1952-11-26

LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production, now the Acting Prime Minister. Will the minister give the house a statement concerning the reported layoff at the Eldorado Mining and Refining company plant at Port Hope? Will the minister tell us also whether further layoffs are contemplated, and if so where the uranium mined in Canada is to be processed?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, a telephone call was received in my office requesting this information, and I tried to reach the president of the company but found that he was in the Northwest Territories. The facts as I have them are that the fire which destroyed the mill at Port Radium is primarily responsible. The mill which was burnt was an old mill designed chiefly for the recovery of radium ore. Since the fire it has been replaced by a more modern mill which gives a greater degree of concentration of the uranium recovered. This means there is a smaller tonnage of ore to be treated at Port Hope, and therefore instead of a three-shift operation the refinery will, in the future, operate on a two-shift basis.
A further factor is that part of the staff at Port Hope were engaged in experimental work in designing a new refinery. It has been decided to defer the building of a new refinery for the time being. The staff engaged in that particular problem, numbering some ten or twelve, has been dispensed with. The employment, as of July 31, which was the peak employment, was 227 people. At present there are 199 people, and on December 15, when it is expected the two-shift operation will commence, employment will be between 150 and 160 people.
In answer to the second part of the question, I might say that all the uranium that is being mined in Canada is being refined at Port Hope.



LIGHT AND ROADBED AT C.N.R. WHARF, CHARLOTTETOWN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: desire to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a petition from the labourers protective union, No. 9568, at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, asking for the supplying of light at the Canadian National Railways wharf, and also asking for a proper roadbed for the labourers while pushing their hand-loaded trucks to load the cars or boats for shipment at the Charlottetown warehouse? If so, what action will be taken?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of great urgency, but if it is in my hon. friend's mind I can say to him that I have no recollection of having received such a petition. It may be that one has arrived in the office, and I shall inquire.


Mr. Graydon:: You are too busy with the Winnipeg communications, of course.


Mr. Speaker:: Probably the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) could put his question on the order paper and the Minister of Transport could answer it in the ordinary way.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 25, 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. Cold-well.
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: When speaking in the house yesterday, and as recorded at page 73 of Hansard, the hon member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) had this to say:
It becomes clear from the speech of the leader of the official opposition and the speech of the leader of the Social Credit party that today the C.C.F. is the only party in this house which is prepared at this session to support legislation for the inauguration of a national health insurance program.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York South completely misunderstood the
102	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Shaw
hon. member for Peace River <Mr. Low) when he outlined our position with respect to health insurance. Had my leader been opposed to a scheme of national health insurance, surely he would not have proceeded to envision the type of health insurance scheme which we would conceive of.
What the hon. member for Peace River asserted was that we are in favour of a national health insurance scheme, to commence at the earliest possible time; but he cautioned the house against any overeager effort on the part of anyone to catapult this nation or the state into any comprehensive scheme of health insurance or hospitalization before the means are available or the facilities are ready for it. The Social Credit leader indicated that the kind of health insurance scheme which we envision would first ensure that we have sufficient doctors, dentists, technicians, clinics and hospital beds available in order to provide the services for all our people under a national health insurance scheme.
The hon. member for Peace River then went on to list what he considered to be five essential features to be embodied in any national health insurance scheme. They were, first, that we have a fair measure of individual responsibility; second, that the patients will be guaranteed the right to have their choice of doctors and that the program must guarantee that there will be no regimentation of patients, doctors, nurses and hospitals; third, that emphasis must be placed upon preventive medicine or, in other words, keeping the people well; fourth, joint co-operation on the municipal, provincial and federal levels, with administration by the municipalities and the provincial governments working in co-operation; and then finally, provincial and federal subsidies to keep costs down.
Such a stand, Mr. Speaker, does not represent opposition to the establishment or the inauguration of a national health insurance program at this session. What we are opposed to, as my leader stated, is being catapulted holus-bolus into a complete scheme where we have not the necessary facilities in order to guarantee the services to our people. But surely a step can be taken now, along with steps that have already been taken, to establish health services with the idea in mind that this is a part of a national health insurance scheme. We say that this represents a common-sense, practical approach to this extremely important proposition. I hope it will not be said again that we are opposed to the inauguration of a national health insurance scheme at this session.
During this debate several hon. members who have spoken have made reference to agriculture and the present position of agriculture in our national economy. I hope to devote only a few moments to this subject, because I do desire to bring before the house one important matter which I think is deserving of immediate and serious consideration. It is true-and I have said this here upon many	occasions-that	my constituency
embraces one of the finest mixed farming areas in Canada. The livestock produced in that area, along with other farm products, have been consistent winners at fairs in this country. That is a fact which testifies, of course, to the excellence of the agricultural products which are produced in that area. More than one world title has gone to the Red Deer area.
We all know, especially when we live in a mixed farming area of that kind, that livestock prices, in the main, determine the degree of stability or instability of the basic industry. Last spring, as I pointed out in this house, the closed markets resulting from foot-and-mouth disease had a most disastrous effect upon livestock producers in that area, especially upon those who were feeding cattle and preparing them for the markets. The existing floor prices for hogs and for cattle, quoted invariably f.o.b. some other place except that where the commodities are produced, leave much to be desired as far as our agriculture is concerned. Apart from the most exceptional cases, the floor prices for those products are absolutely meaningless as far as our producers are concerned. All one has to do is to examine the returns which the farmers are receiving for cattle and hogs. Too frequently-and I feel it necessary to mention this matter-the cost-conscious tax-burdened consuming public regard excessive resale prices for farm products as an indication of undue profits accruing to the farmers iand what they would think to be a generally prosperous agriculture.
It is my conviction, Mr. Speaker, that the consuming public should be made to understand that, despite high resale prices for farm products, the net position of the farmer today, under excessive production costs, leaves a good deal to be desired and leaves the agricultural industry-especially that aspect of it relating to livestock production-in a precarious position in many instances.
In my estimation price spreads should be the major concern of any government, and every government should make every effort to find out the facts, to make those facts
FMr. Shaw.]

known to the public, and in short to interpret the position of the farmer to the consuming public of this country.


Mr. Blackmore:: Accurately.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Yes, accurately, as the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) interjects.
With regard to agriculture and matters relative thereto, I should like to devote just a moment to the question of prairie farm assistance, particularly as prairie farm assistance applies to an area such as mine where farmers do not qualify as a consequence of crop losses resulting from drought but rather as a consequence of crop losses resulting from hail. In 1951 disastrous hail storms swept across that area. Losses were heavy. For almost the first time in thirteen years, during which time the farmers have been compelled to pay into the fund under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, they looked to the P.F.A.A. for some compensation as a consequence of those losses. One of the first things we learned, Mr. Speaker, was that the P.F.A.A. was originally designed to take care of crop losses resulting from drought. The same regulations are carried forward today, in the main, and the endeavour is made to apply them to hail areas. As a result, the act becomes almost impossible of administration, and the unfairness which develops as a consequence is causing the farmers of my area to charge the government with the rankest kind of discrimination. I am telling the house only exactly what the farmers themselves are saying. Regardless of their politics, in every part of that area they are issuing that charge.
I should like to underline the fact, Mr. Speaker, that for twelve to thirteen years those farmers have been paying one per cent of the price on all grains which have been marketed, through the recognized channels of marketing, of course. In the first place, I should like to know why with respect to an area such as the Red Deer area, where actually little wheat is grown, the main crops being coarse grains, they should persist in using wheat as the grain to determine eligibility. In the second place, in contrast to drought, hail cuts narrow swaths through the area. Hail will hop, skip and jump through an area. In a good area where production is so heavy, where hail does not strike, it is virtually impossible for 60 per cent of the farmers to qualify, because part of that township can be devastated, but because production is so high in the other part of the area it brings the average up above that which is used to exclude the township.
The Address-Mr. Shaw
In the third place, the six section block which must exist, the block in which production is less than eight bushels to the acre, is unreasonable and altogether too high as far as hail is concerned.
When farmers proposed that the unit of eligibility be lowered below the six-section block they were told that it would encourage poor farming. Poor farming has been encouraged in the dried-out areas ever since this act came into effect. The farmers in my area claim that there is no reason in the world why the unit of eligibility under P.F.A.A. in relation to hail should not be reduced at least to the one-section basis.
The farmers have indicated to me that they are willing to pay more than the one per cent; but if they are going to pay they would like to be in a position where they would have a reasonable chance to qualify under the act. We find situations like these. I think of one where twelve sections in a solid block were hailed out a hundred per cent. They paid P.F.A. on sections one to eleven. Section twelve was part of the block that was hailed out a hundred per cent, but because they are able to drag it in with five other sections alongside of an ineligible township, they excluded the area wholly and completely, leaving those farmers with devastated crops but yet not a cent available under the act.
There is another aspect of this which is causing quite some concern. While farmers with 100 acres to 200 acres under cultivation lose everything as a consequence of hail and get nothing from P.F.A., yet we find a policy under which the government will pay a $200 flat award on farms where the actual acreage under cultivation is less than 25, categorizing such farms as a farm in the development stage. I have no objection to these farmers getting $200, since they paid for it, but it is hard to reconcile that with the situation where farmers lose 200 acres of grain and qualify for absolutely nothing. I am not criticizing the inspectors; I am not criticizing the men in the district offices who administer P.F.A.A. They are trying to do the best possible job with an act that is, as I said before, almost impossible of administration, if you want justice, equity and fairness, and the absolute removal of anything which appears to be discriminatory in character.
Let me point out that this has caused a lot of criticism. It has caused a lot of unhappiness. In my view, this act should be referred to the agriculture committee and a complete study should be made of P.F.A.A. in relation to hail, because, and I repeat, the regulations, originally designed to compensate

The Address-Mr. Shaw farmers who had lost their crops as a consequence of drought, do not make sense when they are applied to these hailed-out areas.
During this debate, Mr. Speaker, considerable attention has been given to national defence. It is to national defence and defence production that I desire to devote my attention for a while. We Social Crediters have been wholly conscious at all times of the grave dangers confronting this nation. As a consequence of that, we have supported appropriations for defence. When these estimates have come before the house we have invariably questioned and sought information, and we have supported what the government considers to be essential appropriations for national defence. We are absolutely convinced that Canadians are fully prepared to bear whatever burden is necessary in order to ensure that we shall have the best possible and most adequate defences.
We have also supported the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the provisions made by this parliament for Canada's share of the costs of NATO. We have gone considerably farther than any other group in this house in urging compulsory service in Canada's home defence units, and we have at all times urged the establishment of realistic trade practices to strengthen Canada economically and to strengthen the commonwealth. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we have displayed through our actions that we have supported and that we will support all appropriations, as I said before, even though they may appear to be burdens, which are necessary in order to provide adequate defences. The Canadian taxpayers, however, demand one thing of us as a parliament. They demand that we give the very closest consideration to every item of defence expenditure, and that we make every conceivable effort to see to it that we are getting our money's worth out of every dollar spent in defence.
I know that during the last session of parliament this house set up a defence expenditures committee. We supported that action because we believed that such was necessary. It was said last year that the purpose of that committee was to try to effect economies consistent with the execution of policies decided by the government. It was under the able chairmanship of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), and although I was not a member of that committee I personally feel that he conducted himself as chairman in commendable fashion.
Between April 8 and June 12 that committee held eighteen meetings. That was a very short period of time, it is true. During the period from April 8 to June 12 the committee, so my reading indicates to me, examined into

government policy as far as defence expenditures were concerned. I noticed in reading all the reports that they gave consideration to control and accounting of materials and stores in the Department of National Defence. I also noticed that they gave consideration to write-off procedure which is followed by the government, including the write-offs resulting from theft, fire and other causes. The committee considered defence orders which had been placed between 1950 and 1952.
They gave consideration to military functions, economies and the possibility of alternative sources of supply. I believe they delved into the naval shipbuilding program. They also gave consideration to the requirements of the army, the navy and the air force. And then, shortly before the committee concluded its deliberations, the construction program of the Department of National Defence, as carried out by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Defence Construction Limited, was given some consideration. As a matter of fact, Mr. D. B. Mansur, president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, did, I understand, make a statement to the committee.
Apparently the committee's deliberations concluded following its consideration of policy and procedure relative to the defence construction program. In my estimation the most important work they have to do is ahead of them. I was very pleased to note that the defence expenditures committee is to be reconstituted. I am going to make several recommendations to the committee that it may, when it is reconstituted, take into consideration.
The first is that I think it has given reasonable consideration to policy; now I think it should devote its attention to the practical application of that policy in the field. And it is in that respect, as I said a moment ago, that I have a few things to say. Let me point out in passing that much consideration has been given to the procurement of such things as uniforms, and it has been said that too many of this have been bought or too much of that. Well, that does not concern me particularly at the moment. I well recall that I was one of those who levelled rather severe criticism at the government back in the early forties for being so wholly unprepared when war broke out. I realize it is most difficult to say that we need just exactly this number of that commodity or that number of another commodity. I say: within reasonable limits let us make sure we have enough to meet any emergency which may suddenly come upon us. I hope we will not be unmindful

of the probability that such an emergency could be only hours away. Let us hope it is much farther away than that.
My personal conviction, one based upon a good deal of personal investigation, is that the defence expenditures committee should be instructed, or that by resolution it should instruct itself. To be more specific, I would suggest that the committee resolve to pick out one particular military establishment in Canada and examine carefully into every aspect of construction relative thereto.
To be even more specific I might go so far as to suggest that they take an establishment within my own constituency, that at Penhold -although I would not want any investigation to be limited to that air station alone. I am going to give one or two reasons why I think such an investigation should be undertaken. First, there is ample evidence-and I witnessed it over a period of months prior to coming down here to Ottawa-of growing public concern and indignation over some of the things that are going on at Penhold. Information came to me; I did not go seeking it until so much of it had come to me that I considered it essential in the public interest to satisfy myself about some of these things.
Needless to say I became absolutely convinced that the defence expenditures committee should carry out an investigation. To be even more specific, I am not satisfied at all with respect to the construction of housing for airmen at some of these establishments. I shall leave Penhold for a moment and come to Namao, in the Edmonton district, where approximately 250 houses are under construction. So far as I know there is no evidence that adequate inspection has been carried out continuously, so far as that project is concerned. There is every evidence for me to believe certain things-and I suggest the committee should ascertain the facts, first of all, about the foundations of these buildings.
On the basis of my own investigations, I feel the contractors have not carried out the specifications as laid down in the contracts.


Mr. Johnston:: That is not peculiar.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Foundations are run sloppy, as we say. The tamping of concrete has been at an absolute minimum, and footings have been poured on loose backfill, with the obvious result that the foundations cracked and the buildings have settled until all one has to do is go up to them and place a level on the side to discover whether they are plumb or not.
There is reason to believe that green lumber has been used extensively by the contractors, with consequent shrinkage following 68108-8
The Address-Mr. Shaw the application of heat to those buildings, and that cracking in the finish has been general.
There is evidence to believe that the lumber used for framing is of a very inferior quality. It is warped, knotted and checked. So far as those houses are concerned, I suggest the committee should find out whether or not the joists were doubled, as per specifications. I would like the committee to find whether the chimney wells were doubled as per specifications, and whether the bridging of joists was carried out according to specifications.
I would like to know where the nails were that are presumed to have been used in a building that has to stand for any length of time.
So far as the general framing is concerned, the materials are highly questionable, again. The prefabricated wall sections have been left outside, some of them as far back as last winter, and have warped. Nailing appears to be at a minimum, and partition girths are hanging by nails having been driven up from underneath, again not according to specifications.
I would like the committee to look into these cracked walls, and to find out whether the inside studding has been carried out according to specifications. I would like to know whether or not in some of these buildings the centres are sixteen inches, according to specifications, or whether they are forty-eight inches. I think, too, that the single plates on the partitions are not continuous throughout.
I am not going to continue enumerating all these individual items so far as that particular station is concerned. However, I have scores upon scores of them I would be quite willing to make available to the committee. And, oh yes, I would like to know how the hardwood flooring has been put on, whether it was placed crosswise in some of the halls, or carried out according to specifications. I would ask the committee to examine the floors and see to what extent they are blocked up to the sole plates, in respect of both the exterior and the interior walls.
I should like to know whether lime mortar has been used in these chimneys or whether cement mortar was used as provided for by the specifications. I should also like the committee to find out in how many cases lime mortar froze before it was ever used. I should like the committee to examine the basement floors to see whether they were steel trowelled or whether they were properly dry finished as per specifications. I should like to know also whether these buildings all have the number of windows called for by the specifications.
On top of all this I think the committee should find out how many change orders were

The Address-Mr. Shaw issued alter the buildings were under construction. I should like to know if the change orders were carried out as per specifications and what additional amounts were paid to the contractors as a result of those change orders. I should like to know how many of those change orders were absolutely essential.
I think if the committee is to look into these things it should call in the inspectors who have been connected with this job. Not only should the committee call in inspectors who are presently on the job; it is quite conceivable it might be wise to call in inspectors who are no longer on the job.
I indicated a moment ago that I should like to see the committee go to Penhold. These things are causing consternation among the people. There are some questions which should be answered. First I should like to find out something which has to do with construction only indirectly. I should like to know what it has cost the Canadian taxpayer as a consequence of the R.C.A.F. moving families out to that area before the houses for their accommodation were even nearly completed. What allowances have been paid to airmen to house their families in an area where it is difficult to procure civilian housing, a condition which has been so for a long period of time. I should like to know what additional costs have been involved and why these families were moved from where they were quartered when they were.
With regard to heating, I should like to know the exact cost of installing the temporary heating system which was operated with boilers brought in from New York. What extra amounts have been paid to the prime contractor as a consequence of installing the temporary heating system I should like to find out also what is involved in the establishment of an overhead heating system which has never been used and which according to my information will never be used because it is intended to have a central underground heating system. We should find out the why and wherefore of this heating.
Here is another thing the committee should look into. They built some pretty good roads at Penhold. They went down as I think they should have, they scarified the surface, they moved in new dirt and spent a lot of money constructing roads with the exception of putting on a hard surface. But then they came along to instal the water and steam distribution system and their sewage system. In doing this they just cut crisscross over the roads which had just been built. Why should a thing of that sort occur? Was there a lack of co-ordination or planning? What is the reason?
People in my area are asking me why trucks moved in 48-inch cement culverts, pounding down the road with them day after day, and then turned right around, hauled them out and then hauled in 24-inch culverts. That is something that should be looked into. These were to be used for storm sewers, I presume on the runway, although I am not too certain of that.
I want to know above all else what provision is being made to repay to the Canadian taxpayers money saved by contractors who are using R.C.A.F. equipment in carrying out their contracts, who are using draglines, bulldozers, et cetera, belonging to the R.C.A.F. I should like to know if proper deductions have been made for the use of that equipment which, as I say, belongs to the Royal Canadian Air Force. There is evidence that several contractors are using government equipment in order to carry out contracts which they have entered into.
I think the committee should find out about the lighting arrangements. Is there a bulk contract with the power company, or are meters used? I have reason to believe that they are operating on meters. If they are, and I say "if they are", it must be costing the Canadian taxpayer a pretty sum because thousands of powerful lights are going day after day and night after night, in the hangars and out of the hangars, when the station is not even operating. This was true up to two weeks ago. If they are operating on meters, I should like to know what the committee thinks about that. If they are not operating on meters we should be told something of the bulk contract, if such exists.
Then about water. I am informed that International Water Wells have been in there ever since last spring. People have come to me and asked whether they were drilling for oil. Penhold was operated as an air station during the last war and adequate amounts of water were secured at depths of 150 to 200 feet to carry out the training scheme at that time. I would say that that would be adequate for any scheme which might be inaugurated at this time. I should like to know the amount and nature of the contract with International Water Wells because, as I say, they seem to be just playing around there. They could have got a lot more done if they had been drilling for oil. Let me re-emphasize that there are wells producing abundant water from 150, 175 and 200 feet, and have been right along.
The fuel contract has caused some people a good deal of concern and I think it should be examined into. The supply contract does not concern me quite so much as the handling contract. I should like to know how many times the coal is handled and I should like

to know the details o f the contract each handler has. I should like to know whether the amount paid to the final handler, as it were, is considerably in excess of what is paid at other stations. I should like to know also whether that contractor is ever around the station or did he simply let a subcontract and do very well as a consequence. I have no grievance as far as the individuals are concerned; it is simply a matter of practice and policy.
I assume that my time is almost exhausted but I do want to conclude by saying that during last summer and early fall a great many people came to me. I did not go out seeking anything. These taxpayers began to express concern and I deemed it my duty to try to find out a few things. I am disturbed and people are disturbed. If everything is all right, then I think it necessary that we find that out through a properly constituted method of examination. I know that there have been denials, but that does not surprise me because when I charged in 1945 that there was wanton destruction of surplus war material at Pen-hold I was confronted with vehement denials from all quarters. In fact, on the floor of this house my charges were denied and everything was done to discourage me. However, it so happened that I was a member of the war expenditures and economies committee at that time, and after a great many weeks and a great deal of cross-examination we were given the frank admission that the charges were absolutely true and the committee recommended a change of policy relative thereto. Therefore I am never too greatly impressed by blanket denials. I know the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) cannot be on each one of these jobs but I do say we should be able to acquire a sufficient number of properly qualified inspectors with the right to do their jobs without being hampered, and that they should be allowed to go in there and see that these contracts are carried out as they should be carried out and that the materials that are being used are materials which are essential to the construction of permanent establishments.
It is my understanding that these are to be permanent establishments, and who knows but what the cold war may carry on for twenty-five years or forever, as far as that goes, although we hope not. It is my understanding that they are trying to bring an element of permanency into the construction of these establishments. After all, we are faced with an emergency. We know that. But Canada is not being attacked and it is not as if we were required to put only half the necessary number of nails into a building to get it done in a hurry so that we could drive the enemy back from our shores.
The Address-Mr. Larson
The Canadian taxpayers will bear the burden. They have indicated their willingness to bear the burden of defence no matter what it may be but they require that every conceivable effort be made to ensure that the money which is taken from them and spent is spent in such a way that the results will be obtained which they hope will be achieved, and within a reasonably short period of time. I hope that the government will see fit to recommend to the defence expenditures committee that it should look into these matters or that the committee will take it upon itself to do so. I am sure the taxpayers of Canada will be greatly relieved if they know that that is going to be done.


Mr. F. H. Larson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that, the practice having been established in this house some time ago, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Deslieres) and the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) should be congratulated on their efforts in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Having been subjected to the same pressures at one time, I feel that probably I realize, more than is generally the case, the excellence of their speeches made under such pressures.
Looking at our national picture at this time in the life of this government I would say that the keynote of the government's activities has been a sort of gathering up of the loose ends that have resulted from the pressures exerted on our national unity and the building of this country once again and forever into one solid unit. Geographically, as I have said before in the house, we are split by miles and miles of area separating the various portions of the country one from the other, and it is very easy for us to drift into a position where we are sectional in our outlook. With the various sectional appeals that have been made to different groups in this country in the past by other governments, I do not feel that any other government would have the ability to continue moulding this country into one national unit as our present government has done.
In Saskatchewan we recently had a little contest about who was going to run that province, and the party which might form an alternative government at some time in this country was so short of candidates that I do not see how it could ever feel that it could form an alternative government to the one in power today.


Gordon Graydon: You were short after it was over too.


Frederick Hugo Larson: Yes, but we at least tried. The present government, in conformity with the policy of building up the national unity of

The Address-Mr. Larson the country, has carried out a social welfare and security policy which I think-and I think I will meet with agreement-is second to none in the world. It was felt by many of us that after our senior citizens had served their time in adding to our economic welfare they should receive compensation as of right for their services, and hence the old age pension without a means test. It was also realized by the present government that it was most necessary to foster the interests of our greatest asset, the youth of the country. In some cases it was thought that they were not receiving as much of our national wealth as they should and under our family allowance system mothers were given a bonus according to the number of their children.
It was thought by the government that workers who, for certain reasons, could not obtain employment should have some sort of insurance against unemployment-hence unemployment insurance. Large numbers of people throughout the country and among the representation in the House of Commons are asking for a health insurance scheme. I have lived under a health insurance scheme most of my life provided by our own municipal doctor and hospital set-up, and a good many other rural municipalities in my part of the country have done the same thing. We found that it worked very well and up until the time the health system was put on a provincial basis we seemed to be getting along quite well in my part of the country.
I am certainly in favour of a national health insurance scheme, but one fact that I think we should look at is that there have been national health insurance schemes in many other countries. I do not think anybody will debate the question very strongly with me when I say that the roadblock in the dollar-sterling relationship may be caused to quite some extent by the health scheme put into effect in Great Britain under the labour movement. I think we should examine that situation very carefully because as a nation we certainly do not want to get ourselves into the position where we start something that is not on a sound basis and which we cannot carry out.
The province of Saskatchewan, where I live, has established a provincial hospitalization plan. It was thought that it could be carried on through the contribution by each family of a certain amount of money. It was found that not even half of the cost could be paid for by such contributions and a good deal of money had to be taken out of the consolidated revenues of the province in order to continue the system. The health unit that has been set up in Swift Current is one that has been mentioned in this house. The
way the new constituency of Kindersley has been established, the health unit in Swift Current will become in the future one of my direct interests, and I have made some inquiries about it. It involves a large number of doctors. Some years ago the government of Saskatchewan set up a scale, which has been revised from time to time, of doctors' charges, and the top of that scale is considered to be one hundred per cent. Doctors who are doing certain work in cancer research, tuberculosis research and other types of research have had their fee set at three-quarters of the one hundred per cent or seventy-five per cent.
In the Swift Current health unit, the scale of fees as set up by the province partly applies, along with several other deductions, changes and alterations, and the fees for purposes of medical services in that unit have been set at fifty-three per cent of what the government of Saskatchewan considers should be one hundred per cent.
Now, when you consider that doctors are also looking after old age pensioners on a very reduced basis, it appears to me that this system, which has been so highly lauded by various people, is being supported mainly by the doctors themselves. A doctor, like anyone else, has to make a living. If health schemes are going to be supported chiefly by these men who have spent so much time in training, and who should be in the position to make themselves comparatively well off, it seems to me we are asking a great deal of them. When I hear about medical services not being available to people who cannot afford them, I feel like saying that I do not know of a single instance in which a Canadian doctor has ever said to a person, "I will not give my services to you because you cannot pay for them."
All these measures that I have mentioned are actually measures which tend towards welding this country into one national unit. Some people say that perhaps it is time for a change. I believe we should consider what the alternative would be; I think that is a very important consideration, and I believe the people of Canada will consider it very carefully.
Another problem which we have in Canada is our international responsibilities. We joined wholeheartedly in originating the United Nations, and we have closely supported that organization during the whole of its existence. I feel that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who has had such great honours conferred upon him recently, is correct when he says that the United Nations is still the chief hope for peace. However, we, as well as the people who live behind the iron curtain, did not feel

that we could trust our future to a parliament of the world such as the United Nations could have been. The reason for that is that there are too many people, who might be termed rather irresponsible, controlling a lot of votes in that organization. It was for that reason the security council, with the power of veto, was set up by the big five.
This move, brought about by apprehension in many quarters, practically took the teeth out of the United Nations and hampered its ability to make decisions that would be effective and binding. An armaments buildup was taking place behind the iron curtain, and our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in common with other men who worked closely in designing methods of preventing war, felt that legally we were quite entitled to set up a defence organization within the United Nations. Hence, we have NATO. Now, Canada's responsibilities under NATO are quite extensive. Every day we see criticism levelled at that very much overworked and very responsible minister, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). He is doing a job which, in times past, has required two or three ministers. It is only recently that he has been given an associate minister to help him with that job.
We find absolutely little criticism-we have charges levelled in the house by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw)-of the expenditure of the entire amount of our national revenue. I am speaking percentagewise. There have been the small disappearances in places like Petawawa which have been brought up. We have never had levelled at this government, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) or the Minister of National Defence, any charge that could be made stick that there was any amount of fraud or money being diverted into somebody's pocket when it should have been diverted into the channels for which it was intended.
We are going to hear a lot as we go on from various people who feel that we should put the effort we are putting into our NATO commitments into sending food to Asiatic countries. I agree that there is possibly some merit in what they say, but I want to make one point clear. There is absolutely no foundation for the thought that you can stop people from becoming communists by feeding them. For one thing, the job of feeding them is impossible, and communism is not a solution for service. Communism is a materialistic religion which requires of those people who live under its domination worship of the state. The main reason that we will have nothing to do with communism is that we feel we can worship a higher power which is above the state. For that reason all parties
The Address-Mr. Larson in this house have committed themselves to checking that particular phase of life in some of the misled peoples of this world.
The national unity, which I was discussing, depends a good deal on providing satisfaction for the problems which have to be solved in every part of the world as much as in the various parts of this country that are split up by such wide geographical differences. Let us consider some of the things that affect the prairies, because that is the part of the country I represent. The first thing on which I wish to congratulate this government is the operation of the wheat board. I hope that the pressures that are being put on the wheat board from different angles to get higher prices, to do this or that differently, do not affect too seriously the thinking of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because I feel that people generally

even though we have some kickers-are one hundred per cent behind the board.
For another thing, it is easy for me as a farmer to say that I should have this, that I should have that and that I should have something else; but it would be much harder for me as a farmer if I were given the responsibility to go out and get it. I think that people throughout this country agree with me that in the person of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) we have the best "getter" handling our wheat problems at the present time. I hope that he will not take too seriously some of the criticism that is being levelled at him. I agree that we should get the most that we can for our wheat, but I also agree that we are being well served by those who are at present handling the western wheat crop.
There is one other matter I wish to mention, and I have discussed it before. It is something which my people, consisting mostly of farmers and small businessmen, have asked me to bring up for consideration in the House of Commons. I sympathize completely with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) in the task that he has before him because nobody can be popular and collect taxes. I also want to put one thing on the record, and that is that the farmers of Saskatchewan do not mind paying taxes. When the farmers of Saskatchewan know that their tax money is being spent in the efficient way it is being spent by this government, there is on their part no more reticence to pay taxes than there is on the part of any other group in this country. None of us likes to pay taxes. However, there is no greater reticence on the part of the farmers of Saskatchewan to pay their fair share of what is required to carry out our national responsibility than there is on the part of any other group in Canada.

The Address-Mr. Larson
But there is one matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue and it is not a criticism of him. It is merely a wish that some sort of system could be evolved so that these people might pay their fair share without having to go through this business of having to keep records. A farmer must keep a certain number of records in order to know where he stands; but, on a small farm, to keep the detailed records that are required properly to make out an income tax return involves a tremendous amount of work and, I might say, annoyance on the part of the farmer and the small businessman. I strongly urge that some formula be worked out-possibly a production tax or some other method of assessment- whereby those people could pay their fair share of the money that they need to pay without having to go into this business of trying to be farmers and accountants all at the same time.
There is only one other matter which I should like to discuss, and it should interest my Social Credit friends. I lived in Calgary when the founder of that party was operating at his peak and when his government was elected in Alberta. He was absolutely insistent that the credit of the country be controlled by the people of the country. He was not the only one who felt that way about the matter. As a result a Liberal government has set up the central bank, and the central bank has, within its powers, that of bolstering credit, if credit needs to be bolstered, or of drawing in credit if a boom or something of that kind is going too wild in this country.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Speaker, did I understand the hon. member to say that the Liberal government instituted the central Bank of Canada? I think he is wrong there.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: He is dreaming a bit.


Ernest George Hansell: I think it was Mr. Bennett's regime which did that.


James Arthur Ross: Also the Canadian wheat board.


Frederick Hugo Larson: In any event, the central bank is now operating. If Mr. Bennett did it, all the more credit to Mr. Bennett. Anyway, that institution has been operating, as has been the farm improvement loan system. The people in my part of the country are extremely happy with the farm improvement loan system. The businessmen and the farmers are happy with it. The farmers can get the equipment they need under these guaranteed loans and the businessmen can get paid for the goods which they supply. It is one of the most beneficial measures in our
part of the country, and I wish to compliment the government on the operation of this farm improvement loan system.
As we go along we hear-and we are going to hear more-about the dissatisfaction among the people of Canada. When the time comes for the people of Canada to decide, I am sure they are going to say that they have done very well. As a matter of fact, in the words of the popular song-writer, I think they are going to feel that they have never had it so good.
(Translation):


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the few remarks I wish to offer, I should like to congratulate the hon. member who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Deslieres), as well as the hon. member who seconded the motion (Mr. Schneider).
Everybody here knows that it is never easy for a member to make his maiden speech in this house. These two hon. gentlemen, nevertheless, have acquitted themselves of this task very well. I wish to assure you, though, that I do not share all the ideas expressed by these gentlemen, for reasons which I intend to acquaint you with very shortly.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, we are told-and there are signs aplenty of it-that this House of Commons assembled now for the seventh session of the twenty-first parliament has assembled for its final session. I think we may welcome that fact because, with the end of this parliament there will end, I think, the worst situation that has existed in the House of Commons since confederation.


An hon. Member:: Be careful.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the course of the life of this parliament extending over the past three and a half years we have witnessed a decline in the position of the private member on the government side-yes, an end of all pretence of independence; and as to the government, we have seen them waxing ever more and more arrogant, smug and stiff-necked. Bureaucracy is still written all over their attitudes; and if evidences of repentance are to be forthcoming now, assuredly they come too late to be convincing.
I shall have some observations to make on some of the speeches which have been contributed to this debate, particularly that contributed by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). But I wish to say this, and say it fairly and frankly, that the long speech which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)
[Mr. Larson.)


The Address-Mr. Fleming
delivered in this house on Monday is I think by far the weakest speech that any of us ever heard him deliver.
I hope there will be an opportunity to examine some of the things that the Prime Minister had to say in trying to defend the action of his government in levying exorbitant and extortionate taxation and defending those enormous expenditures, and at the same time, after a speech of two and a quarter hours, still found it possible to be utterly silent on two matters that had engaged the attention of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) at some length in his speech, namely, the policy of the government on television, and the matter of health insurance. It certainly was not for lack of time that the Prime Minister did not say a word about either of those subjects. The oversight could not have been unintentional; it can only be inferred, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister ran away from these two subjects.
In 1949 we saw this house assemble. The government, with the largest majority in this house that any government has ever had since confederation, had unrivalled opportunities to solve all the problems of the country. What do we find three and a half years later? We And, sir, that the problems facing this country are greater by far than they were in 1949. This great opportunity that was given to the government to address itself effectively and courageously to meeting Canadian problems has been wasted by this government. These past three and a half years will go down in history as the wasted years. And now we are told that this government is to ask for another chance. In the face of a record like that, of wasted years and lost opportunities, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied the people of this country will think very carefully before giving another chance to this government to perpetrate another failure.
Sir, the subject of taxation may well engage the attention of this house, because this country is suffering-and that means the vast majority of Canadians in every walk of life -from crushing taxation at the hands of a government that seems to care very little about the burdens that they are imposing upon the people. You see that cavalier attitude reflected in the speech of the Prime Minister on Monday when he said: "I do not think there has been any overtaxation." That is the statement of the Prime Minister, and I presume that is the position upon which his followers are prepared to face the electors, that there has been no overtaxation. Is that not reminiscent of the words used by the Prime Minister in this house on March 6 last, when he attempted to answer the charge
of the Leader of the Opposition that, as revenues and expenditures for the current year then stood, the government had overtaxed every Canadian family-not just taxed, overtaxed-by the sum of $250. The Prime Minister warmed to his task and defended that rate of overtaxation, because he said it was a good thing for the Canadian people that they should be relieved of that surplus purchasing power.
It was a good thing for the Canadian people, so ran his words and his thought, to relieve them of that embarrassing surplus purchasing power. Well, relieve the Canadian people of that surplus purchasing power the government certainly did, and apparently they are quite unrepentant after having deprived the Canadian people of their earnings at a time when the cost of living was high, at a time when most Canadian families were having very great difficulty in making ends meet. The Prime Minister found satisfaction in the extent to which the people were relieved of their means.
And then, of course, while I do not wish to spend too long on the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault), in his very interesting speech last evening, displaying all the helter-skelter zeal of the political convert, he spent no less than half an hour endeavouring to prove that a reduction in taxation is impossible without, so he intimated, following the communist line.
I say in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, let us have more of these speeches, of the kind made by the Prime Minister when he said that there has been no overtaxation, more of the kind contributed by the hon. member for Bonaventure last evening, because certainly these hon. gentlemen, when the budget comes down in March, are going to have to eat their words; otherwise, it is going to be a very different kind of budget from the one that the same Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) introduced in 1949 to meet the political exigencies of the Liberal machine.
Before anybody pays too much attention to the views of the two hon. gentlemen I have mentioned, I should like to put alongside them the comments upon the rates of taxation in this country which have appeared in the columns of two very eminent newspapers. I mention first of all Le Devoir, which on February 18 last said this:
Les impots reglent l'activite economique d'un pays. Quand les impots deviennent excessifs. its tuent l'esprit d'initiative et le commerce aussi sure-ment que les detruit le socialisme.

The Address-Mr. Fleming
If I may attempt a free translation, Mr. Speaker, this is what I would offer:
Taxes regulate the economic activity of a country. When taxes become excessive they kill the spirit of initiative and trade as surely as socialism destroys it.
Then on the same day in the very eminent UAction Catholique the following statement appeared, and I invite my hon. and effusive friend from Montmagny-L'Islet to listen to this.


Mr. Lesage:: I read it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The quotation is as follows:
Le gouvernement federal saigne le contribuable canadien a blanc.
If I may offer a free translation of that statement, Mr. Speaker, it is this:
The federal government is bleeding the Canadian taxpayer white.
When hon. gentlemen opposite say that those of us who are demanding an end to this crushing overtaxation are following the communist line, I wonder what they have to say when responsible newspapers like L'Action Catholique say precisely the same thing, namely, that the Canadian government is bleeding the Canadian taxpayer white.


Jean Lesage: It does not say it is overtaxed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are strained to follow the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet in that rather nice distinction he has drawn. He says that there is a difference between overtaxation on the one hand, and bleeding the Canadian taxpayer white on the other. Well, let him have his choice. The Canadian taxpayer is being bled; his blood is running fast.
The story does not end there, Mr. Speaker. We have hon. members opposite saying in effect that the surpluses are so wonderful, and asking, Are we not glad we have them? One would have thought that it was evidence of supreme achievement when the Minister of Finance, by these extortionate rates of taxation that he has amassed with the assistance of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet and others, has reported this evidence of gross overtaxation at the end of the year. In measuring these unparalleled blunders in national financing we will not be too ready, I am sure, to accept statements to the effect that last year's surplus was, as we were told at one stage, $356 million, at another stage some $250 million. We will rather go back and recall that before the Minister of Finance started to put $100 million in one pocket in the consolidated revenue fund, and another $100 million somewhere else, and then engage in a good deal of heavy expenditure in the closing days of the fiscal year in order to relieve himself of the embarrassment of that
huge surplus, he had about $900 million surplus which was the true measure of the government's excessive taxation last year.
It was with that alternative in mind, and other aspects of the budget that was introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) last spring, that another very eminent newspaper in this country made comment. Le Soleil, in its columns of April 12 last said this:
La presse frangaise du Quebec a accueilli avec une impression teintee de desappointement le budget de M. Abbott. Aucun journal ne lui manifeste de l'enthousiasme. La note generale est celle d'une deception.
If I may offer a free translation, Mr. Speaker, it would run like this: that the French press of Quebec greeted the budget of Mr. Abbott with a reception tinged with disappointment. No newspaper manifests any enthusiasm for it; the general note is that of a deception. Yet in the face of that very pertinent observation on this government's taxation policies we hear hon. gentlemen opposite rising now and saying with great gusto, and some evidence that they are whistling to keep up their courage, that it is impossible for the Minister of Finance to reduce taxes. Well, I think, Mr. Speaker, before we are finished with this debate ways in which the Minister of Finance could reduce taxes, if there were, on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, any will to reduce unnecessary expenditures and to eliminate extravagance, will be fully dealt with.
But let us look now to see what the Minister of Finance himself has to say on this interesting subject. We find that he has not been silent between the sessions. He made a tour of the maritime provinces and a tour of the west. His speech of September 23 is reported thus in the Winnipeg Free Press of September 30. He says:
Taxes are high these days in Canada.
As if he had to go all the way to Winnipeg to tell the people that! And then he continues:
Are taxes too high? This, of course, is simply another way of asking. "Are we spending too much?"
I interject to say that I think there is a good deal to be said for his interpretation. He continues:
You can take my word for it that the official opposition in parliament these days seem to think that we are spending too much.
Well, I can assure the hon. gentleman that he spoke with complete accuracy when he said the official opposition in parliament these days seem to think that the government is spending too much. Nothing could be more certain.

Then he continued on his merry way. In Charlottetown on October 6 he made a speech in which he is reported to have spoken to this effect, that he would be happy if he could break even on this year's budget, but he held out the possibility of tax cuts if Canada's production keeps rising.
Mr. Speaker, we have it both ways there. The man who has delivered these excessive budgets since 1949 said he would be happy to break even on this year's federal budget; but then this member of the cabinet who will be called to the rescue of the Liberal party when he delivers his budget speech next March rose to the occasion and said that he held out the possibility of tax cuts, if Canada's production keeps rising.
Then he moved on to Vancouver. In the Vancouver Sun of October 20 the minister is reported to this effect:
Canadians may look forward to federal tax cuts but certainly not in next year's budget, finance minister Douglas Abbott said here today.
Then he is reported to have said, during the course of a 6,000-word address to the Vancouver board of trade:
To those who think the federal government will enjoy a fat surplus at the end of its fiscal year, Mr. Abbott said, "I shall be happy if we break even."
Then his interview -with the press before he made his speech is reported in this way by the Vancouver Sun:
Mr. Abbott said that this goal-
That is, the goal of improving our standard of living.
-should be reached and taxes cut-
You will note, Mr. Speaker, he is saying that taxes ought to be cut. Then he says this: -but there is little chance of its attainment by next March when the 1953 budget will be brought down.
Then he is reported in the Montreal Gazette of October 21 as having said this in his Vancouver speech:
We can confidently expect that increased production in Canada will make taxation less, despite continuing expenditures for defence and social welfare.
But Mr. Abbott added in a later interview that there is "little chance" of tax cuts in the next budget.
I am sure those words of the minister must have chilled the blood of hon. gentlemen opposite, when he intimated that there would be no tax cuts in his next budget, to be introduced next March. Because the one hope that is nourishing the political lives of hon. gentlemen opposite has been that in his 1953 budget the minister would repeat the rabbit act of 1949 when, after announcing for several previous years that taxation reductions were impossible, somehow he trotted
The Address-Mr. Fleming out substantial reductions in taxation on the eve of the election to save their political hides for the occasion.
Now at least we have the Minister of Finance saying in October that hon. gentlemen opposite, as well as the Canadian people, need not expect any taxation reductions in the next year. Well, I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite will have to do some whistling, from now on, to keep up their failing and flagging spirits.
I mentioned that the Minister of Finance had said that we of the official opposition had been saying the government is spending too much. Of course we say that. We know very well how much this government likes to spend money. This government has the idea that it helps to make votes for itself by spending money. That is one reason they are so anxious to spend so much money before the next election. How otherwise can anyone possibly attribute to sane people these reckless expenditures in which the government is indulging at the present time?
In a book I read recently I found an interesting paragraph. This is a book containing several lectures by Bertrand de Jouvenel. It is entitled "The Ethics of Redistribution", and at page 73 contains this paragraph:
The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the state.
Whatever one's views may be on the observations of the author, it is clear that the spending of money on the part of a government does mean power, and the view of this government is that it does mean votes. I well recall a conversation I had with one of the ministers some six years ago, when I was commenting on wastefulness in duplicated services and expenditures on the part of the dominion and the provinces. I said to him, with regard to one expenditure in particular, "Would it not be much more sensible if the dominion and the provinces got together and shared the expenditures, so the money could be devoted to its purpose through the provinces?" With a knowing smile he said, "Oh, no; that would give"-and he mentioned by name the premier of the province in which he resided-"a chance to make votes".
Well, you see the thought of this government is that if they spend money they make votes; and that is the reason, and the only reason, you see these reckless expenditures being made at the present time. Here we have this record, one which would shock people who were not already accustomed to shocks at the hands of a spendthrift and mismanaging government.

The Address-Mr. Fleming
After having already purchased 1,153,155 neckties, the government in the first half of October spent $32,638 on more neckties. What contribution are those neckties going to make toward resisting aggression in the world? I understood that the whole basis on which the house was called upon to vote something like $2,100 million for national defence this year was that it would have the effect, first, of deterring aggression and, second, if unhappily aggression should come it would enable us to bear our fair share of the burden of resisting aggression successfully. What important functions are these neckties going to serve in resisting aggression or overcoming aggression? As the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) said in a recent radio broadcast, it may be that these neckties are to be used to bind hand and foot every aggressor who might set foot on Canadian soil.
In the eleven months up to February 29 last a total of 1,304,407 pairs of men's shoes had been purchased and orders are still being placed. We were told in a return that in the thirteen months up to April 30 last 117,800 pairs of women's shoes were purchased. I do not intend to take the time to refer again to serving forks except to comment that the scaling down of the orders for serving forks from 63,500 to 14,500 is attributable to the vigilance of the official opposition.
There are six full-time officers and 900 officers and other ranks in the reserve in the Canadian Women's Army Corps. In order to keep off the raindrops a total of
15,000	raincoats have been purchased for them.
Then there is the $839,903 which has been spent on carpets and rugs for the armed forces. As my leader pointed out, that would provide a square yard of rug or carpet for every two members of the armed forces on active service. It is quite evident that the government is showing very great concern about the purchases of rugs, carpets, neckties, raincoats and shoes.
There is no possible way of explaining or justifying expenditures on this scale except that they are being made now with a conscious view toward making friends for this government.


Mr. Mclvor:: It does not need them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member says "it does not need them." If that is so, why does he not get up in the house and tell the government to eliminate these wasteful and extravagant expenditures?
So it goes; and this story of reckless extravagance does not end there. Yesterday my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), had something to say about the


shortcomings in the operations of the unemployment insurance commission. Hon. members might be surprised to know that the unemployment insurance commission of Canada is turning out screeds like this at the public expense. This is issued by the Montreal office of the unemployment insurance commission and is entitled "The Older Worker." I am glad the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is in the chamber because if he does not know that this sort of thing is being turned out, I think he ought to know and should have known before this. This is how it reads:
In savage tribes, where skulls are thick,
And primal passions rage,
They have a system, sure and quick,
To cure the blight of age.
For when a native's youth has fled,
And age has sapped his vim,
They simply knock him on the head,
And put an end to him.
But we in our enlightened age,
Are built of nobler stuff,
And so we look with scorn and rage,
On deeds so harsh and rough.
And when a man is old and gray,
And stooped and short of breath,
We simply take his job away,
And let him starve to death.
That was issued by the unemployment insurance commission of Canada at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. Yet the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) has the effrontery to stand before this house and say that there is no overtaxation. I tell you that there is shameful overtaxation, there is shameful extravagance in the way this government is throwing around the hard-earned money of the Canadian taxpayer.


Mr.   Coie@Verdun-La Salle: I wonder if my hon. friend would permit me to interject 'at this stage. He has referred to the Montreal office of the unemployment insurance commission.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is this a question?


Mr.   Coie@Verdun-La Salle: Yes. Has the hon. member compared the document which he has just read with the useful and worthy propaganda which has been issued by the Montreal office in connection with handicapped workers? Montreal has about the best record in Canada for the re-establishment of handicapped workers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I trust that my time will not be docked for this interpolation which bears only a slight resemblance to a question. I esteem the hon. gentleman as one of my closest personal friends in this house, but may I say to him that if the Montreal office of the unemployment insurance commission is doing its best to redeem itself for having turned out nonsense like this at the expense of the taxpayer I am glad to know it. But I do hold them responsible and I hold the

government responsible for the profligate waste of the taxpayers' money on rubbish such as this.
(Translation):


Mr. LaCroix:: I understand that the hon. member speaks very good French. Would he permit a question? What proof has he that this document was issued by the Montreal office of the unemployment insurance commission or that the document given to him is not a fake?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It gives me great pleasure to show the hon. member the document which I have just read. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like very much to show it to every member in this house.


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: I am anxious to see it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With pleasure.
(Text):
What is the government doing about all this? During the course of his speech on Monday the Prime Minister wrung his hands in the face of accusations and proof of prodigality in the expenditure of the taxpayers' money. He said that we should not hold them responsible for it. When the railway siding up at Petawawa disappeared he said we could not hold them responsible because they were carrying out some prosecutions. He asked us if we had been reading the papers lately. I happen to have been reading the papers about the prosecutions and I am wondering why the rest of them have not been proceeded with. There are others who have been charged, but as yet their trials have not been held.
Where is the Currie report on thefts? We have not heard anything about that. Mr. Currie went overseas at the time of his appointment but it may be that others have been carrying on the work in his absence. Where is that report? Speaking of these thefts the Prime Minister in a most extraordinary excursion said that they had followed up and prosecuted and then he said in effect, "What more could anybody do?"
If the government would exhibit a little more concern over these wasteful expenditures I am quite satisfied that there would be more vigilance throughout the government service. How can you expect vigilance to be exercised, in the Department of National Defence for example, when apparently the minister at the head of the department and the deputy minister were not aware of these extravagant expenditures on clothing? The Prime Minister said in effect, "Well, it might have been different if the minister of the department or the deputy minister of the department had seen these orders before they went out." He left us with the clear understanding that the minister and the deputy minister did not know anything about
The Address-Mr. Fleming these orders before they went out. These orders, Mr. Speaker, have been going out month after month now over a period of practically two years. Are we to be told now by the Prime Minister that the minister and the deputy minister of that department did not know what kind of orders were being issued? That is the impression the Prime Minister gave the house, and he invited the house to excuse the minister and the deputy on that account.
We want no further proof of the incompetence of the minister in charge of that department, or that the government spending machine has been running wild in that department as well as others, than the fact that now, after so much of the damage has been done, the government suddenly decides to appoint an Associate Minister of National Defence. For what purpose? Well, after the generous tributes heaped upon the head of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton) last Monday by the Prime Minister it certainly could not be with a view to exercising supervision over his general activities. Oh no! Is it possible that now the door is to be locked on these profligate contracts after the horse has been stolen? It is a fine time now for the government to wake up. Where has the government been all this time?


Mr. Fraser:: Asleep.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact of the matter is, as we all well know, that the government spending machine has been running wild. It has not been checked by the ministers opposite, and today, while many of them are running about the country making political speeches, these contracts are being handed out and the money of the taxpayers of this country squandered on quite unnecessary expenditures. It is about time these hon. gentlemen stayed on the job and did the job that the country expects of them and that they are paid to do.
There are many things I would have wished to say today, but time does not permit. I wish to add my voice in support of the position taken by my leader when he drew attention in his speech on Monday to the necessity for some concerted effort being made now in the direction of the allocation of assured sources of tax revenue to the governments of this country at the various levels. It is no answer for the Prime Minister to say that the provinces are free to tax in fields within their constitutional powers even though the dominion is also there. What is the sense of talking that way? Once the dominion enters these fields, then under its present rates of taxation it certainly uses up all taxing powers. There is nothing left even in the way of bare pickings for anybody else coming into these fields.

The Address-Mr. Fleming
You know so well, Mr. Speaker, how the federal government has been extending its power and in fact has been remaking the constitutional set-up of the country without any amendment of the constitution simply by taking unto itself more and more taxing powers. In 1939 the dominion took 51 per cent of the tax dollar in Canada. In 1951, just twelve years later, it was taking 77 per cent of the tax dollar.


Jean Lesage: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry, but my time is almost up; I have not time now. In 1940 the tax revenues of the municipalities were $270 million, those of the provinces $355 million and of the dominion $562 million. In 1951 the estimated tax revenues of the municipalities were $600 million, of the provinces $910 million and of the dominion $4 billion. In the face of that situation, hon. members know how the provinces and the municipalities today are curtailing their efforts to meet the needs of their people and to fulfil what is expected of them. In the banking and commerce committee last spring we found that probably the greatest obstacle to increased housing construction today is the fact that municipalities in the areas where houses are most needed at the present time are without the means to provide municipal services. They cannot do it on their present sources of revenue.
What is being done? The provinces have gone as far as they can go, and I think this is true of all of them, in trying to assist municipalities. Yet the federal government, although its responsibility with respect to the housing shortage in Canada is the first and primary responsibility, far greater than that of the provinces and municipalities, nevertheless refuses-


An hon. Member:: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -to meet this need in any form even in the light of the fact that it is curtailing housing construction in Canada today. The same applies to health services. These are a very heavy burden on our provinces and municipalities today. The plight of the municipalities is indeed serious. Therefore I should have thought the house would welcome the contention of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) that it is abundantly necessary now that there should be dominion-provincial conferences with a view to arriving at an understanding among the various levels of government, including the municipalities, so governments will know exactly what their sources of revenue are and


to pay the shot, the government's answer is that they will allow private enterprise to so there will be a more resolute attempt made to meet the needs of other levels of government and in particular the municipalities.


An hon. Member:: What about the gasoline tax?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a major problem and the government is apparently not prepared to do anything to meet it.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, because I see my time is almost up-


An hon. Member:: It should have been up sooner.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -I should like to say something with respect to the subject of television and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a subject concerning which I hope I shall have the opportunity to say more at a later stage of the session.
If there comes about at long last the elimination of that $2.50 nuisance tax, namely the fee on radio receiving sets, the people of Canada will be able to thank the official opposition for the fight it has waged without abatement for more than a decade for the elimination of that nuisance tax.
I make this observation on television. After having taken unto itself in a most bureaucratic and paternalistic manner all control over television and in effect preventing the development of television in Canada so that this country at present, compared with the stage reached in the United Kingdom and the United States, is in a most primitive stage of development thanks to government policy and nothing else, what has been said in the throne speech by the government in offering to let private enterprise in on some of the areas which the C.B.C. is not prepared to enter is nothing but throwing to private enterprise a bone from which all meat and nourishment have been completely removed.
It is not because there has been any unwillingness or lack of enterprise in this country, apart from the government, that we have not adequate development of television in Canada. Private enterprise has been waiting for years for the government to make up its mind. Some applications for television channels have been pending before the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for more than seven years; yet the government has simply sat like a dog in a manger. It was not doing anything effective itself for the development of television and it would not let anybody else do anything. Now that they have got service established in two centres in Canada, Montreal and Toronto, and other parts of the country

are very properly complaining about the concentration of government service in these two areas while the rest of the country is helping develop in areas where there is no possible opportunity of competition for the C.B.C. It is in keeping with the bureaucratic attitude of this government that they foster monopoly. I am sure you well remember, Mr. Speaker, when you and I were members of the special committee on radio broadcasting in 1946 that in reply to a question I put to him, the chairman of the board of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation said he thought that competition from the large privately owned radio stations had been a good thing for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation because it helped to keep the C.B.C. on their toes. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that was true with regard to radio broadcasting in 1946, why not allow a little competition with respect to television in this year 1952?
Here is private capital and private enterprise willing to take all the risks involved if this bureaucratic government, with its mania for monopoly and bureaucracy, will not restrain the development of something for which the people of Canada are crying. Last December the number of television receiving sets in this country was estimated at 60,000. I am prepared to assume that by this time it must be 100,000. Canada has engineers and technicians and artists who are capable of helping this country lead in the development of television. The reason Canada is not leading the field is that this government is stifling and thwarting this development.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise to support the amendment of my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), calling as it does upon this government to introduce at this session legislation to establish a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial participation. I may tell you, sir, that there will be several other members of this group who will speak in this debate and join in urging the government to give serious consideration to what is set forth in our amendment.
The reason we shall repeatedly return to the attack, so far as the need for health insurance is concerned, is that it is becoming quite apparent that the government of the day does not realize how important this question is to the people of Canada. The record, so far as the Liberal party is concerned, supports the statement I have just
The Address-Mr. Knowles made, namely that the government does not recognize the importance of this question. How could any Liberal claim to recognize its importance in view of the fact that it has been in the platform of the Liberal party ever since 1919. Despite the fact it has been in the platform of that party for all those years, when I drew that to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) last June his reply was, yes, it is in our platform and it has been there for 33 years, but surely you do not expect us to bring it in overnight.
I remind you, sir, that on top of all the committee reports and investigations that have been made, evidence of which was placed before this house again yesterday by my colleague the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), a year ago last June we had what we thought was a promise that there would be a special committee on health insurance during the session which met in the early part of 1952. We did not feel that another committee was necessary in view of all the inquiries that had been conducted. But despite our feeling that a committee was not necessary, we were glad to know that we were making at least that much progress. We dared to hope that the promised committee would be set up, and that it would have a result comparable to the result which followed the 1950 committee on old age security, namely that there would be legislation in this important field.
Despite what we thought was a clear-cut promise that there would be such a committee at the first session of 1952, when we met and asked when that committee was to be set up we were informed that the government had decided not to establish such a committee at that session. We are now in another session-indeed this is the third session since the one in 1951 when the promise to take at least the action of setting up a committee was suggested-and still we have no suggestion of any action by this government on the question of health insurance. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the record is a clear indication of the failure of the government and its supporters to realize how important this question is to the Canadian people.
I regret that the other two opposition parties in this house, in my view, despite their professed support of the principle of health insurance, are playing into the government's hands. The Progressive Conservatives, in their amendment, have asked for another inquiry into this question. If anything could be more unnecessary I do not know wbat it is. The information and material on the

The Address-Mr. Knowles basis of which legislation could be enacted is already abundant and complete. Our friends to the left in the Social Credit group profess support of a program of health insurance, but the other night in speaking about this matter the leader of the- party, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), suggested that what was needed in relation to this question was to move gradually. They may mean by that the support which the member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) suggested today, but I suggest that to tell this government to set up another inquiry, as the Tories are doing, or to suggest to the members of the government that they move gradually, as the Social Crediters are doing, is to play right into the hands of the Liberals who are quite prepared to stall on this question as they have done already for 33 years.
We feel we are expressing the views of the Canadian people when we say that this is one of the important questions that should be dealt with at this session. It is not one of those questions that should be bandied about during the course of an election campaign, with the promise to set up a committee in the next parliament and perhaps take action in the parliament following that one. This is a question that calls for action at this session of parliament.
I have been referring, Mr. Speaker, to the importance of this question. We do wish we could impress upon the government what it means to the average Canadian citizen not to be able to afford the full measure of health services and health protection that modern medical science is in a position to offer, if we could only organize the financing of the cost of medical services.
According to the 1951 census figures, some of which are now coming to us, in Canada's twenty largest cities we find 27-8 per cent of the total population, In those twenty largest cities 49-8 per cent of all wage and salary earners received an annual income of less than $2,000. According to another survey made by the dominion bureau of statistics in 1947-48, it was ascertained that families in that year-I admit I am speaking about different years but one has to take these figures as he gets them and allow for any adjustments that should be made-who had incomes of $2,000 or less were able to spend on health care not more than $70 in any case. The figure ranged from $70 per year down for all those with incomes of $2,000 per year or less.
Other figures which I have obtained from the dominion bureau of statistics show that in 1950, which was in between the two years I have already mentioned-, the average stay in hospital in Canada was 10-5 days, at an average cost per patient day of $8.13 or


an average total hospital expense of $85.36. That is the average annual hospital bill, $85.36. Yet the survey of family income and expenditure to which I have already referred indicated that the people with incomes of $2,000 or less were able to spend on all health care, in the course of a year, only $70 or less.
I could go on and show likewise, from figures for the year 1951, that the total expenditure on health in Canada in that year made by Canadians privately was $496 million, which results in an average family expenditure of $129.50. What I ask hon. members to note is this. If the average hospital cost is $85.36 and the average total family expenditure on health per year is $129.50, what is the position of the large number of wage and salary earners who, according to the other survey to which I referred, are able to spend only $70 a year or less on all health, medical and hospital care?


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


William Joseph Browne: When he speaks of the average earner getting $2,000 or less, is he not failing to take into account that there may be two or three earners in the family? Does that consideration not upset his calculation?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was not
speaking of an average worker. Averages are often misleading. I was taking -the actual fact that 49 [DOT] 8 per cent of the wage and salary earners in the twenty largest cities to which I referred are receiving not an average income of $2,000; rather all of that number are receiving $2,000 a year or less.


William Joseph Browne: The question is still good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think not. But even if my hon. friend wants to contend for purposes of his position, whatever it is, that there are some families in which there is more than one earner, I ask him to consider the families where there is only one earner, and that is the case in most of them. They are able to spend on all health, hospital and medical care only $70 a year or less, whereas the annual average cost for hospital care is $85.36 per family, and the average per family for medical expenses is $129.50. It simply means that there is a whole section of our population which is getting-because it cannot afford to pay for it-less of health, hospital and medical care than, on an average,

would seem to be the minimum requirement for Canadians at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, when you interpret that situation in terms of ill health, suffering, mental anguish and concern over unpaid hospital and doctors' bills, I suggest that we in Canada are submitting ourselves to a social, psychological and economic loss that common sense would dictate we should not endure.
In the course of this debate I have heard a number of hon. members comment on the large number of people who receive help from doctors despite the fact that they cannot afford to pay for it. I have heard references to many cases where doctors receive far less than would be their normal fee for the type of service they are giving, and I recognize all of that to be true. But what I ask hon. members to bear in mind is that many Canadians need medical care, the attention of doctors and hospitalization, but because they cannot afford it they do not seek it or do not ask for it, or in cases of necessity they put it off for much longer than, for the sake of their health, should be the case. What we are suggesting is that we should have a plan that is based on common sense, on organization, on pooling and sharing this problem so that all our people can get the best of medical and hospital care that is available.
This idea is not one that we alone advocate. It has been put forward, as I say, by the Liberals ever since their convention in 1919, and the library shelves contain books and periodicals which are full of arguments in support of the whole principle of health insurance. In its green book proposals to the provinces in 1945 the dominion government spelled it out very well when it said:
Health insurance enables the cost of illness to be prepaid, so that by paying regular sums when they are well people are able to meet the costs of illness when they are ill without being financially crippled.
The government also said at that time:
Health insurance not only enables individuals to prepay their medical costs, but does this in such a way as to secure a wide pooling of risks and distribution of costs in much the same manner as any other form of insurance.
I also hold in my hand an extremely interesting little booklet put out during the war by the wartime information board, mainly for the benefit of the armed forces. It is entitled "Canadian Affairs", volume I, No. 21, November 15, 1944. Its subject was "Canada Plans Security". It was written by a gentleman who was then not a civil servant but who is now one of the top and most esteemed civil servants in this country, namely Dr. George F. Davidson, deputy minister of welfare in
The Address-Mr. Knowles the Department of National Health and Welfare. In this pamphlet, Dr. Davidson says:
There are still gaps in our social security program. Chief among these concerns the question of illness. When sickness strikes, it strikes with a two-edged sword. Not only does the workman lose his pay during the period he is away from work- worse than that, he has to bear the crushing blow of medical, hospital, and other expenses, running sometimes into hundreds of dollars.
He then goes on to say that health insurance is the remedy. Then he develops certain details, gives us the history of the study that has been given to health insurance, and reminds us of the proposals that have been made. Then toward the end of the pamphlet, having summed up various aspects of social security, including a health insurance program, which he felt were in the cards so far as the future was concerned, this is what he said under the heading of "What It All Costs":
But not all of this represents additional cost. We are meeting now from our own individual resources, as best we can, the heavy medical and hospital expenses that we encounter from time to time. We are carrying now in large part the cost of our own unemployment, eating up our savings when we fall out of work. We are paying now, to whatever extent we can, through private insurance plans and through savings of one kind or another, for the possibility of retirement or death.
So, in large part, government intervention to provide these social schemes would mean we would pay by taxes and contributions for what we have been trying-unsuccessfully on the whole-to purchase privately.
The concluding paragraph of this extremely interesting pamphlet commences with these very telling words:
Canada, in short, can afford to provide security for her people. She cannot afford not to provide it.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, when the special committee on old age security met in 1950, it found it impossible not to deal to some extent with the question of health insurance, for it as well as other matters was related to the whole question of old age security. Despite the fact that this matter was outside of our terms of reference, our report which was tabled in the House of Commons on June 28, 1950 dealt-briefly, it is true but nevertheless it dealt with it-with the question of health insurance; and this is what it said in part:
It has been estimated, however, that the over-all cost of a comprehensive system of health insurance would probably be not less than $300 million annually, although it must be added that a large proportion of such an amount would represent not a new burden on the people of Canada, but merely a rechannelling of existing expenditures on various forms of health care.
That in the main, Mr. Speaker, is what we are advocating when we put forward the claim for a program of health insurance. It is not in the main something new so far as health services are concerned, although it is true



The Address-Mr. Knowles that a great extension is needed. What we are asking is that there be a rechannelling of our expenditures, a pooling of the burden of health costs so that on a common-sense basis all our Canadian people can get the care they need and that medical science and our medical people are able in this modern age to provide.
It has already been indicated-indeed it was by the hon. member for York South yesterday-what illness means in terms of lost man hours at work. The elimination of that economic loss would have to be set off against any additional cost that health insurance might involve. And I suggest that as a modern civilization that knows how to span the world, as we do, by amazing means of transportation and communication, we are just being stupid if we do not organize the financing of our health services so that all our Canadian people can have the benefit of the best health services that are available today. I hope that the other members on the opposition side of the house will join with us as this session proceeds in pressing upon the government the urgency of this matter.
It is not something to be the subject of a further inquiry, as the official opposition suggests. It is not something to be approached gradually, as the leader of the Social Credit party suggests. It has been going on gradually for a third of a century or more. It is something that is of concern to Canadians now;, it is something that calls for legislation at this particular session. While we wait for these further inquiries that the Tories here suggest; while we move gradually as the Social Credit leader would suggest, people are being sick and are not getting the attention they need; people are dying unnecessarily; people are burdened with the costs of medical and hospital bills that are around their necks as long as they live. And not only that; Canada as a whole suffers a great loss because we do not make it possible for all that medical science knows to be brought to bear upon the life and the health of our Canadian people.
I hope that with greater urgency being pressed upon the government by the entire opposition, the government will realize that this is not a question on which they can play politics any longer, that they can put off until after the next election. It is a question for action at this session of parliament; and if the members of the cabinet are not prepared, on their own initiative, to do something about it, I hope the private members on the Liberal side of the house, in their caucuses behind closed doors, will press upon

the government that this is one subject about which they must do something at this session of parliament.
I wish to say a few words about another question that comes under the heading of social security, namely old age security. It seems to be a matter of pride on the part of supporters of the Liberal government that at long last they responded to our demands and the pressure of public opinion in this country for the removal of the means test from the old age pension-and it was a splendid move. But those same Liberals seem to be quite satisfied with the fact that the pension being paid to our citizens 70 years of age and over is only $40 a month. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it does not need to be argued at all that that amount is hopelessly and woefully inadequate, and that if we do accept the principles of social security that were outlined in this booklet by Dr. Davidson from which I quoted a few moments ago, the time has come to increase the amount of the old age security payment to a figure more commensurate with today's cost of living. I would suggest in responsible terms that it should be not less than $60 a month. There are many who feel -and personally I share that feeling-that the amount should be even higher than that.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that with the tendency in industry generally to retire people at the age of 65, we are being most unfair to our people to leave that gap between 65 and 70 with the means test. Thus another change that should be made is that the means test should be taken off at age 65.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I feel-and I was glad to note one of the new Liberal members of the house the other day expressing this view as well-the time has come to remove completely the means test from the pension _ paid to our blind citizens. Surely with that special handicap which these people have we should do our best to make up for it slightly by giving them a pension not on the basis of means but as a matter of right as some compensation which their fellow Canadians feel they should have.
It is perfectly proper for anyone who listens to what I am saying, calling as I am for extensions in the field of social security- health and old age security, removal of the means test for the blind, and so on-to raise questions about the cost. And that of course is a very popular reply on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and on the part of government supporters; that it is all very well provided that we are prepared to pay for it. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when we are considering this whole question of the cost of social security benefits what we

The Address-Mr. Knowles
should do is look at them in a proper perspective. We should relate them to the total productive capacity of the country. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), and others on the government side like to create the impression that a disproportionately large amount of our national income is going into social security. We are told that in round figures our budget is something over $4 billion. We are told that a little over half that, $2 billion, is for national defence, and that nearly half of the other half, or nearly one-quarter of the total of our national budget, is going into social security.
There came to my desk a few days ago, as no doubt there came to the desks of all hon. members, a further document from the research division of the Department of National Health and Welfare. This one is social security series memorandum No. 14. I congratulate this department on the tremendous amount of very valuable research they have done in all aspects of social security. But this one seems to be designed to support the contention of government supporters that too large a proportion of our money is going into social security or at least as much as the country can stand. For example, to take the extreme case that is built up in this memorandum, I find that on page 15 reference is made to the fiscal year ended March 31, 1951, and to the total expenditures of the federal government, of all provincial governments and of all municipalities, and then they are added up. As against that total there is set the total amount spent at each of these levels in health and social welfare expenditures, and they are added up, and then the one total is set against the other in terms of a percentage. On that basis we are told that for the fiscal year that ended March 31, 1951, the total amount of health and social welfare expenditures was $1,058,738,000. This was out of total expenditures by all levels of government of $4,858,305,000. In other words the argument, or the case, is set before us in these terms: 21-8 per cent of the total of the revenues of all governments was spent on health and social welfare expenditures.
Before I make the main comment I want to make on that -I should like to point out that included in these health and social welfare expenditures are not only all expenditures that could be considered as such by the provincial and municipal governments, but in the case of the federal government there are included old age pensions, pensions for the blind, family allowances, unemployment insurance benefits, veterans' pensions, war veterans' allowances, hospital and other allowances for veterans, and even prairie
farm emergency fund payments. Thus one must not think that that figure I have given of over a billion dollars relates to the more exclusive forms of social security as we usually understand them.
I shall come back to that in a moment. But even before I do, what it seems to me this house should realize is that while this total sum, this large sum of $1,058,738,000 that the department was able to build up, is 21-8 per cent of the revenues of the three levels of government, it is only 4-9 per cent of the gross national product for the year for which these figures were prepared.
I believe a society such as ours that believes in social security, that believes in bearing one another's burdens, that believes in the whole idea of community responsibility and of being civilized, is not going too far and indeed, is not going far enough when it devotes-even at the highest figure, the department can build up-only 4-9 per cent of its gross national product on these various health and welfare expenditures.
Those are the figures, of course, for the year ended March 31, 1951. We are now in a different year, and in the meantime we have had a change in the old age program. Hence those figures will be different when they come out for another year. But I am satisfied that the increase in the amount spent on these various items will not represent any higher percentage of the gross national product because the gross national product is going up. The figure for that earlier year was $21,241 million. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has estimated that for this fiscal year it will be $22,500 million; so the percentage will probably be no greater when we have the comparable report for the current fiscal year.
But with respect to the current fiscal year the estimates indicate that we have voted $322 million for old age security. That is one of the figures ministers use to build up the large sum they say we are spending on social security, and they give it to us in terms of its percentage of the national revenue. But I submit that a realistic perspective is to look at it in terms of the gross national product, of the total wealth we are producing in this country.
The Minister of Finance says that this year our gross national product will be $22,500 million. Well, the $322 million which we allocate for old age security is only 1 [DOT] 4 per cent of that gross national product. And yet our senior citizens, 70 years of age and over, number about 5 per cent of the population. That, in straightforward and realistic terms, is what we are doing. We are allocating 1-4 per cent of the gross national product to 5

The Address-Mr. Knowles per cent of the citizens of this country. If there were acceptance of my suggestion that it should be increased to not less than $60 per month, the percentage would be increased only 2-1 per cent of the gross national product for 5 per cent of the population of the country. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, therefore, that a suggestion of that kind is not at all out of line. It is not as far as our older citizens might ask us to go; surely we should not fail to go at least that far.
Similarly, if one built up the other items for which I have argued-the removal of the means test after the age of 65, the removal of the means test so far as blind pensioners are concerned, a health insurance program, and so on-all these put together would still leave the total amount we would spend on health and social welfare at a figure not much over five or six per cent of the gross national product or of the total wealth we produce in this country.
I suggest that if we were to spend that amount of money, particularly that portion of it which would be in a health insurance program, the saving in the loss of man-days of work and the general improvement that we would create in the lives of our people could result in a comparable increase in the gross national product. I say that what we are proposing is not that some Santa Claus should hand things out; rather, what we are proposing is just plain, ordinary common sense, and I am satisfied that is the way the people of this country feel.
I hope the proposals we are making will be considered by the government in that light, that it will realize we are not asking that the Canadian people be given something for nothing, but rather that we are simply asking that the people of the country who produce the nation's wealth, who are responsible for our huge gross national product, get back a reasonable share of that gross national product, and that they get part of that reasonable proportion or share in the form of social security and in the form of protection of their health so they can enjoy life as it should be possible in Canada at this time.
Before my time comes to a close may I touch briefly on two or three other subjects. I join wholeheartedly with those who have called upon the government to take action at this session in connection with the means test as it applies to the War Veterans Allowance Act. Hon. members know that last session, when the act was amended, some of us were not at all satisfied with the income ceilings that were retained in the act, which permit in most cases only $10 a month of other income to a burnt-out pensioner, be he single or married.
[Mr. Knowles.j

It is not without significance that the Canadian Legion so soon after that legislation was passed has again launched a campaign, which I support, calling for an increase in the permissible income ceiling. Everyone knows how responsible that body is, and I suggest real attention should be paid by the government to the fact that they are back already insisting that something be done about the means test under the War Veterans Allowance Act. For my part, I think the allowance should have been $60 and $120 for single and married persons respectively, as the Legion asked. But at least action should be taken at this session to raise substantially the permissible income ceiling provided in the act.
Similarly I still feel, and hon. members have heard me mention this repeatedly on the floor of the house, that something should be done for our retired civil servants, particularly those in the lower income brackets. During the years I have been urging the government to take action on this matter, other governments have taken action. In the United States they have passed a special provision for increasing on a percentage basis, within certain brackets, the pensions of those already retired. Recently there has been a second pensions increase bill in the United Kingdom, raising the pensions of those already retired. There has been recognition by those governments that while those people were retired on the pension rates provided by the law at the time they retired, conditions over which the pensioners had no control have increased their cost of living, and that they are entitled to a better break.
I hope our Canadian retired civil servants will be given consideration at this session. I could hope that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) was not off the beam yesterday, as I fear he was, when he expressed the view that in the speech from the throne he saw that something was going to be done for them. I am afraid the hon. member had not read it carefully, because the speech from the throne says only that the Civil Service Superannuation Act is to be amended. That affects only those who are still in the service. I contend that something must also be done for those already retired, particularly those in the lower brackets.
Before this session gets along much farther there will be opportunity for some of us to call to the attention of the government other items of unfinished business left over from former sessions. There will be the question of the check-off of trade union dues, which I hope the government will endorse this year. There is also the question to which the Prime

Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made reference the other night, namely the deductibility of medical expenses for income tax purposes. I would remind hon. members what happened at the last session. My motion seeking removal of the 4 per cent limitation passed the house unanimously, but the Minister of Finance chose not to change the act accordingly. The people of Canada expect a better deal than that this time. My motion is on the order paper again this session, and I hope greater consideration will be given to what I am satisfied are the wishes of the Canadian people in respect of this matter of medical expenses in relation to income tax.
One other thought, and I shall take my seat-and I believe I shall have finished within my 40 minutes-and that is to express the hope that there will not be a delay of ten years, or even nine years or five years, in dealing with the question as to how future redistributions of seats in the House of Commons are to be effected. It is not my purpose at this moment nor is there time to revive the feeling which existed in the house last June because of the redistribution which was effected at that time. The feelings which some of us had have been confirmed by the feelings we found to exist in our constituencies and in various parts of Canada during the recess.
The point I wish to make is that there was a much wider feeling this year than ever before that the time has come for redistribution to be carried out by an independent commission. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) suggested on several occasions that the time to raise the question of an independent commission-although I did not agree with him-was not when we were dealing with redistribution. He suggested that he would be glad to have me join with him at the first session after that last redistribution in proposing that this matter of finding another way to do it should be given serious study. I hope when the hon. member for Quebec South gets back to the house he will remember the suggestion he made and will call upon the government to set up a committee at this session of parliament to study the whole question of having future redistributions of the seats in this House of Commons effected by an independent commission.
There is a good deal of dissatisfaction in the country with what was done last June and July. That dissatisfaction is very evident in my own province where the new constituencies vary all the way from one with only
40,000	population to one with over 81,000.
The Address-Mr. Dickey No one can possibly defend such a discrepancy. The only answer to that kind of situation and the kind of boundary lines that are drawn by parliamentary committees is to get this business out of parliament and have it done by an independent commission so the people of Canada will feel that the job is being done for them and not for hon. members who happen to be sitting in parliament at the time the matter is under review.
I hope this matter will receive consideration along with the others that I have suggested. And once again I press upon the government as a matter of top importance at this session the urgent need for a nation-wide program of health insurance as is proposed in the C.C.F. amendment now before this house.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are of sincere congratulation to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. These two new members have covered themselves and their constituents with glory by their maiden speeches, and I am sure all hon. members look forward to their continued participation in the debates of this house.
I want to express my sincere congratulations to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Campney). These two gentlemen have been well and favourably known in this house for many years, and we wish them every success in carrying out the new and heavy responsibilities which have fallen upon them.
It is a pleasure to me to speak this afternoon for the first time through the fine voiceraising equipment which has been installed in this chamber by a firm located in the constituency of Halifax. As this system continues to be in operation I hope that not only hon. members of the house but members of the public who' come into the galleries to follow our deliberations will find it of great benefit in properly following the proceedings.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) dealt in some detail with complaints which he had received regarding two construction projects which are under way in his province for the Department of National Defence. No one is more anxious to receive notice of complaints of this nature than the ministers of the departments of this government who are responsible for construction activities of this kind. From time to time we do get word of complaints, and those complaints are quickly and thoroughly investigated. I am happy to say that on almost every occasion careful investigation
124	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dickey satisfies the concern of those who have brought the matter to the attention of the proper authority.
I assure the hon. member that so far as the Department of Defence Production and Defence Construction Limited are concerned, we believe that conditions at both the locations mentioned are satisfactory. However, immediate inquiry will be made to establish that fact. We will welcome and will co-operate fully in any investigation conducted by the committee on defence expenditures when that committee is set up.
I should like to deal briefly with certain suggestions which have been made outside this house that the morale of Canada's armed forces serving in Europe as part of our NATO army and air force leaves something to be desired. I had the privilege and I may say the pleasure of visiting our army and air force units in Europe and the United Kingdom some three weeks ago. From my observations and experience I think I can assure the house and the country that there is definitely no serious difficulty. The morale of our forces is extremely high and satisfactory.
Perhaps if I gave a brief resume of what I saw in Europe you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members would be in a better position to judge the facts. The main burden of the complaints which I have heard is in connection with our army component of the NATO forces, which consists of the 27th brigade stationed in and around Hanover in Western Germany. Hanover is a large city situated approximately 45 miles west of the boundary of the east zone of Germany, and is therefore quite close to the iron curtain. It was quite an experience to a person like myself to feel that I was so near to the border of that area of the world which is causing us so much concern at the present time.
For the past few years Hanover has been the centre of a large concentration of displaced persons, and it is only recently that the city has got back to a more normal and ordinary life. It would require some time for me to describe the various units of the brigade and the exact nature of the quarters in which they are located. Suffice it to say that the Canadian troops are all quartered in excellent permanent barracks with living quarters for officers, N.C.O.'s and men that are the equal of anything in this country and in my experience distinctly better than most. Adequate canteen and recreational facilities are available to our troops in the form of movie theatres, canteens, reading rooms and the like. There are in our barrack areas gymnasiums and one excellent indoor


swimming pool which provide facilities for indoor exercise both as a matter of drill and also free time relaxation. A program of rigorous training and a sports program give more than adequate opportunity for outdoor exercise to all our troops. The sports program includes everything from boxing and gymnastics to cross-country running.
The medical, dental and postal services are excellent. Our field ambulance unit has a small hospital for the immediate use of the Canadian troops, and a large and well-equipped British military hospital is available for more serious cases.
I was particularly impressed with the nature and extent of the educational program available to our brigade troops. I formed the opinion that it is by all standards a better and wider program than is available at the present time to similar troops in Canada. It is true that the opportunities for giving time for an educational program are better in the conditions under which the brigade finds itself in Germany, and there has perhaps been more incentive to the personnel to take advantage of the educational facilities that are available. However, the fact is that they are entering into the educational program very well indeed.
One of the main matters of concern to any troops or any army is that of food. The ration situation of our brigade and all our NATO forces is extremely good indeed. We are drawing rations from the United States quartermaster's corps supplemented to Canadian scale, and there is absolutely no complaint with the food at all. The personnel of the brigade are as you would expect. The officers are largely young men, almost 100 per cent of them having overseas service during world war II. The same is true of the N.C.O.'s and men. They are all first-class young Canadians, and from my observation I would say they are enjoying their military service as much as any Canadians could be expected to enjoy being outside of Canada for the length of time and under the conditions under which they are serving.
The general impression the brigade gives to any visitor, and certainly which it gave to me, is one of smartness and efficiency. I was able to make inquiries outside of the brigade in the Hanover area and also in other parts of Germany and in England. I was informed by people who know that the Canadian brigade gave a superb performance in recent extensive manoeuvres in West Germany, and I know that they gave a very fine account of themselves.
What about morale? As you, Mr. Speaker, and many members of the house are aware,

morale is an indefinable thing. It is a composite of pride of service, pride in your formation and pride in your unit, of confidence in the leadership that the officers and N.C.O.'s give to the men. It is a composite of general satisfaction with food and living conditions and a realization that reasonable facilities for recreation, sports and amusements are available.
All these elements exist so far as our brigade is concerned, and I can assure hon. members that the result is that the morale of the brigade is very high indeed. Reports indicating that there is some concern about low morale have arisen, I understand, from newspaper stories dealing with the subject which were based not on personal evidence but on secondhand opinions and suggestions. Having been on the spot, I can say most sincerely that these suggestions are not soundly based.
I was interested after returning from Europe when several statements by other people who had had an experience similar to mine were brought to my attention. For example, in the Hamilton Spectator of November 15 there is an account given by a resident of Dundas. It reads as follows:
. . . though he was no authority on military procedure, he and his companion, having spent twelve days in Germany and considerable time at Hanover where the 27th brigade is stationed, were of the opinion that the morale of the troops was fine. Their main complaint to Mr. Bowen and himself, he said, was that they did not have enough to keep them busy.
I am sure the reference to their not having enough to keep them busy did not arise from statements by the troops that they did not find their training sufficiently active and rigorous, because the training program is exceptionally good. However, young Canadians in a foreign land do like to get around and see the country in which they are living, and many of our troops find that their inability to speak German limits their activities in this direction. In the Montreal Gazette of November 17 there is a story from Ottawa reporting statements made by Brigadier W. C. Coke, now retiring from the army as director general of medical services. The article reads:
"I have just returned from Germany after visiting every unit of the brigade", Brigadier Coke said.
That is the 27th brigade.
"I found nothing wrong with morale or welfare." He added that on a recent exercise "Very senior British officers expressed admiration of the bearing and fitness of this formation. This brigade is rated second to none in Germany. I have never seen a brigade training under peacetime conditions exhibit a higher degree of esprit de corps."
I can confirm every word of that statement by Brigadier Coke, and my considered
The Address-Mr. Dickey opinion is that the morale of the 27th brigade is extremely good indeed.
The other components of our NATO forces are two fighter wings of the R.C.A.F. There has been no real suggestion that these units are not satisfactory from the point of view of morale and everything else so far as I know, but having visited them I think I should say that they present a most satisfactory picture to anyone coming to see how they are getting along. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are up to date on our commitments to our NATO allies. The fact is that the six F-86 squadrons that we have in Europe form the largest number of fighters considered fully capable of dealing with the Russian MIG-15. Those Canadian planes, which have been proven in combat in Korea, are now stationed one wing in France and one wing in England. They have proven themselves to be ready to meet whatever may be before them.
The first Canadian fighter wing is at North Luffenham. They are established there in permanent R.A.F. barracks at a very fine R.A.F. airdrome. It could be nothing but a pleasure for anyone to see how well they are getting along, and the excellent facilities they have. The three squadrons are all happy and indulging in very detailed and busy competition among themselves on matters of fitness. The pilots are obviously delighted with their aircraft. Their pride is helped by the fact that they realize that their colleagues in all the other air forces on the continent are jealous of the fine planes and are looking forward to having comparable equipment themselves.
One fighter squadron at North Luffenham reached that base by means of operation "Leapfrog I", in which those planes were flown from Canada to England. The second Canadian fighter wing is stationed at a new airfield which has been built for the NATO forces in France. The planes arrived there as a result of operation Leapfrog II, in which they were all flown from Canada direct to their airfield in France. This was one of the finest operations that has been carried out by any air force since the end of world war II. The arrival of this squadron in France under these conditions made a tremendous impression on all the members of the NATO alliance in Europe. The airport itself is still partially under construction, that is to say the runways are complete and the marguerites, but some of the living accommodation and other facilities were not completed at the time the airfield was occupied. The construction is going ahead satisfactorily, and while personnel met very severe weather conditions during the period in which they did

The Address-Mr. Dickey not have full occupancy of their living quarters, they put up with this discomfort in good spirit. I am sure they all look back with satisfaction on the way No. 2 fighter wing occupied that airfield and brought it to fighting efficiency under very difficult circumstances.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, may I say that neither the 27th brigade nor the R.C.A.F. units in our NATO forces have any peers in Europe today, and we can all be extremely proud of the manner in which they have conducted themselves.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with another question which has many aspects, one of which is closely connected with the question of morale in all our armed forces, whether at home or abroad. This is the very generalized and repetitious criticisms about procurement for the armed forces which we have been hearing over the last few months. This criticism is always accompanied by general remarks regarding waste, extravagance and unnecessary expenditures. I think it is not unfair to say that these criticisms, are founded on the allegation that the items that have been singled out for attention are examples of expenditures which are unjustified, either in their nature or in their extent.
A good example of this type of criticism can be found in the remarks made by the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) during this debate last evening. As an introduction to what I have to say on the question -my remarks will not be directed solely to the hon. member's statement but to similar statements made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) this afternoon-I should like to quote what the hon. member for Middlesex East said at page 89 of Hansard for November 25:
We see where the Department of Defence Production has purchased within the past year almost one million dollars worth of broadloom rugs. People do not mind paying for airplanes, guns and other supplies for our troops, but I think the people of Canada are getting sick and tired of this arm chair army for which we are buying supplies.
I regard that as a very significant and illuminating statement, Mr. Speaker. I should like to examine it in some detail, as it emphasizes the kind of thinking that is going on in the ranks of the official opposition and the manner in which they are employing half truths in order to make some baseless suggestions and to pattern innuendoes in an attempt to create an atmosphere of suspicion and bad feeling. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), who spoke earlier this afternoon, dealt with this kind of thing very briefly but quite effectively when he pointed
TMr. Dickey.]
out the work that had been done last year by the defence expenditures committee in examining and putting on the record the facts in relation to these matters which have been raised. It is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that we have heard of the rugs, the boots and other matters that have been mentioned.
The purpose, I presume, of these baseless suggestions is to achieve some political damage in so far as this government is concerned. I am afraid they will achieve some very different purpose which I shall suggest in a moment. First of all I should like to draw attention to the facts relating to the purchase of rugs, to see just exactly what they are.
The statement is:
' We see where the Department of Defence Production has purchased within the past year almost one million dollars worth of broadloom rugs.
This is the fact. The purchases of broadloom rugs from April 1950 to date are approximately $1 million. But the way in which the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) spoke, as well as other members of the official opposition who have been dealing with these problems, leaves the impression that this bald statement of an expenditure of $1 million for a certain purpose is all the information that is available.
I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Middlesex East, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) the proceedings of a committee of parliament which sat last session and on which certain members of the official opposition were extremely active members. The proceedings of that committee have been published. I hold in my hand a copy of the proceedings, No. 15, which deals with the evidence that was given on Tuesday, June 10, 1952, and it has been available to the hon. member for Middlesex East and to all the other members of this house-and for that matter to the members of the public-since some time toward the end of June of last year. The question of rugs, which was dealt with in some twenty words by the hon. member for Middlesex East, was dealt with in that committee in its proceedings of that particular day as follows. This is a statement made by the deputy minister of national defence, who was dealing seriously with this particular problem. I may say that I am sorry to put this long quotation on Hansard, Mr. Speaker, but I think it should be done. This is what he said:
The next item is rugs and carpets. Rugs and carpets are slightly more complicated a category to explain in that there are quite a few articles under the heading of rugs and carpets. Included in these are not only the type of rug of a size 9 feet by 12

feet which is placed on the floor of lounges and messes but the kind of matting used on the interior decks of a number of ships.
I might perhaps try to outline to the members of the committee what the various rugs are used for. A rug or carpet 6 feet 9 inches by 9 feet is provided in each officer's single quarter. A small rug 2 feet 3 inches by 4 feet 6 inches is provided as something to cover the concrete or linoleum floor alongside the bed of each man in the other ranks single quarters. In lounges, officers lounges and NCO's lounges and men's lounges in the active force, larger rugs 9 feet by 12 feet are provided on the general basis of one per 200 square feet of floor area. The allowance for the reserve force is just one half of that-one per 400 feet of floor area.
In hospitals there is provided in sunrooms or solaria one per 300 square feet of floor area and, in addition, there are a limited number provided at government expense in married quarters at isolated units. We have found by experience that it is more economical to furnish completely a married quarter at an isolated station-and by isolated I mean really isolated such as Aklavik, Goose Bay, some of the stations on the northwest highway system, and so on-than it is to move the furnishings of the dependents. There is quite a substantial saving on the transportation charges and the cost of furnishing isolated married quarters completely is less than paying those transportation charges.
That is the basis then of the issue of the various rugs. Now, the number required in this two-year period would necessarily be quite large by reason of the substantial construction program that is now being carried on. All new single quarters for men are provided with one of these small throw rugs I mention as are all new NCO's quarters. The numbers which have been ordered are related not only to what was being constructed during the period in question but also to the quarters scheduled to come to completion during the subsequent twelvemonth period.
That is a much different thing than a bald statement that we have spent $1 million on broadloom rugs.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is the statement which I will repeat again from Hansard:
... but I think the people of Canada are getting sick and tired of this arm chair army for which we are buying supplies.
I am not going to make any comment on the appropriateness of applying to the general buying of these supplies the suggestion that they are being bought for an arm chair army; but I would ask the hon. member if it is buying rugs for an arm chair army to buy rugs to go in sunrooms and solaria of military hospitals; if it is buying rugs for an arm chair army to provide, on a logical basis, rugs for married quarters at Aklavik, Goose Bay and stations on the northwest highway system; if it is buying rugs for an arm chair army to provide one small rug in the quarters of airmen, sailors and soldiers under training in various parts of this country-in air stations all over western Canada, in naval stations on both coasts far from their homes; if it is buying rugs for an arm chair army to provide one small rug to put in the rooms occupied by those young men. If that is buying rugs or anything else for an arm chair army, then
The Address-Mr. Dickey my understanding of any term of that kind is much different from the understanding of the hon. member.
This, Mr. Speaker, I think is true of much of the criticism that we have been hearing both last session and this one. We are hearing repeated this afternoon by the hon. member for Eglinton the same bald statements which were made the last session and which were thoroughly dealt with in the committee on defence expenditures. The hon. member for Eglinton mentioned boots. In this particular issue of the proceedings of the defence expenditures committee there are three pages of evidence given by the deputy minister of national defence dealing with boots alone, in which he went into detail as to the numbers of the armed forces that had to be supplied with boots, the scales of issue and the calculation of the supplies necessary for stockpiling for possible mobilization, with the single exception that the actual numbers of mobilization stores would not be given. I think the house will agree that it would be extremely unwise for us to give an indication of that kind, as to what our mobilization plans might be. But these statements and criticisms are repeated, not in the light of the information that is available to the members who are speaking as well as to every other member of the house and to the public, but as if what they say-the bald figure-is the only information that is available. Mr. Speaker, I submit that that procedure is dealing with these things in the way of putting before this house and the country as half truths matters that are not only capable of explanation but which have already been explained.
My original point was that this matter had a close connection with the morale of our forces. It has a connection in this sense. The suggestion is made that these supplies are being purchased in an extravagant and unreasonable manner in order to give us supplies of rugs which are not used or to which the people to whom they are issued for use are not entitled, or that there is some other strange reason for procuring these things. The officers of the Department of National Defence-as I am sure it is obvious from the material that was supplied by that department to the defence expenditures committee- have gone to the greatest lengths they can go to explain why these things are required. Yet after the committee has sat, and after the proceedings are published and available for the use of anybody who wishes to use them, the same baseless arguments are put forward and the same senseless suggestions are made that there is waste and extravagance which has not been explained.

The Address-Mr. Dickey Mistakes have been made; they are in the proceedings of the defence expenditures committee. No one can complain about dealing with matters of that kind. But I think it is a dangerous practice to take a position that is likely to make some sort of rift between our armed forces and the people of Canada which would be based on any misapprehension or misunderstanding of what are the real facts. I hope that when the committee on defence expenditures is reconstituted the facts that are brought out before that committee
will be put to more use by the members of the official opposition and not completely disregarded, as it is apparent they have disregarded the work done by the committee last session.


Mr. Poulin:: Mr. Speaker, will you call it six o'clock?
On motion of Mr. Poulin the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Howe the house adjourned at 5.55 p.m.

Thursday, November 27, 1952