hon. member on the other side accuses me of considering hundreds and thousands and millions of dollars as being fly specks, let me say to hon. members that I have an honest regard and a great fondness for the dollar, and I have a very especial regard for the public dollar.
I do not consider that the unnecessary expenditure of dollars can be characterized as fly specks, but I would remind the house that the hon. gentleman has not accused this government of throwing away money. He has simply accused the government of having overstocked or stocked in excess certain of these supplies which are necessary for our present or eventual defence.
As I say, these may be fly specks in our defence ledgers, but that is not too surprising to anyone who has been connected with big business in private enterprise. In spite of all precautions to protect one's own interest, it is frequently found that ill-advised and perhaps unnecessary commitments are made. Expenditures or purchases may be entered into because of confidence in firms or individuals which may from time to time be

misplaced. But such incidents are not deprecated in private industry unless they are so serious as to compromise the success of the over-all operation. They are treated in their proper light as a minor incident in the general scheme of the operation.
If every private business were to be scrutinized by the Leader of the Opposition in the same way few if any would come out unscathed, few if any of those whom we consider our business leaders would escape. That would sound the death knell of private enterprise. The hon. gentleman would do better, I think, to concentrate his mind on the over-all picture. He would do better to bring to this house a different viewpoint, a viewpoint more appropriate to this house and I would suggest that he would do much better to leave the searching of fly specks to one or two others who have delegated unto themselves the authority for such searching. The attitude of those gentlemen, I might remind him, toward private enterprise, qualifies them much better to pass impartially on both private and public expenditures.
The hon. gentleman is absent now because of other inevitable commitments, but no doubt he is familiar with something which is along the line of what he, in public affairs recently, has been discussing. I read a headline from the Montreal Herald of Friday, November 28: "Gang rooks oil company for $3 million". The story inside goes on to say that one oil company in Montreal through the dishonesty of its subalterns was rooked of $3 million. The hon. gentleman will also recall the unfortunate incident which happened to one of our leading banks not very long ago. He would be inclined to agree with me, I am sure, that these things happen in private business; and they are relegated to their proper position in private business as they should be in public affairs. I am sure that none of the heads of either business will be accused or will be found guilty if they are accused of having mismanaged or misdirected the affairs which were entrusted to them.
During a speech on November 24 the hon. gentleman took it upon himself to deal with television. I do not intend to dissect here his speech on television. There will be many other opportunities and may I convey to him, and ask his followers to convey to him, the statement that I shall welcome every single opportunity. The hon. gentleman stated, as appears in Hansard of November 24, page 24, when dealing with television:
This is strangely inconsistent with the decision made just two weeks ago by the government of the United Kingdom which still retains a monopoly . . .
Mr. Speaker, it may be strangely inconsistent to the Leader of the Opposition that
The Address-Mr. Beaudry we in this country are determined to lead Canadian affairs with some degree of inconsistency with other countries, perhaps. However, the statement by the hon. gentleman is far from being inconsistent with Conservative policy. It is not inconsistent with the manner in which too many of them too long have thought too little of self-operation in Canada. I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that when we do resume discussion of radio and television broadcasting he bring to this house a slightly different approach, determined in his mind that discussion is going to be allowed on the basis of Canadian things for Canada and Canada for Canadian people, not on the basis of whether our manner of conducting Canadian affairs is consistent or inconsistent with the operation of-let us call them by name-Tory governments of other countries.


Mr. Hodgson:: Pull up your socks and cut out the guff.


Roland Beaudry: I heard that four years ago from exactly the same source.
May I now deal with another of the gentlemen who sit on that side of the house, the member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche). On November 25 he established just how firmly he believes in Voltaire's theory "Mentez, mentez, il en restera toujours quelque chose". I refer to page 73 of Hansard for November 25 where amongst other things he says:
Radio-Canada peut imposer ses programmes aux postes prives. Radio-Canada exige un permis one-reux de chaque transmetteur de postes prives...
The translation reads:
The C.B.C. can impose its own programs on private stations. Private stations are compelled to pay costly licence fees to the C.B.C. for each of their transmitters, and the C.B.C. uses those revenues to build stations of its own that will compete with private enterprise.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. gentleman refers to television and radio with the contempt which can be brought only by his obvious lack of familiarity with the situation. I would say to him if he were here, and I will say to him when he and I again discuss television, that although I may not speak with the same assurance I speak with a modicum of authority. For the benefit of those gentlemen on the other side of the house who may not be aware of it, for some years I owned, operated and managed the only private network of radio stations then existing. In order to allay any possibility that hon. gentlemen might put their foot in it and accuse anyone of political favouritism, let me state that I purchased that private radio network as an operating network. The people from whom I purchased it were then known and are still

The Address-Mr. Beaudry known, notably in one case, as recognizing politically only one liege lord, the present Leader of the Opposition.
May I say to the hon. gentleman that when one comes to this house he is not perhaps expected to be fully familiar with all that has been placed on our statute books over a period of years; but surely when discussing matters with such authority and assurance as the hon. gentleman did, and when discussing a question which the Conservative party is determined to place in an exalted position this year, the hon. gentleman should at least become cognizant of the relevant act. The hon. gentleman has stated that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation can impose its programs upon private radio stations, but there he is so far away from the truth that one wonders if he should be accused of gross ignorance or perhaps of wandering away from the truth by habit. If the hon. gentleman has a copy of the act I would suggest that at the first opportunity, which will be either tonight or tomorrow, he quote me one line or one word from the act which authorizes him to state that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation .... "peut imposer ses programmes aux postes prives" .... can impose its programs on private radio stations.
There is, however, one reference in section 8. The corporation may for that purpose:
(d) make operating agreements with private stations for the broadcasting of programs.
If, of course, his contention stems from the general inference that parliament can do anything then of course he is right-but only if his assertion stems from that inference-and even then perhaps he should be reminded that the inference is valueless in this discussion. It is an admitted legal principle that the only thing parliament cannot do, at least this was the example given when I attended legal schools, is to change a man into a woman. But, I understand, in at least two countries recently that has been done, so perhaps the maxim should be changed. I would suggest to the professors of law-at least in that part of the country where I live, because as you all know we have a different code of law than the rest of the country-that the simile be changed and that we now quote as an instance of the power of parliament, "The only thing parliament cannot do is to change the present crop of Conservatives into statesmen."
The hon. member having established to his own satisfaction and perhaps to no one else's that the C.B.C. can impose its programs on private radio stations-which is not true-he goes on to say that the C.B.C. yearly charges onerous fees to the private radio stations in order that it may set up stations of its own


to compete with private enterprise. The hon. member for Labelle, I am afraid, uses the word "onerous" as one of the imponderable words with which he is not too familiar, and which could mean anything to him. In order to help him mathematically, if he can follow me, I shall point out to him that last year the entire revenue received by the Department of Transport to be turned over to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the entire revenue collected from some 120 private radio stations in this country, amounted to $221,000. I think a simple process of very elementary division will bring us to the conclusion that the radio stations in this country operating privately paid, on the average, a sum of $1,800 a year for this privilege.
I may say this to the hon. member for Labelle before he leaves us permanently, which I am reasonably sure will be within a matter of months. Does he know why this money is collected from private radio stations? Does he know to what use that money is being put. In his own words, the fee is exacted so that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may extend its network of national stations in order the better to compete with private radio. I do not believe the hon. member is aware of the original purpose of this fee. Until a few years ago this fee was not payable to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but to the Department of Transport and was used to meet part of the expenses, not for national radio but for the upkeep of private radio; for the monitoring of private radio; for the reading of schedules of private radio, and all those things which are necessary if this country is going to supervise, as does every other country, the operations of private radio.
May I also ask the hon. gentleman this? Does he know why this money, formerly handled by the Department of Transport, is being turned over to the C.B.C.? If he does not, let me ask him one other question? Does he know that his own compatriots, the Frenchspeaking Canadians in northern Quebec, only have radio because the C.B.C. has helped them to get it? Does he know, or is that inconsistent with the higher feelings of his party, that a group of French-speaking Canadians in northern Ontario is entirely dependent upon the C.B.C. and its association with private stations? Does he know that that is true of another segment of northern Ontario; or is he aloof to that? Does he know that a large part of those fees collected now go towards giving the French-speaking people of St. Boniface, in the province of

Manitoba, radio programs which they could not have without the C.B.C.? Is it unimportant in his eyes, sitting on that side of the house, that the payment of these fees also means that a French-language group on the fringe of Edmonton and in the south of Alberta are provided with radio in their own tongue? That is our concept of national radio. This is made possible because the C.B.C., despite the hon. member for Labelle and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew), collects from each of 120 private radio stations an average of $1,800 a year.
Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of radio and television. I repeat that there will be other opportunities to discuss these questions, and I repeat that I shall welcome every single one of them. As usual, consistent with the true philosophy and true mores of the Progressive Conservative party, they believe that in everything the principle should be by-passed for the exception, the truth for the half truth or even a lesser part. I feel sorry for the hon. member for Labelle. I feel sorry because he failed to bring with him into this house the only sword with which he should have girded his loins, the sword of truth. He preferred to fill his scabbard with split hairs in the hope that one would be suddenly transmuted into a weapon which he could wield in defence of private radio.
I have taken more time than I intended, Mr. Speaker, but may I conclude with this. From time to time I have meetings with a friend of mine, an ancient Asiatic philosopher who deigns to impart to this undeserving one some of his Chinese philosophy. May I commend to the Leader of the Opposition and his party this fable, divested of its native garb and shorn of its oriental embellishments. "Time is like all commodities, cheap to him who has it in abundance but so precious to him who uses it to the hilt. The wise man, wishing to determine whether it is day or night, is content with looking at the sun; but the foolish man would rather ignore the sun the better to watch the sweep hand of the clock." In this country most of us are content to be guided by the sun. The clock watching, the sweep hand watching of the Conservative party, can only earn its leader and itself one lone degree. I take a great deal of pleasure in conferring upon the Leader of the Opposition and his party a degree-given I am sure with the best wishes of the majority of this house who join in the accolade to the leader of the Conservative party, who has earned it during the last three years in this house and by his opening speech on November 24-the degree of master of trivia. In view of his exalted position, I should add summa cum ignominia.
The Address-Mr. Beaudry


Mr. Speaker:: I had been out of the chair for a short time, and upon returning to the chair, I understood the hon. member to question the veracity of another hon. member. I hope I was not correct in that, but if he said another hon. member was deliberately not telling the truth or saying certain things which he knew to be untrue, then of course I cannot allow that statement to stand. I think the hon. member should clear up that question.


Roland Beaudry: Mr. Speaker, I have too much respect for the Chair ever to allow myself to say of another member that he never spoke the truth.


An hon. Member:: That is what you said.


Roland Beaudry: Mr. Speaker, once Hansard is printed I will tender the proper apologies, if necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I should leave the matter at that. If the hon. member suggested that another hon. member was not telling the truth in any matter, knowing it to be false, then I would ask him to withdraw the statement now.


Roland Beaudry: Mr. Speaker, I think I said he was far from the truth; but if the Chair construed that I said what has been indicated, then I withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not propose to prove anything. I think I should clear up the matter now. It is not wise to allow these matters to stand over. If the hon. member made a statement about another hon. member to the effect that the hon. member was saying things which he knew were not true, I would ask him to withdraw that statement now.


Roland Beaudry: I was speaking extemporaneously. My memory may be bad. But if I did-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot hear the hon. member when there are so many interruptions.


Roland Beaudry: If I made the statement, unwillingly and unwittingly, I withdraw it.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):: should like to add my congratulations to those of the previous speakers to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the

The Address-Mr. Charlton speech from the throne. I should also like to congratulate the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Campney) on being elevated to cabinet positions. I do not mean to refer to the speech of the hon. member who spoke just previous to the dinner hour other than to say it is rather unfortunate that the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry) does not visit us more often.
The throne speech unfortunately offers nothing to eastern farmers. Since becoming a member of this House of Commons I have tried to impress upon the government the importance of agriculture to the nation. Everything which detracts from the economic position of the farmer must eventually reflect on the national economy. The effect that is being felt now in industry and in urban municipalities is obvious from several quarters. The income of the average 100-acre farm will be reduced this year by approximately $1,000. In other words every farmer has taken a $1,000 cut in wages, or approximately $20 a week. In spite of that fact, the prices of the products the farmer has to buy have gone up. Can you imagine the howl that would be put up in this House of Commons if we as members were asked to take a reduction of $1,000 in our indemnities? Farmers in general, but particularly those adjacent to urban municipalities, are being taxed off their farms. Land alone should not be expected to bear such a high proportion of the taxation burden. There must be some incentive at least to keep people who are on the land at the present time interested, if we want food.
The farmers' buying power is an important factor in any community. That buying power has been reduced by a considerable amount this year, and farmers are wondering just what the future holds for them. They are becoming more cost-conscious every year, and are dropping the non-paying branches of the industry. There are those who wonder whether the dairy cow is headed for oblivion, just as the work horse is an historic monument of the past.
We cannot expect any industry in this country to survive if it is forced to compete with the cheaper labour of another land. This government is forcing two of the greatest industries in this country out of business through an apparent lack of interest in their problems. I refer to the textile and dairy industries and I mention them jointly because they are faced with an identical problem, that of unbearable competition from lower wage-rate countries.
We are fighting a desperate and costly battle against communism which we call a

cold war. Our most devastating weapon in this fight is truth. With it we can build the strength of the democratic nations and undermine that of our enemies. We in the opposition are seeking the truth. The government hedges, and hedging is the mother of suspicion, and distrust. The Canadian people are carrying a terrific burden of overtaxation. They are ready and willing to pay their fair share, and know that defence expenditures are necessary in these troubled times. But are we getting value for our money?
We as individuals are forced to cut our costs and increase the efficiency of our operations. Why can't the government? People ask me why the Department of National Defence bought ten pairs of shoes per man, when most of us are lucky if we have two pairs, or why it is necessary to have 12 neckties per man and three serving forks for every five men in the service. If a housewife ever bought for her family in the same proportion little Jimmy would have to do without shirts to pay for the neckties, and the Sunday roast would have to be cancelled to pay for the forks to serve it.
I am sure everyone in this country, especially the government, was glad to see the recent announcement in the press regarding the lifting of the United States embargo on livestock and hay. During the past nine months the meat packers of this country have enjoyed the proverbial Roman holiday. I commend the government for the idea of floor prices on beef and pork, but I must criticize them severely for the administration of that policy. Suggested prices to producers have certainly not been maintained on the lower grades, and. prices to consumers on the same grades have not dropped by anywhere near the same proportions. In other words the producer has been left at the mercy of the packer, and the consumer has not received the benefit.
Another serious problem for farmers today is the livestock feed situation. While the western producer naturally wants to get a fair price for his grain, the eastern feeder can afford to pay only a price that will give a fair return when, the finished product is marketed. On previous occasions in this house I have given the spread between the western producer and the eastern feeder. I was disappointed this afternoon when the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) was speaking. I thought he was going to delve further into that matter, but apparently he did not want to. According to an article in the Canadian Federation of Agriculture news

information bulletin of October, 1952, Dr. E. C. Hope, economist for that organization, reveals the spread on No. 1 feed oats at 38-3 cents a bushel, or $1.13 a hundredweight, and on No. 1 feed barley, 52-6 cents a bushel, or $1.09 a hundredweight. If the government, through its wheat board, cannot find some solution to this problem, then it should step aside and let farmer organizations handle the problem of feed grain between western producer and eastern feeder without any strings attached to it.
The government, finally realizing the importance of our water resources, is considering some measures of conservation. I take a great pride, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that those along the Grand river have been the first to pioneer water conservation and flood control. The organization now known as the Grand valley conservation authority is to be congratulated on its accomplishments, and I sincerely hope that this government will contribute their share toward the Conestogo project which was passed upon and accepted by the provincial government some time ago.
I have said on several occasions in this house that, rural mail carriers have been grossly underpaid. The government has finally decided to do something to correct this injustice, but I will withhold further comment until it is known what the proposal is.
I am sure all hon. members have received the memorandum prepared jointly by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian Council of the Blind with reference to the elimination of the means test in the Blind Persons Act of Canada. I support that request, and I most sincerely hope the government will this session bring down the required legislation to eliminate this embarrassing means test.	,
The throne speech mentions a bill which will be introduced to place the historic sites and monuments board of Canada on a statutory basis. We in Brant are very proud of our forefathers and the part they played in the development of our country. The triennial conference of the Associated Countrywomen of the World with a membership of six million in 25 different countries will meet in Toronto in August, 1953. The chief aim of this organization is to improve rural conditions in all parts of the world. This conference has a special significance to members of the women's institutes in the riding which I represent. Last June when we allotted money to this association in our government estimates I made mention of this fact. It was in this district that Adelaide Hunter Hoodless, founder of the now world-wide
The Address-Mr. Charlton organization, was born and attended public school. The white frame house, her birthplace, still stands in our community. Little did anyone dream that this child would be the founder of an organization which has done so much for rural women and their respective communities.
We also had the distinction of having a cairn marking Mrs. Hoodless' birthplace erected in the district and unveiled by Lady Tweedsmuir in 1937. It is situated in a small park at the junction of highways 5 and 24. Funds for its erection were raised by the women's institutes of Brant county. In the 1947-49 Tweedsmuir historical competition, St. George won first place in Ontario. In 1949-51 competition, Glen Morris won first in Ontario and second in the dominion competition. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) were present in 1950 when an oil painting of Mrs. Hoodless, presented to Canada by the federated women's institutes of Ontario, was unveiled and hung in the archives by Mrs. Raymond Sayre from the United States, then president of the Associated Countrywomen of the World.
In view of the fact that the conference of the Associated Countrywomen of the World is to be held in Toronto next year, and delegates from many countries will be visiting this cairn and the birthplace of Mrs. Hoodless, I would sincerely hope that the historic sites and monuments board would see fit to suitably mark this cairn before the date of the conference.
On several previous occasions I have asked the government, through the historic sites and monuments board, to aid in some suitable way the council of the Six Nations reservation in the restoration and preservation of Chiefs-wood, birthplace of Pauline Johnson, well-known and gifted Indian poetess. Chiefswood was built over one hundred years ago, and if restored could be made into one of the greatest tourist attractions along the Grand river. Many distinguished visitors from England, Europe and America have been entertained there by Chief Johnson and his English bride, Emily Howells. From Chiefswood, Pauline Johnson became a national figure and her memory will ever remain in the hearts of those who knew her.
I also mentioned on previous occasions the Mohawk chapel, properly known as St. Paul's, His Majesty's Chapel of the Mohawks. This little church was built in 1780 for the Mohawk people who emigrated from New York to Canada during the war of independence, and is the oldest Protestant church in Upper Canada. Contained in this church is a stained leather bible and a silver communion set,

The Address-Mr. Jones both gifts of Queen Anne of England to the Mohawks, and carried by them during the war of independence from the old church at Fort Hunter in New York to be buried under a tree more than five years and borne north into safety at the conclusion of the war. Behind the altar in letters of gold are written the apostles' creed, the ten commandments and the Lord's prayer, all in the Indian language. To the left of the altar is one of the finest coats of arms in Canada, carved from a single block of oak and presented to the Indians by King George III.
I would be very remiss if I did not mention also the West Dumfries chapel built in 1845, commonly known as the Paris Plains church. For many years this old historic spot was not in use, but in 1948 interested citizens formed the Paris Plains restoration committee and have had the building restored as a memorial to the early pioneers of the district. Each year on the second Sunday in June a memorial outdoor church service is held.
I urge again the importance of restoring and marking such historic landmarks so they may stand as memorials to be seen and revered by future generations.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that when a member of this house recommends that consideration be given to certain necessary action, this involves the expenditure of public money. The expenditure of public money is made possible by taxation. Taxation in this country is at an unwarranted high level at present and should be reduced.
I sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that a firm determination by those in authority to eradicate waste and extravagance in governmental administration would not only make possible many essential services, but allow as well for necessary tax reductions in this country.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment to the amendment moved by the C.C.F. Before doing so, however, there are one or two other comments I should like to make.
According to an answer given to a question asked in the house this week it would appear that at last the government has consented to purchase apple juice for the armed services. This is most gratifying to the processors of that excellent product, who have worked so hard in its production. It will also help the growers to recover some income from fruit that would be lost unless processed. I am pleased personally because nearly a year ago I brought to the attention of the house the fact that only imported juices were consumed by the armed forces, and that apple juice was excluded completely.
[Mr. Charlton.1

While this matter has reached a satisfactory conclusion, the fruit and vegetable growers of interior British Columbia still have several problems I should like to bring to the attention of the house. Tonight I shall deal briefly with only one of them, and that is the unfair competition offered by United States soft fruits and vegetables in our domestic market.
This situation is present across Canada, but it is particularly vicious in British Columbia. The extent of this market loss can be gauged by an article which appeared in Country Life, which is a monthly publication issued to the farmers of British Columbia and to my mind is one of the best dealing with farm and vegetable production in the Dominion of Canada. I take this publication as an authority on what they have to say about this particular market which has been lost.
The article reads:
It is hard to understand in a province capable of growing the widest diversity of the finest fruits and vegetables we yet continue to consume annually $3 million worth of vegetables imported from another country while only eating $2 million worth of our own B.C. grown vegetables. This would not be so if consumers knew of the relative nutritional values. It is an incongruous situation with some wholesalers importing foreign vegetables for your table at a time when the same produce grown in British Columbia is available. This can only be corrected by you, the consumer. When buying fresh vegetables insist on B.C. produce only.
If that condition exists generally across Canada it will mean a market loss running into many millions of dollars for our domestically produced vegetables and soft fruits. I agree to a certain extent with the article when it says that consumers can help, but the remedy is not there. The remedy must be brought about by government action.
This year soft fruits and vegetables were left on the trees and on the ground of the Okanagan valley because of a lack of markets. This applied particularly to prunes, peaches, and cabbages and other vegetables. I know of one veteran who was rather proud of an acre of cabbages which he had grown, but he was not able to sell a single cabbage on the market because it was filled already with cabbages that had been brought in from across the line. One grower went to Yakima to find out what the trouble was and he spoke to me on his return. He went to a packing house there where they were putting up tomatoes. Apparently the system has been changed in the United States because they now have a No. 1 grade and a No. 2 grade of tomatoes. This grower examined both grades and could not find one shade of difference. No. 1 was selling at $110 per ton and was practically all sold on the United States domestic market. No. 2 was listed at $55 per ton, but this grade was mostly in

storage. He inquired who purchased the No. 2 and he was told that although one or two cars had been sent to Seattle, the bulk was sent to the Canadian market.
It is true that they are offered for sale in small quantities, but probably the dealers in the United States are told, "we have none left." However, he was told that one or two cars had been sent to Seattle. This would conform with the dumping regulations which requires that they must be offered for sale in the country of origin at the price they are offered in Canada. In this case the price was one-half the price being asked for the No. 1 tomatoes and, as I pointed out, there was no discernible difference in the two grades.
The difficulty we are faced with is that our earliest crop comes on the market when the second or a later United States crop is also coming on the market. This is usually more plentiful and available at lower prices. This is a rather serious difficulty because there are many veterans who are going in for fruit growing who will have to wait five, six or eight years until their fruit trees are bearing. In the meantime they are trying to earn a livelihood by growing vegetables between the trees. They are being victimized because of these importations of competitive vegetables from the United States. For their sake and for the sake of other soft fruit and vegetable growers I ask the Department of Agriculture to investigate the situation.
I have not time to go into the details, but I do suggest that the situation be investigated at once and that steps be taken to protect our domestic market especially during the period when the market can be well and amply supplied by home-grown fruits and vegetables. A situation such as that described by Country Life, where the British Columbia market of $5 million is being shared on the basis of the domestic producer getting $2 million of it while our competitive neighbours to the south capture $3 million, is not healthy. That is why I appeal to the government for an early investigation with a view to taking steps to correct the situation before next year. There will be plenty of time, and I would be willing to give evidence as to what I claim is unfair competition brought about by the heavier crops produced in the United States.
I should like to deal now with the subject matter of our subamendment. Previous speakers, particularly Liberal speakers, have emphasized that before a national health plan can be entertained a good deal of ground work will have to be done, and they claim that this ground work is being done. Possibly part of that claim is correct, but I do
The Address-Mr. Jones feel that there is a branch of ground work that has been neglected, and I should like to deal briefly with it tonight.
One of the problems facing the Canadian people which the C.C.F. believes can be met successfully by the introduction of health insurance is a serious shortage of doctors, dentists, nurses and other health personnel as well as a shortage of hospitals and hospital facilities. My colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) has dealt with the question of hospital shortages and some of the aspects of the nursing shortage, but I should like to deal particularly with the question of doctors and dentists.
By an authoritative standard, Canada is extremely short of doctors and the shortage of dentists is alarming. Furthermore the shortage is getting worse rather than better. The health grants program was designed primarily to overcome these shortages, but it has made almost no attempt to deal with the shortages in the fields that I have mentioned. According to an authoritative United States study which has been widely accepted in this country there should be one physician for every 704 persons. On this basis we should have had in Canada in 1951 a total of 19,904 physicians for our population of 14,009,429, whereas we had only 14,325 physicians. There was a shortage in that census year of 5,579 physicians in our country. If Canada is to reach an acceptable standard there must be an increase of more than 50 per cent in the number of doctors in this country.
What is actually happening? The situation since the end of the war has been getting worse rather than better. The population has been growing at a faster rate than the number of doctors. Thus in 1947 there was one active physician for every 938 people, but by 1951 the population per physician had gone up to 978.
The same alarming trend is noted with respect to dentists. There has been some increase in the number of dentists since the end of the war, but it has not nearly kept pace with the increase in population. In 1947 there was one dentist for every 2,729 people in Canada. In 1951 there was only one dentist for every 3,040 people. Thus the shortage of dentists in relation to the population has grown worse by more than 10 per cent in the four-year period. This deterioration in the supply of dentists in relation to the population is even more striking when it is examined in the light of acceptable standards. In 1943 there was one dentist for every 669 people in Canada's armed forces. If it is assumed that the civilian population should have at least as good care as was provided for members of the armed services this would have meant, on the basis of the

The Address-Mr. Jones 1951 population, a total of 20,940 dentists; but we actually had in that year only 4,608 dentists. Thus, the shortage of dentists in 1951 was 16,332. To reach the standard I have referred to would require almost a 400 per cent increase in the number of dentists.
This general shortage of doctors and dentists screens the fact, however, that the actual shortage in many of the more remote areas is far more acute and that a much higher percentage of doctors, dentists, and medical specialists is concentrated in the large cities. In 1949, 71-2 per cent of all physicians in Canada were located in urban centres of 10,000 and more population, but only 45-7 per cent of Canada's people resided in these cities. On December 1, 1946, 72 per cent of the dentists were located in urban centres of 10,000 population or more.
The reason for this maldistribution is not hard to And. Practice in the smaller centres is not so convenient as it is in the city. Facilities are inadequate. The income is lower and the social and cultural life is less attractive. But it is quite clear that if medical and dental training were made more readily available, if the hospital and research facilities were improved in rural areas, as they would be if a nation-wide health services plan were set up, many more young doctors would be attracted to service in rural areas.
We cannot overcome the shortages of dentists and doctors with our present facilities. There are only ten schools in Canada which offer complete medical courses and these are constantly overcrowded. We boast only five dental colleges. Clearly the training facilities have to be expanded, and this will mean federal financial assistance. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that the tuition fees at medical colleges and dental schools are very high. They are beyond the reach of the average Canadian student or his family. In 1946 the Canadian association of medical students and internes conducted a survey of the financial background of medical students. They found that the largest percentage of medical students came from the families which had the highest incomes; 28-6 per cent came from professional families but these families represented only 4-7 per cent of the total population. Only 12-2 per cent of the medical students came from Canada's farms where 36-5 per cent of the total population live. This survey further revealed that 7 [DOT] 3 per cent of the students polled were going through medical college entirely on their own resources. Three-quarters of them, 74-5 per cent, relied on their families as well as their own earnings, and 17-5 per cent were going through entirely at their families' expense. Nearly half were required to pay back their families after graduation.


Add to these economic difficulties the fact that medical school fees have more than doubled since 1925. In that year the average annual fee was $185; in 1945 it was $317; and in 1951 it was about $438. Dental college fees have climbed from approximately $293 in 1945 to about $385 in 1951. These fees are over and above what it costs the students to live during their courses and what it costs them for clothing and other expenses. The need for expanded training facilities and for a system of medical scholarships is selfevident. Not only is there a need for federal scholarships and bursaries for medical and dental students, but there is a need for special assistance to students who will undertake to practise in rural areas for a given number of years following graduation.
As I have said, the inauguration of health insurance itself, in addition to the particular measures I have just indicated, will do a great deal toward overcoming these shortages of personnel. This is made very clear in the Saskatchewan health survey report, "The Expanding Hospital System."
The continuing development of the hospitals of the province, with emphasis on district and regional as well as on the base hospitals, should have some influence in attracting physicians to areas outside the large urban centres. By placing emphasis on larger district hospitals, a number of advantages are obtained. The larger hospital can be more adequately equipped, it is better able to hold qualified technical and nursing personnel, and, with sufficient beds for more than one doctor, it helps to overcome the feeling of professional isolation. All of these factors operate to provide a better medical service for patients. As the national conference on rural health of the American Medical Association reported: "We do not want poor medical service made more available. Convenience is of secondary importance."
That the extension of the principle of prepayment has a favourable influence on the number and distribution of physicians has been shown by the experience of the municipal doctor plans and by the Swift Current medical care program.
Thus it will be seen that Saskatchewan's progress in hospital and health insurance is helping that province to overcome its very serious shortage of medical personnel. In one field, that of mental health, Saskatchewan has received rare praise. The world famous psychiatrist, Dr. Carl Menninger of the Men-ninger clinic, Topeka, Kansas, stated on September 20, 1951, a little over a year ago, that Saskatchewan was "the only area in the world that has all the competent psychiatrists it needs." He said that the psychiatric aid training program being carried out in Saskatchewan was the envy of the world and was being copied by others.
In the United Kingdom a very substantial effort has been made, as part of the national health service introduced in 1948, to overcome the shortage of doctors and dentists. In

1950, the latest date for which statistics are available, government grants were assisting some 3,178 students in medicine in the United Kingdom and 915 students in dentistry.


Mr. Fulton:: What universities are they attending?


Owen Lewis Jones: Practically all the universities. I can give you the names if you wish.
Another shortage that will hold up any national health plan, and which has to be overcome before you can consider it, is the shortage of nurses. This problem has been with us for many years. In fact as early as 1920 the following mention of this situation was placed on the minutes of the dominion conference on child welfare held in Ottawa on October 19 and 20 of that year:
Whereas there is a great shortage of trained and untrained nurses for the care of the sick and for public health work in the Dominion of Canada.
And whereas there is an increasing shortage of applicants to nurse training schools all over the continent-[DOT]
Various attempts have been made to measure the shortage of nurses. According to authorities, one rough guide is that there should be in hospitals one trained nurse, including the superintendent and supervisors, for every two patients. Using this guide for 1950, the latest year for which statistics are available, we find that there was an average of 53,300 patients in Canadian hospitals every day in that year. Thus, according to the rule, there should have been approximately 26,600 trained nurses, but actually there were only 14,900. In other words there was a shortage of 11,700 graduate nurses in our hospitals. But this is not the only place where the shortage of nurses is felt. Another measure, according to public health standards, is that there should be one nurse for every 280 population. If this standard were applied in Canada we should have had 53,880 practising graduate nurses in 1951, whereas according to the census we had only 35,138, a shortage of 18,742.
What is being done to meet these shortages? While the government, through its health grants program, has made some attempt to overcome the hospital shortage-although as I have indicated it is an exceedingly feeble attempt and will very likely fail in its five-year objective-there has been almost no effort at all to overcome the general shortage of nurses. There is no specific grant for assisting the training of nurses generally. Some money has been made available for assisting in the training of public health nurses, but this is only a small fraction of the problem. No concerted attempt has been made by the federal government to overcome 68108-23
The Address-Mr. Jones the general shortage of nurses. Thus it is stated in one of the government's own reports:	^
It is extremely doubtful that at current rates of output of graduate nurses the present shortage of nurses will be overcome.
The government has admitted that the health grants program is not going to overcome the shortage of nurses. Referring to the professional training grant, the data prepared by the Department of National Health and Welfare for the 57th meeting of the dominion council of health stated:
However, professional training under the health grants has. for the most part, been specialized training or refresher courses for graduate nurses and has improved the quality of nursing service provided. It has not been a factor in increasing the number of undergraduate and practical nurses in training.
I think that before solutions to the problem are proposed we should examine the reasons for the nursing shortage. Again let me quote the government memorandum:
Perhaps the most basic cause of the problem in hospital nurse education is economic in character and deeply rooted. Hospitals in Canada have always faced difficulties in meeting financial needs. In the 1870's hospitals instituted schools of nursing with the view to the function of providing nursing to hospital patients as well as education for nurses. Down through the years, the economic advantages of making large scale use of student services were apparent and it became difficult to see where nursing for the student ended and education began.
The Canadian Nurses Association listed the main reasons for this high rate of student wastage as follows: (a) physical fatigue induced by the hurry and tension in overcrowded, understaffed, wards; (b) excessively long working day; (c) imposition of duties they are not sufficiently mature to assume; (d) imposition of duties which should be assigned to domestic workers.
It is clear that the education of student nurses leaves much to be desired. Economic disadvantages, coupled with the unsatisfactory working conditions referred to by the Canadian Nurses Association, are important reasons why such a large number of girls who begin training as nurses drop out before their training is completed.
Briefly, to recapitulate what I have said, I think one of the first steps the government has to take is to establish subsidies for schools or some form of assistance for training nurses to overcome the present shortage, and to train them in public health work for the inauguration of a national health plan. As far as student nurses are concerned, the C.C.F. suggests that recognized schools of nursing could be subsidized so they do not have to use students for work in the hospitals as the major means of deferring the costs of their tuition.
As I have said before, the inauguration of a health insurance plan itself will place all hospitals in a better financial position,

The Address-Mr. Prudham including hospitals which operate schools of nursing, and this will in itself be a major factor in permitting them to provide better facilities for student nurses. In addition to this, however, subsidies are necessary to permit remuneration to student nurses, as well as better conditions and training facilities.


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I wish first of all, Mr. Speaker, to add my congratulations to those of previous speakers in commending the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, for their splendid performance. They were a credit to themselves, and they are worthy additions to this house.
The hon. member from Ottawa who represents the Peace River constituency (Mr. Low) was generous enough to refer to me recently as "the minister from Edmonton". As the elected member for Edmonton West I share with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) the EE&lour of representing one of the most progressive and ambitious cities on the continent. We are proud of the fact that Edmonton is the centre of the greatest oil development activity in Canada. Although Edmonton shares with Calgary some of the business, and, especially the investment end of the oil business, the Edmonton area produces most of the oil. Great new industries, including important petrochemical industries, are coming into being as a result of the oil.
Another claim to distinction is the Edmonton Eskimos football club, which emerged from the current season as champions of western Canada and went into the final Grey Cup competition with distinction and ability.
I had the pleasure recently of attending a meeting in northern Alberta, to which the hon. member from Ottawa who represents the Peace River constituency has made reference. At that gathering I had the pleasure of meeting approximately 250 fine, intelligent people, as able and as well informed as any representative group that could be gathered together any place in Canada. Because these people are at present represented by a member who has never lived in that constituency, and who now lives in Ottawa-


Solon Earl Low: Where does your leader live?


George Prudham: -do not let it be thought for a moment that the district does not possess people capable enough to represent it in parliament.


Solon Earl Low: Where does the minister live?
[Mr. Jones.)


George Prudham: I live in Edmonton.


Solon Earl Low: Oh, no, you do not.


George Prudham: This is no reflection on the hon. member from Ottawa who represents Peace River.


Solon Earl Low: Why try to make it one, then?


George Prudham: The people of that district are becoming very much aware of the fact that they should have a member of their own community representing them. This is no reflection on the hon. member from Ottawa who tries to speak for them in this house. Peace River is too important a constituency to be represented by a person who does not live in that constituency. The leader of the Social Credit group has described my recent visit to the Peace river area as a casual one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) just found that out.


George Prudham: During the last ten years, in the course of my business activities, I have spent a great deal of time in the Peace river district. My contacts with the Peace river country, at first hand, have been more varied and extensive than those of the member who happens to represent Peace River in this house.
In this great empire to the north of Edmonton, totalling about 80,000 square miles, we have a fertile and prosperous farming district much larger than England. The Peace river country is one of Canada's most productive areas, bringing into existence every year prodigious amounts of new wealth. This year alone the grain crop in the Peace river area is estimated at 36 million bushels.


Mr. Johnston:: When is the election going to be?


George Prudham: There are still large tracts of land awaiting suitable opportunities for large-scale agricultural development. What the Peace river area needs more than anything else is people. The opportunities are there but without a large enough population to take advantage of them. If the many thousands of immigrants coming to Canada would proceed to the empire of the Peace river, they would find there not only their livelihood but prosperity as well. My colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) informed me this morning that his department had made provision to advance the cost of the fares beyond Winnipeg for people who are prepared to work.

The Peace river district, as well as being an agricultural area, has been endowed with large resources of timber. I am sorry to say that these timber resources are being depleted at a fast rate with little or no evidence of any effort by the provincial government to do any careful planning or to put into effect any conservation or reforestation measures.


Solon Earl Low: That is entirely contrary to the facts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order.


George Prudham: One place in Alberta where conservation is being practised is on the important eastern slopes of the Rockies where under a federal-provincial arrangement a splendid timber and water conservation program is being carried out. In this case, under the joint agreement, the federal government is contributing the major share of the required funds, close to $4 million to date.


Charles Edward Johnston: What percentage do they contribute?


George Prudham: In recent years there have been important discoveries of gas and oil in the Peace river district. I plan to show later on in my remarks how the federal government has aided and participated in this mineral development.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is nothing like the gas that has been discovered in Edmonton in the last few minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Prudham: The provincial government, in its wisdom, has allocated a portion of this gas to be exported. With the development of the Northwest Territories and the building of the Mackenzie highway, the towns of the areas have become important distributing centres. The Alaska highway, owned and maintained by the federal government, is now one of the finest highways on the continent. It stretches from Dawson Creek, B.C., to Alaska. But the full value of this highway cannot be realized as yet because the connecting provincial roads through the Peace river area are far from being adequate. The British Columbia government has recently completed a highway connection from the Peace river district to the Pacific coast, which is just the first step toward-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will you say that again?


George Prudham: meeting the needs of the district for adequate transportation outlets.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. member had better get somebody who knows the facts to write his speech.
68108-23J
The Address-Mr. Prudham


George Prudham: I wrote the speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You had better learn the facts.


An hon. Member:: It is some way to read it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order.


George Prudham: The British Columbia
government has opened a highway, and the people of the district look forward to the day when they can have rail transportation to the coast.


Solon Earl Low: Hear, hear. They have been looking for it for 35 years under Liberal promises.


George Prudham: Spokesmen for the Social Credit party often make an effort to leave the impression that their party is especially endowed with the attributes of Christianity.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am strictly neutral.


George Prudham: I want to say that the Social Credit party has no monopoly on Christianity. These people who are always so eager to label themselves as the "Christian party of Canada" are equally fond of indulging in criticism of government policy that is often distorted, misleading and altogether unfair.
I want to deal with some subjects that provide examples of the sort of thing I have mentioned. From time to time Social Credit speakers, possibly in a light-hearted manner, have claimed that Providence delayed the recent discovery of gas and oil until a good Christian party came along to develop them. I feel it should also be said that a great deal of Christian hard work and planning had been applied to the development of Alberta's natural resources long before Social Credit, was thought of. The recent oil and gas development would not have been possible but for the federal geological surveys and studies as well as the production of federal maps ever since 1873.
From that time to the present there have been, on a yearly average, eight federal geological parties operating in what is now the province of Alberta. In addition the federal government has surveyed by air some 15,000 square miles in the province. The information gathered in this way has provided a reliable basis on which exploration for mineral wealth, including oil and gas, could be carried on. Evidence of this is shown by the fact that the department of mines and minerals of Alberta ordered 5,000 copies of the 1950 federal geological map of Alberta as soon as it was off the press.
Several hundred reports and maps directly related to possible deposits of petroleum and natural gas have been compiled and published by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. These federal government publications have been of the greatest practical

The Address-Mr. Prudham use and benefit to private companies. They were the basic reason, in many cases, why many of these companies persisted in their search. The results of this research and effort are now well recognized. Oil and gas fields of first grade importance have been developed in Alberta. This development in Alberta was no accident. It was made possible only because the region was thoroughly surveyed and mapped.
The Canadian petroleum industry still looks to the federal survey for further geological work and is guided by its findings in planning exploration programs. Geological mapping has led private enterprise to productive areas in Alberta such as Pincher Creek, Jumping Pound, Sullivan creek, Brazeau and others.
In addition, the geological survey of my department has collected 1J million drill samples, representing more than 15 million feet of drilling. These samples are studied and correlated and the information is made available to the industry. Incidentally, the government of Alberta over the past year has charged the federal government in excess of $10,000 in connection with the supply of these samples.
I should like to say a few words on the [DOT]subject of coal. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), speaking on the coal board estimates last session, expressed fear that everything possible was not being done, by subvention and otherwise, to keep the coal industry of this country in a healthy state in order to meet any national emergency that might develop. As the minister responsible to parliament for the dominion coal board I should like to draw attention to the extent to which the coal industry of Canada has been assisted by federal policy.
The subvention policy has been in effect since 1923, almost 30 years. Last year the rate of subvention assistance to western mines was increased when the railways decided to raise their flat rate on the eastward movement of Canadian coal.
The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has been assisting the coal industry in a number of ways. The department maintains an office in Calgary from which field representatives work with mine operators on coal preparation problems and improvement in coal-mining methods. In co-operation with McGill university the department is also assisting with the Mordell project. This is an experiment, under Professor Mordell's direction, toward the development of a coal-fired gas turbine engine. If it is successful, the coal industry will be helped substantially. Up until the end of the present fiscal year

the federal government will have assisted this project to the extent of $200,000.
On the other hand, so far as the coal industry is concerned, in my opinion the Alberta government, though it has collected large sums in royalties, has done little to assist the industry in a practical way. Actually a total of over $6 million in royalties, fees, rentals and mineral taxes has been collected by the Social Credit government from coal mines in Alberta since it came into office. I want to make it quite clear, however, that the Alberta research council, within the scope of its limited facilities, has co-operated at all times with federal agencies. The relations between the scientists of the council and the scientists of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys have always been most cordial and mutually helpful.
During the course of this parliament, Social Credit members have referred to the Alberta tar sands. On May 1 of this year, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), in dealing with the subject, made the following observation as reported at page 1768 of Hansard:
We remember that during the war the federal government spent around $5 million by way of investments in the tar sands of Alberta. The work done by the federal government was absolutely of no use.
The development carried out by the federal government in connection with the tar sands, from away back in 1914 up to the present time, is very little, compared with what has been done by the province, and when compared with the progress the province has made since the federal government burned up that plant at Fort McMurray.
In fairness to the facts of the situation I propose to give a brief resume of the tar sands developments. These sands, located in northern Alberta, consist of heavy oil and sand particles and in that state commercial use is difficult. The first step was to find areas where the deposits were of a sufficiently high oil content to be commercially workable. After years of preliminary surface exploration by members of the mines branch, the federal government in 1942 began an intensive search for such deposits. This work, which entailed development of a special core recovery method, led to the discovery of better grade sands in the Fort McMurray district. By means of drilling, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys proved that in an area of four and a half square miles there are deposits of oil estimated at 900 million barrels. That is sufficient, they tell me, to keep a 20,000 barrel a day refinery in operation for a hundred years.
The second step was to develop an efficient method of separating the heavy oil from the sands, and a field process of transforming it into pipe-line crude. There was also the

problem of removing the sulphur content. Federal scientists and engineers joined forces with Abasand Oils Limited to obtain a process for the economic extraction of bitumen from the sands. At this company's plant, rebuilt with federal aid, tests were made of the McClave hot water process of separation. When the plant was accidentally destroyed by fire in 1945 as the result of a spark from a welder's torch, work which had been started on a cold water process was further developed in a pilot plant set up at the mines branch in Ottawa. This plant was also used to develop means for reducing heavy oil to pipe-line crude. The results of these experiments were at all times made available to the Alberta government.
I am not discounting the activities of the provincial government, but it is time the federal government received credit for its large share in these developments.
Studies are being concentrated at the present time on the removal of sulphur from the oil, which would otherwise be very corrosive and unacceptable. This was recognized as one of the crucial problems in utilizing the oil in the report prepared by S. M. Blair, the technical consultant employed by the Alberta government. During the current year the mines branch of my department has set up equipment to carry out extensive research by hydrogenation as applied to this problem. Other tests of Alberta bitumen will also be made at the Ottawa plant.
So, as you can see, the federal government has played an important role in the development of these resources for the people of Alberta and of Canada. The scientists and engineers of my department have combined their efforts with those of private industry and of the provincial government to find the best and most practical means of utilizing the oil in the tar sands. There has always been a free exchange of information between the provincial and dominion scientists.
Such projects can only be brought to a successful conclusion by joint effort on the part of the federal and provincial governments and private enterprise. This co-operation is the key to the success of this confederation of ours. The hon. member for Bow River apparently lost sight of these facts or tried to distort them.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, he did not lose sight of any of them.


George Prudham: In still another field of government activity the hon. member from Ottawa, representing Peace River, made reference to the hospitalization scheme that is in operation in Alberta at the present time. He referred to it as the best in Canada. I would like to point out that the federal Department
The Address-Mr. Prudham of National Health and Welfare is entitled to at least part of the credit for anything of this nature done in Alberta.
Under the Liberal government's national health program over $2 million is being provided this fiscal year alone for 33 hospitals in the province. There is an additional $1 million set aside to help the province strengthen its health services in the field of tuberculosis, cancer, mental health, care of crippled children, and other public services. Incidentally, the federal government grant of $58,000 in aid of the construction of an addition to the provincial mental institute at Oliver has just been approved.
In Edmonton a great monument has been built to the high priest of Social Credit, the late Hon. William Aberhart. It is a beautiful, up-to-date and modern sanatorium. The federal Department of National Health and Welfare contributed $600,000 to the cost of that building, including furnishings and equipment. So far as I have been able to find out the provincial government has not at any time publicly acknowledged this assistance.
The hon. member representing Peace River and other members of his group on occasion have made very urgent pleas for greater federal aid for education. In the Peace river district two years ago a new school of agriculture was opened at Fairview. The federal government, through the Department of Labour, made a direct contribution of some $262,000 to the cost of construction at that school, including equipment. Again, on the occasion of the opening of that building, they did not have the courtesy to invite a representative of the federal government.
The members of this house are well aware of what this government has done during the life of this parliament by way of aid to universities and technical education. I do not need to take the time of the house to review it, except to indicate that in addition to the federal grant to the Alberta provincial university, the dominion government has contributed to the construction of agricultural schools at Olds and Vermilion as well as high schools in Edmonton and Calgary. Under the constitution the responsibility for education rests with the provinces. While the federal government has demonstrated its willingness to give indirect assistance, does it seem reasonable that a provincial government with a bank account of more than $75 million should need further federal aid for education?
The matter of highway construction is yet another example of federal aid. The trans-Canada highway, which is being constructed in Alberta, is without question the best engineered and best constructed highway in the province. This has been done under

The Address-Mr. Prudham supervision of the Department of Resources and Development. Approximately $10 million *of federal money has been spent to date on this one highway. It is hoped that the provincial government will in future follow the same engineering practices that have been instituted on that project, and endeavour to bring the provincial highways up to a safe standard.


Solon Earl Low: Harper Prowse got licked on that.


George Prudham: It is my observation that the provincial highways in Alberta very closely resemble the Social Credit movement; they have a very expensive top but no solid foundation.


Charles Edward Johnston: At least they have a good top; that is more than can be said of some over there.


George Prudham: A smooth top, too. The Social Credit party has busily propagated the idea that there is good government in Alberta. I would say that the reason they have a type of government often referred to as orthodox is that their administration of affairs has been marked by the absence of social credit rather than by any application of it.
No fewer than 14 acts of the Alberta legislature and 3 bills, which were wisely reserved by the lieutenant governor, have been declared ultra vires since 1935.


Solon Earl Low: Now you are getting down to the answer.


George Prudham: Besides destroying our confederation and undermining national unity these acts, had they been implemented, would have drastically affected the rights and freedoms of the people of Alberta.


Solon Earl Low: That is nonsense.


George Prudham: The Social Credit schemers were so bold as to entitle one of their acts "An act to provide for the restriction of the civil rights of certain persons". And we all know that the infamous "Accurate news and information act" would in effect have muzzled the free press of the province. So today, when we hear the pious platitudes of the Social Crediters, let the hon. members and the people of Canada recall what might have happened to our most cherished freedoms had we in Alberta not been protected by the courts of the land.
I would also like to remind this house that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) was a member of the Social Credit government when many of these unconstitutional acts were passed by the Alberta legislature. Anyone unthinking enough to believe in the manufactured myth of Social Credit good
Note: 'See "Corrigendum" on page 364.


government might ponder what would happen if these Social Crediters ever held the power at Ottawa to carry their policies into effect. This intention is clearly indicated in the speech made by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) last Monday evening.
One of the chief claims made in promoting this idea is that of attributing to the provincial government of Alberta credit for reducing the debt of the province. In this connection I would refer hon. members of this house to bureau of statistics records which indicate that the provincial net bonded debt since 1940 has been reduced by $28,487,000 while during the same period the municipal net debenture debt in the province, owed by the same people of Alberta, has increased by $49,455,000. While the Alberta government boasts of a huge bank account, many of the municipalities are actually in a desperate financial position because of a maldistribution of revenues as between the provincial government and the municipalities.


Mr. Shaw:: Tell them how many Liberals were elected in Alberta.


George Prudham: On the other hand the federal government has assumed its obligations in this regard-


Frederick Davis Shaw: Tell them how many Liberals were elected.


George Prudham: -through the dominion-provincial tax agreements and ordinary subsidies. Under these agreements and subsidy arrangements the federal government collects and turns over to the Alberta government approximately one-quarter of the money that government spends annually. If it were not for these tax agreements1 the provincial government, of course, would have the privilege of raising that much additional money by direct taxation.
If the great prophetic day ever arrived when the Social Credit party would be in position to take office at Ottawa, I do not think that anyone for a moment would expect the hon. member for Peace River to be appointed prime minister. His present position seems to be that of a voice crying in the wilderness, preparing the way for another.


Solon Earl Low: Why are you Liberals so worried, then?


George Prudham: Undoubtedly the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) would be designated minister of finance.


John Horne Blackmore: And would do a whale of a good job at it, too.


George Prudham: It would not be a matter of speculation as to how long it would take his printing press policies to destroy the confidence of Canadians and of the world in the stability of Canada's financial structure.


Frederick Davis Shaw: That is what they said about Alberta in 1935, too.


George Prudham: And you were prevented from doing it, by the courts.
It is surprising to hear the hon. member for Peace River, of all people, talk about his burning and consistent desire to strengthen over the years the ties of the commonwealth and the promotion of trade between Canada and the United Kingdom. He has been speaking lately of the great regard and respect which his party holds for the throne, and of how its position has been weakened by the appointment of a Canadian as governor general. As a matter of record, soon after the Social Credit party came into power in Alberta they showed the most flagrant disrespect for the crown by rudely turning the lieutenant governor out of his official residence, Government House, and auctioning its contents, showing not the least concern for the dignity and traditions associated with the high position of the representative of the crown in the province.
The federal government has, of course, seen to it that Government House in Edmonton was not allowed to go unoccupied or to be commercialized. It has been converted into a war veterans' hospital. But the point is that when Social Credit leaders advertise their profound attachment for commonwealth ties, most people will assess those convictions on the basis of actions, not words. The hon. member for Peace River was a member of the Alberta government at that time.
In addition, if the Social Credit party had been successful in discovering a scheme to carry their wild theories into effect without violating the constitution, they would have put Alberta in an economic strait-jacket, isolated from the rest of Canada and seeking to operate as a so-called self-contained unit. Had this been accomplished it would have been not only a cynical denial of the value of empire and international trade but a critical blow at the commercial structure of Canada.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but it comes with ill grace from the leader of the Social Credit party in this house to speak about any preponderance of Canadian trade with the United States over our trade with the United Kingdom. In the past few years, the Social Credit government in Alberta has relied very largely on United States capital and enterprise in the exploitation of Alberta's natural resources.


Solon Earl Low: Who wrote the speech you are reading?
The Address-Mr. Prudham


George Prudham: On the one hand they go about this country attacking the fifty big shots, or the international money power, as they describe it, while on the other hand welcoming to Alberta any money power they can get, international or otherwise.
I would remind the people of Canada, and those investors and businessmen who have regarded the Alberta government as orthodox, of the dangerous policies to which the Social Credit party subscribed in the early days of that movement, and which the national president of the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Macleod, reiterated in this house in the course of this debate. He said at page 235 of Hansard:
Let nobody write or think that if Social Credit should take over the reins of government here, they would only follow along the lines of good honest conservative government. If the Social Credit took over the government of Canada let it be understood they would introduce Social Credit technique.
That speech has done a lot to clear the air and to dissipate the fable of a Social Credit good, conservative government. It must come as a shock to many people to find that the Social Credit party still stands for the ruinous funny-money schemes to which they first subscribed.
To those who feel the emotional impact of Social Credit, I would say once again that the Social Credit party has no monopoly on Christianity. At this point I would like to read into the record from a news report that appeared in the Edmonton Journal, and which was carried by Canadian Press, covering the speech made by the hon. member for Peace River at Edmonton on November 26th. I quote:
Premier Manning made a triumphant tour of eastern Canada-not for political purposes but to do a job in religion ... It has its political implications. It will hold implications for us, the party, I am sure.


Solon Earl Low: Why do you not go on and read the rest of the sentence?


George Prudham: I would, but I have not the time.


Solon Earl Low: I'll say you haven't.


George Prudham: I am not making any comment on these remarks of the hon. member, as his words speak for themselves. Mr. Speaker, I would say that the members for Peace River and Macleod have done much to clear the air and to show just where the Social Credit party stands, and the means they are using to gain political power.
The record of the Liberal party in strengthening and encouraging trade between the United Kingdom and Canada speaks for itself.

The Address-Mr. J. A. MacLean


Solon Earl Low: I'll say it does. You have lost all the markets we ever had.


George Prudham: I need only mention the billion and a quarter dollar loan by this country to Great Britain supplementing the billion dollar wartime gift to the mother country, the international wheat agreement and the various arrangements made for marketing a wide variety of Canadian farm products in the United Kingdom.


Solon Earl Low: That was a gift by the Canadian farmers.


George Prudham: Everyone familiar with the record knows that the Liberal party works for the expansion of trade with all nations. That has been the whole tradition and direction of Liberal party policy over the years. That is why Canada on a per capita basis is today the world's greatest trading nation. That is why on the basis of total volume of international commerce, Canada is the fourth largest trading nation in the world at the present time.


An hon. Member:: What page are you on now?


George Prudham: By the time I have given this speech as often as we have heard the same Social Credit speeches in this house I will be able to say it backwards.


Mr. Muich:: And, saying it backwards, it will make just as much sense as they did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that all you can say for it?


George Prudham: In conclusion I want to say I am proud of our Liberal leadership, proud of the Liberal record of achievement-the party that brought the country out of the depression, through a war, through the period of re-establishment, and is now directing it through another period of rearmament; and the country is enjoying a state of prosperity such as we have never known before.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate to make a few remarks in the interests of the people whom I represent, and I hope that these remarks will ultimately be in the interests of all Canadians. To begin with I recognize that we in the maritimes have certain natural disadvantages as well as many natural advantages. I am not going to speak in detail tonight about our natural disadvantages, but I should like to refer briefly to one or two of them.
To begin with, because the borders of the maritime provinces were not adjacent to the vast hinterland areas of Canada the boundaries of our provinces have remained as they were when we entered confederation, whereas in the case of seven other provinces

their areas have been greatly expanded by the addition of large tracts of what was once hinterland. In the last few years these areas have been found to be rich in mineral wealth in the form of oil, nickel, iron ore and so forth, with the result that money is now pouring into their treasuries both directly and indirectly. We in the maritimes have not been given a commensurate compensation for that position.
There are also many artificial ways in which we in the maritimes seem to be at a disadvantage. Geographically we are away down at the far end of the Canadian table. We are smaller than most of the other provinces in population, and the result seems to be that when the big fellows have been looked after there may or may not be something left for us.
For instance, the people of the city of Charlottetown in the riding of Queens have had high hopes over the years that some of the promises which had been made to them for the improvement of the federal public works would be fulfilled. They had high hopes that a new federal office building would be built, as well as new armouries and new naval barracks. There were many other things they hoped for but which do not seem to be in sight. I hear an hon. member say that these things will not be forthcoming as long as I represent Queens. I have represented Queens for a short time only, and these wants have been in existence for a great number of years. No better results accrued to Queens when it was represented by a member of another party.
These public works and other requirements have been pointed out by many citizens of Prince Edward Island and representatives of many organizations. I have even been bold enough to point them out to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) although I realized that was superfluous. I notice that there is a great deal of building going on in Ottawa in the way of permanent federal office space. If I did not know the keen perception and keen mind of the Minister of Public Works I might think that he thought I had said "Charlotte's town" when I actually said Charlottetown.
The people of Charlottetown have had high hopes that their busy airport would be extended. I believe that proposition is now receiving the consideration of the government, and I am confident that it will be dealt with in the near future and the desired results realized.
Generally speaking we in the maritimes appear to be neglected, or at least we think so, in connection with public works, defence

The Address-Mr. J. A. MacLean
contracts and many other things. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) has just told us of the many geological surveys which have been carried on by the federal government in Alberta. It would seem that when the people of Alberta ask for something they get at least a geological survey, whereas when we in Prince Edward Island ask for something we usually get a stony stare.
These are things which I mention only in passing, but there is one serious injustice which I should like to bring to the attention of the government which affects the people of the province from which I come. I refer to the corporation tax on public utilities companies. This problem has been dealt with in a measure, but I should like to refresh the memory of the house in this regard by quoting from the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) delivered in this chamber on April 8 last.
The minister is reported on page 1253 of Hansard of April 8, 1952, as follows:
The house will recall that in my budget speech a year ago, I expressed special concern over the effect of our present high corporate tax rate on certain public utility companies which are forced by the nature of their business and their franchises to raise large amounts of capital to finance expansion of services required to be performed for the public, and which because of public control of rates are allowed to earn only a modest return on their capital.
And later on he said:
During the past year much further study has been given to the problem and I have now decided to recommend a change in our law which I believe can be administered and which will grant a measure of relief to certain of these companies as long as the present very high corporate tax rate continues to apply. This relief will apply to companies whose main business is the distribution to, or generation for distribution to, the public of electrical energy, gas or steam, and will take the form of a deduction from the tax otherwise payable of an amount sufficient to reduce to 43 per cent the tax payable under the Income Tax Act on that part of a corporation's taxable income that is derived from such distribution or generation.
And further on:
It is also, generally speaking, the group of companies which for a variety of reasons finds the greatest difficulty in securing adequate income to attract the heavy volume of capital required to keep pace with public demand.
This state of affairs-has a special and unfortunate impact upon the economy of Prince Edward Island. The people of Prince Edward Island believe in free enterprise, with the result that both our telephone and electrical services are supplied wholly by privately-owned companies. In this day and age it is natural that people in the country as well as in the city expect to have the benefit and convenience of electrical power, and as a result the people in my province are most 68108-24
anxious that many of the fine agricultural districts should be electrified as quickly as possible. The company which supplies the power is in the position that it cannot attract sufficient capital to allow it to expand and extend its rural electrification project as rapidly as it would like to do. That is by reason of the fact that the company, like all other companies in that field, pays large amounts of taxes into the federal treasury.
I cite this case because it is an injustice. The consumers of electric power in my province have to pay into the federal treasury large amounts of taxes when the corresponding people in other provinces do not have to, simply because electric power is distributed by a private company in Prince Edward Island rather by a commission or co-operative or provincially-owned crown company as may be the case in most other provinces. The result is that the average family using electric power in Prince Edward Island has about $10 per annum unnecessarily added to its electric power bill. That $10 goes into the federal treasury in the form of taxation.
My province is already at a natural disadvantage as far as electric power is concerned because we have no hydroelectric power. All our electric power must be generated by steam. Furthermore, the fuel for generating that power must be imported from other provinces. It is either oil or coal and, as a result, the cost of electric power in rural areas in my province is very high.
Even if the farmers in some areas were willing to pay very high rates they would have very little hope of receiving service in the near future. I feel very strongly that this situation could be relieved very considerably if a uniform method of taxing public utilities could be found, regardless of the organization of the capital structure of the service which is being extended. This state of affairs, of course, also applies to the telephone systems of some of our provinces although it may not apply in others. That again creates an uneven distribution of the federal tax load on the Canadian people.
That is all I wish to say on those matters for the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to make some remarks which have a bearing on another of our industries in Prince Edward Island. One of our main industries down there, apart from fisheries and agriculture, is of course the tourist industry. For a tourist industry to be successful one of the main requirements is that the area to be visited by tourists should be readily accessible, especially by road in this modem age. Therefore a frequent and high quality service for motorists to and from Prince Edward Island is a primary requirement. That being
362	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. A. MacLean the case, I would like to point out to the government the difficulties under which the tourist industry in my province labours due to the bottlenecks in travel to and from the island by the two ferry services which exist. There is a ferry service from Cape Tormen-tine to Borden, operated by the Canadian National Railways. It is a very good service but, at the same time, during the peak months of the summer it is inadequate. The result is that motorists must wait for a long time on each side before getting from or to the island. I would therefore suggest that the government give serious consideration to supplying a second ferry boat on that service for summer use. It would not have to be an icebreaker. It would not have to be as expensive a boat as we have there now, but it would be a boat that would relieve the peak traffic periods during the summer when tourists are going to and from Prince Edward Island.
The other main ferry service is operated by Northumberland Ferries Limited from Wood Island to Caribou, Nova Scotia. This company finds itself in a very difficult situation because at the present time it seems to be impossible for it to acquire adequate and suitable ships for service. This service is one which has been growing very rapidly in the last few years. Traffic over the route is increasing to the point where, at the present time, the company is unable to cope with it with its present facilities. A third ferry of some description is required to be made available for next summer so that congestion on the route will be somewhat relieved. That would only be a temporary measure, and I would recommend most strongly to the government that consideration be given to either providing a boat for this company, which might be run on a management basis, or creating an environment which would allow this company to build a suitable boat for its own operations so the service could be improved.
Another matter which has some bearing on our tourist industry is the advertising which is done by various departments of the government for the purpose of attracting tourists to our province. I feel that perhaps this advertising is not sufficient. Until recently I was under the impression that the advertising was adequate, but some unfortunate circumstances with respect to my province have recently been reported in a widely-read Canadian periodical. It concerns a very well known and famous citizen of Ottawa who had occasion to go to our province last summer. Due to circumstances about which I have no information it would seem that this man was very unfortunate in the accommodation which was provided for him there. The result was that while he was spending some


time in Prince Edward Island, as quoted in this periodical, he had "the worst meal he had ever eaten in Canada".
The most unfortunate thing about this is that such a state of affairs is entirely unnecessary. I myself have eaten in most of the public eating places in Queens county and so has the senior member for Queens (Mr. McLure). I must say that in most cases the food was very good and I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me when I say that both the senior member for Queens and myself look reasonably well fed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: This unfortunate gentleman, who is a great man, and being a great man no doubt is a humble man, probably has tastes that are not unnecessarily extravagant. I expect that he would have demands with regard to food which were not unreasonable. Nevertheless he apparently ended up in a fifth rate hotel because, as I said, he was served the worst meal he ever ate in Canada. I think that is most unfortunate, because with a little advertising in the right places people going from Ottawa to Prince Edward Island would have a better idea where to go. There are excellent places in Prince Edward Island at which to eat. I am quite sure every hon. member will agree with me when I say that.
For instance, the Ontario motor league publishes a booklet which is called "Travel in North America", or something of that sort, and it lists at least three hotels in my riding which have a triple A rating. I understand that is the highest rating that association gives. In addition to that, if there were any doubt about the matter, there are many places in my riding which are recommended in various travel folders as good places at which to dine. For instance, in a book called "Let us Visit Canada" by Byron Steele, which was published in 1948, a couple of places are mentioned. He refers to one as having as its specialty seafood and steaks; another serves excellent chicken dinners. I believe, therefore, that with a little suitable advertising either by the Department of Transport or the Department of Resources and Development people in the rest of Canada might be educated to such an extent that they would not have such an unfortunate experience.
This man does not say where he had the misfortune to stay. I am sure he could have stayed in some very fine hotels, one of which would be the Charlottetown hotel. I feel that if that were sufficiently advertised it would attract more notable clients from this part of the country. I see that the Canadian National Railways do put out a little booklet

advertising their hotels. It is entitled "Canadian National Railways Hotels Coast to Coast." With reference to the Charlottetown hotel, it says it has 110 rooms, each with a private bath. Then the booklet goes on to say:
Georgian in architecture, this modern fireproof structure is one of the finest in the Canadian National Railways chain of hotels. Conveniently situated close to the business and shopping district of Charlottetown, it is but a half mile from the Canadian National Railways station.
The Charlottetown is celebrated for its excellent cuisine, seafood dishes being a special feature.
I hope that it was not seafood that caused this notable gentleman a bad time, because he does admit that he is unable to distinguish a live lobster from a cooked one, not knowing that a live lobster is dark green and a cooked one is bright red. I point out this experience, Mr. Speaker, merely to give the government some small idea of the importance of good advertising to the residents of Prince Edward Island, to whom the tourist industry is of great importance. I believe this especially necessary because in my constituency we not only have a very fine Canadian National Railways hotel; we also have a very fine park, and there are some excellent privately run hotels.
(Translation):


Mr. P. L. Dube (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, for the splendid manner in which they discharged their duties.
I also wish to congratulate the Clerk of the House on the lecture he gave at the Capitol theatre last Sunday night. I am sure that everyone present found it very interesting.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the government to the shortage of cement in my province, especially in my constituency. It is rather strange to find that cement becomes scarcer as the weather gets more favourable for building projects. Such a situation is annoying for people who intend to build a house or erect any other kind of building. Every season we experience the same trouble with regard to that essential building material.	-
We are well aware of the present housing situation. Therefore, in order to further the erection of housing units, production of building materials must be increased and an adequate distribution assured.
In my district, when we speak of cement, we are under the general impression, rightly or wrongly, that our people are at the mercy of the Canada Cement Company who are in 68108-241
The Address-Mr. Dube a position to supply or deny this building material to whoever wishes to build a home.
Many people wonder why there is only one cement producing company in this country where the use of this material is so widespread and, especially, when there is an inexhaustible supply of the raw materials used in the manufacturing of cement.
In my humble opinion, though I have made no personal inquiry or study of the situation, I realize that our people are the innocent prey of monopolizing interests. This opinion is also shared by our farmers and our workers who are particularly affected by the scarcity of that building material. There are some who take advantage of the present shortage to speculate and exploit those who need cement. This product, which was selling for 80 or 90 cents a bag before the shortage, now fetches ridiculous prices, such as $1.50 or $2.10, and even $3.10, I am told, in certain cases. It is easy to see that cement is being sold on the black market by individuals who, foreseeing this shortage, have accumulated stocks which they are now marketing at these exorbitant prices.
I believe it is time for the government to intervene immediately to put a stop to this kind of thing, so that the people of this country may buy, for a reasonable price, this product manufactured from our own natural resources. I am convinced that private enterprise is bound to fail unless our governments manage to set fair standards. If we want to do away with communism in our midst, let us try to inspire the people with greater confidence in the social benefits of private enterprise. People do not live from slogans, but from daily bread, from a proper distribution of goods, from equal opportunities for all, not only in theory, but in practise.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know that the governments of Quebec and New Brunswick have finally agreed to apply to the federal government for the necessary grants for the construction of a bridge across the Restigouche river, between Campbellton, New Brunswick, and Cross Point, Quebec.
The population of the city of Campbellton has asked for the construction of this bridge for so long that it will no doubt welcome this agreement between the two provinces.
I hope that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) will respond favourably to the wishes of the people of both sides who rightly deserve that the necessary grants be accorded them for the early implementation of this project.
The city of Campbellton is now important enough, and the joining of both provinces by

The Address-Mr. Dube means of this bridge will be profitable to everyone and will be of much help in the development of activities in this area. In former days roads were bad and automobiles rather scarce. Today it is another story. Most people own automobiles and travel, especially since the completion of the trans-Canada highway.
A large number of those people who visited Gaspe this year would have crossed over to visit New Brunswick, and vice versa, if only there had been a bridge between Cross Point and Campbellton. Some motorists do not like to take the ferry, both because they do not like to wait for the return of the boat thus wasting precious moments and because they are not confident of their ability to drive their car onto it. But, mainly, it is because of the loss of time. Everything moves so quickly today. A bridge is far more convenient, there is no doubt about that.
Since both provinces are equally deserving of a visit from those who want to see all of
Canada, I really believe that the government would quickly recover the moneys put into this venture, through a constant increase in the tourist trade.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I wish to contradict the statement made by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) concerning the railway employees. According to him, their wage demands are not justified.
If the hon. member for Springfield knew of all the expense railway employees incur while at work, I am sure he would not have spoken the way he did. If he only knew the responsibilities which they face, I am sure he would not introduce in this house a bill to prevent them from striking for the next two years. Should he introduce this bill, I will vote against it.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Laing the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) the house adjourned at 9.55 p.m.
^CORRIGENDUM


George Prudham: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to make a correction of a statement made by me in this debate, as recorded at the top of the first column on page 358 of Hansard, where I was making reference to the trans-Canada highway. The statement reads:
Approximately $10 million of federal money has been spent to date on this one highway.
The information which came to my office, on which this statement was based, was that contractual commitments on the trans-Canada highway in Alberta are now $10,103,514.17. Actually, under the trans-Canada highway agreements this figure is a total, and is shared equally by the federal and provincial governments.	.
-from Hansard of December 17, 1952.

Friday, December 5, 1952