1952-12-05

REFERENCE TO STATEMENTS BY MEMBER FOR WINNIPEG SOUTH CENTRE

Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last night the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) made a number of statements, and he expressly asked me to give certain assurances. Because of the nature of those statements and their possible effect on the forces abroad and their families at home, I felt that in the national interest I should make an immediate statement. Accordingly, I have delayed my departure abroad, and if I have the unanimous consent of the house, I shall proceed to make a statement now. It will not be long.
I refer to that part of the hon. member's speech in which the impression is created that the rate of casualties suffered is, in any way whatever, comparable to those at Dieppe. Whilst this may not have been the intention of the hon. member, you can see the impression created by the reference in the dispatch as it appears in this morning's Montreal Gazette. It reads:
The Winnipeg soldier M.P. warned that to date Canadian casualties in Korea had been about 60 per cent-"the same heavy casualties rate as at Dieppe".
At Dieppe, of forces numbering 4,963, 3,371 were casualties in eight hours. In Korea the 25th Canadian infantry brigade have been there a total of 7,900 man years. The total number of casualties suffered numbers 1,248 or 16 per cent as opposed to the 68 per cent in eight hours at Dieppe. It must be remembered and emphasized that the 25th Canadian infantry brigade is practically all in the active theatre of operations in front of brigade headquarters. I am informed by the chief of the general staff that the casualty rate of the 25th brigade, as related to the actions in which they have been engaged, has been lower than any comparable formation in the war in Korea or in the second world war, and that has been due to the finest possible equipment, good training, maintenance of strength and good leadership. The fact that so far the brigade has only lost one prisoner of war is a remarkable tribute to its fighting quality and fighting spirit.
The care that casualties receive is shown by the fact that of the non-fatal battle casualties less than 3 per cent died of wounds while the figure was 6 per cent in the second world war and 8 [DOT] 1 per cent in the first world war.
So far as ammunition is concerned, the position in Korea is precisely as I outlined it the other day. Canadian troops have never been subjected to unnecessary casualties by any shortage of ammunition, nor are they in the least likely to be exposed in such a manner. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the amount of ammunition used in Korea far exceeds that ever used before in any campaign in the history of mankind for any force of a comparable size. During quiet periods ammunition is conserved, on precisely the same basis for the Canadians as for the other forces, against the possibility of attack and to maintain an essential theatre reserve against contingencies. If an armistice is agreed on it might well include a condition, that there should be no supplementing of military formations or stores in the theatre while it is in force. If an armistice is agreed on such terms and fighting should subsequently break out again, the forces would have placed themselves in a position of unjustifiable risk had they not provided for theatre stocks.
As for the political and superior military control of the Canadian forces, we have a position in the commonwealth division and in the army appropriate to our position as having: the third largest fighting force among the United Nations in Korea.
The brigade commander may, either through the usual channels or direct, bring to attention any situation in which he feels that Canadian lives would be needlessly risked, or any other circumstances requiring attention, in Korea, in Japan and, if necessary, at Washington. The brigade commander is specifically given the right of direct communication to the chief of the general staff in Ottawa on any matter and can call for representation to be made to the United Nations command either through military or governmental channels in the event that he should feel that he was required to take any action which involved the acceptance of unjustifiable military risks to his troops. Happily, no situation has arisen necessitating such an appeal, and with the confidence which we may feel in the calibre of the command in the theatre such an appeal is not to be expected.

NATO Conference
I am sure that the hon. member did not intend his remarks to be harmful to the magnificent spirit of our fighting forces and I am sure he did not want to cause additional distress and concern to their wives and mothers at home here in Canada.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the minister would not care to have one of his statements misinterpreted this afternoon. As I heard it, I think he was suggesting that I had not drawn a careful distinction between the casualties at Dieppe which were suffered over a period of a few hours and the casualties suffered by the 25th brigade over a period of 22 months. I was extremely careful to note the time element involved in those two cases.



NATO CONFERENCE


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposifion):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's desire to remove any uncertainties before he leaves, may I ask him if he will inform the house whether the statement conveyed to the people of Canada by the Canadian Press yesterday, and which informed the Canadian people as to the attitude that he and Ihe members of his party are to take at the 'NATO meetings, does in fact represent the position of the government, in view of the fact that the statement was said to come from ^responsible authorities?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I am in no way responsible for what the newspapers print. When I make statements, I am glad to have them printed as I make them. Yesterday I made a statement in answer to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) which I think covers the situation completely. Canada entered into the North Atlantic treaty in good faith. She has formed a partnership for the preservation of peace. We have already taken part in every meeting of the council and have made the commitments which I have reported to this house. We will consider with our other fellow members everything brought before us that is likely to strengthen the forces which we are building up to prevent aggression and to preserve peace. I will not make any commitment abroad because that would not be in accordance with our constitutional practice, but I will be glad to participate in discussions and to exchange views freely and fully with my colleagues, most of whom I know well. Then I will make a report to the government.


George Alexander Drew: As a result of that statement, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he will give instructions that in future officials

of his department will not give statements, without names attached, which create these impressions?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, there is no justification whatever for the Leader of the Opposition to make any such assertion. He knows quite well that none of the people on this side of the house or on that side, and none of the officials of the department, have the least control over what the press does or how it uses anything. We hope for the best.



LOAN COMPANIES ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Acting Minister of Finance) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 7 (from the Senate), to amend the Loan Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRUST COMPANIES ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the first reading of Bill No. 8 (from the Senate), to amend the Trust Companies Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA EVIDENCE ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the first reading of Bill No. 9 (from the Senate), to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EMERGENCY POWERS ACT


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Powers Act to provide for the continuation of the act for a further period of one year, that is from the thirty-first day of May, 1953, to the thirty-first day of May, 1954.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Proposed Legislation
FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT	NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act. 1944, to extend its operation for a further period by closing out on March 31, 1953, in lieu of February 28, 1954, the present three year pool of loans guaranteed by the government under the act and by providing for a new three year pool commencing April 1, 1953, and ending March 31, 1956; to provide further that the maximum amount of bank loans made in the new period and guaranteed under the act shall be $300 million.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure providing for the approval and confirmation of the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean, signed by Canada, the United States and Japan, in Tokyo, on the 9th of May, 1952, and for carrying out Canada's obligations under the convention.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Judges Act. 1946, to authorize payment of a salary for an additional judge of the supreme court of British Columbia.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Robert H. Winlers (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1944, to increase the appropriation provided by section 7 for loans under part I from $300 million to $500 million, and the appropriation provided by section 13 for loans under part II from $150 million to $250 million, also with respect to grants in aid of slum clearance and to certain other matters deemed necessary for the proper administration of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Robert Henry Winters: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize grants of assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources under the terms and conditions specified in the said measure, such grants not to exceed thirty-seven and one-half per cent of the projects and to be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the above-mentioned purposes; and to provide that all officers, clerks and employees required for carrying out the provisions of the measure shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Robert Henry Winters: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to provide for the establishment of the historic sites and monuments board of Canada on a statutory basis; to provide that the board shall consist of twelve members and for its powers and duties; to provide also that the appointed members shall be paid a fee for attending each meeting and travelling and living expenses incurred in connection with the business of the board; to provide also for the appointment and remuneration of a secretary of the board; and to provide further that all expenditures for the purposes of the act shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament therefor.

Proposed Legislation
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937, to provide that the corporation shall be under the management of a board of directors composed of nine persons in lieu of seven; to increase the powers of the corporation, and to adjust its capital structure in such a way as to conform to normal commercial practice.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951, to provide that the act shall expire on the last day of the first session of parliament in 1954 in lieu of the last day of the first session of parliament in 1953.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide assistance for the higher education of children of certain deceased members of the armed forces and of other persons, all allowances and costs payable under the act to be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I wish to direct to the Minister of National Revenue a question of which I have given him notice. In view of a letter appearing in the Montreal Gazette today in regard to the fact that no broadcast is alleged to be extended to Poland in the international service, may I ask him whether that is a fact, and if so what the reason is that Poland alone of the major countries beyond the iron curtain is not receiving at this time programs of the nature being extended by the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I just received the notice of this question as I was coming into the house, and I shall have to take it as notice and give an answer at a future time.


George Alexander Drew: It may be that there was some delay in the delivery of the notice, and if that is the case the same comment may apply to another question, but I shall ask the question notwithstanding that, because the minister may be able to answer it.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the
Opposition): Has the Canadian television program entitled "Hilda Morgan" broadcast over CBLT, Toronto, on November 27, 1952, been brought to the attention of the minister?
James Joseph McCann: The program "Hilda Morgan" has not been officially brought to my attention, although I did read some press comments on it. A copy of the program has been requested, and if it proves to have been objectionable, similar programs in future will not be telecast.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can the minister make a statement concerning the conference he had recently with representatives of the Silver Cross Women of Canada? Is consideration being given to their request for certain

changes in section 33 of the Pension Act with respect to pensions paid to dependent parents of deceased servicemen?
Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): I do not believe there is any statement to be made at the present time, other than that I met with the representatives of this organization two days ago. They presented me with a brief, which was discussed between themselves and myself and officers of my department, and the brief will receive consideration by the cabinet.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Will the minister comment on the recent statement made at St. John's by the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) with respect to the continuation of the Newfoundland fisheries organization known as NAFEL?


James Sinclair: The hon. member was kind enough to send me a copy of the St. John's paper. NAFEL is the single marketing agency for export of fish from Newfoundland, which was set up under the commission form of government prior to Newfoundland entering confederation, and, as one of the terms of union with Canada, was allowed to be carried over to the spring of 1954. The statement made by the Secretary of State is quite right. In the forthcoming year very serious consideration will be given by the Department of Fisheries and the provincial government in consultation with the fishing industry and the fishermen as to what course will be taken when the present agreement lapses. When a decision is taken it will be announced in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I take this opportunity of commending the hon. member for St. John's East for having sent the dispatch to the minister. That is the proper way of bringing a dispatch to the attention of the minister. I am afraid that during the last few weeks hon. members have been reading dispatches in the press, copies of letters or telegrams, to the house. That is not in accordance with our rules. If an hon. member wants information about something which he may have seen in the press, he should send the article to the minister, as the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) has done in this case, and then he can ask the minister if he would like to comment upon it.
Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has consideration been given to the request of the Canadian Legion for raising the permissible income under the War Veterans Allowance Act at this session?


Hugues Lapointe: Consideration is being given to all representations made either by the Legion or by other organized veterans bodies to the Department of Veterans Affairs.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, at the last sitting of the house I was asked if questions could be answered at an early date. I have been told it is customary to make such an arrangement at this stage in the debate. Therefore if on Wednesday next Your Honour will call the order "Questions", members of the cabinet will be prepared to answer. Perhaps that could be established for each Wednesday until the current debate ends.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will that also apply to notices of motions for the production of papers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 4, 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. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I desire for a very short time to give some attention to the excellent speeches of the hon. members, respectively, for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Deslieres) and Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider), whose speeches inaugurated the present debate. I was particularly interested in the case made by the hon. member for Waterloo North on behalf of those very unfortunate people, the blind of this country. I think it is a great credit to the House of Commons that a man whose name for many years has been associated with the larger industrialization of this country should have made such a plea. For
370	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Laing myself, I consider it an excellent omen for the continued vitality of the party to which both he and I belong.
Mr. Speaker, I must make reference to the recent appointments to the cabinet from British Columbia. We were delighted in British Columbia-and I say that all the people of that province were delighted-when the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) was appointed to the post of Minister of Fisheries. And we were doubly delighted when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney) was appointed to the post of Solicitor General. We in British Columbia interpret these appointments as indicating that some attention is being paid by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his government to the growing strength and the growing responsibility of British Columbia within this nation. But, more than that we are sure these two members will bring new strength and new lustre to the wider councils of the nation.
I should like also to refer to the former minister of fisheries for the Dominion of Canada, who has gone to a new and onerous task as Canada's first post-war ambassador to Japan. We in British Columbia, whose windows look out upon the Pacific, have for many years been deeply concerned over the contraction of trade in that general area. In a world which is increasing its population at the rate of 60,000 souls per day, one-half of all the world's population lives on the rim of the Pacific.
There was a time when we had the great white Empresses, and the ships of other lines, running regularly across the Pacific. But in recent years these have disappeared. We were happy in British Columbia when the Canadian Pacific Railway took two of its better freight ships recently and put them on that run. But we in that province earnestly hope that the re-establishment of Japanese trade will be used as a springboard for the resumption of trade all around the Pacific. And I am going to say this, that of all the people who have been in the public service of this country we could not have appointed to that post a more able and more deeply versed businessman than Mr. Mayhew.
Mr. Speaker, I have one or two local problems associated with my own city with which I should like to deal first; and the first of these has to do with the Vancouver international airport. I was a little surprised the other day when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) brought up the matter of the connecting link between the city and the airport. With one part of his assertion I agree entirely, and that 

is as to the importance of our Vancouver international airport. With the single exception of the item of air mail, our Vancouver international airport is today the greatest in the Dominion of Canada, and it is shortly going to be one of the greatest airports on this continent. In the matter of passengers it is today handling 1,700 per day. It is handling a higher weight of air freight than any other airport in Canada. It was established in 1929 as a city airport, and has grown markedly every year since that time. Out of it travel all the Trans-Canada Air Lines and United Air Lines service to the United States, as well as the service of Canadian Pacific Air Lines across the Pacific. And there is now being inaugurated service to South America and to the Antipodes. It is a great airport.
But the other evening the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra dealt with it as if the only important matter were the connecting link. Well, I have been the member for Vancouver South since 1949. I know however that before that the hon. member who is now the member for Vancouver-Quadra represented Vancouver South. I have searched in vain for anything he said, prior to 1949, in reference either to the airport or to the connecting link.
It is true that the connecting link is not a good one. We refer to it as the Marpole bridge. I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra knows that the first bridge was built there prior to 1890 and that there have been no fewer than four re-establishments of bridges at that location since. The last bridge was built in 1927 at a cost of $275,000.
At the present time the bridge is carrying over 18,000 vehicles per day, a fact which I think is a great tribute to British Columbia lumber and British Columbia pilings capable of carrying that weight for that amount of money.
This bridge is 100 per cent the responsibility of the provincial government, because it was taken over by a bill which passed the British Columbia legislature. The hon. member referred to negotiations which had been undertaken between the federal government and the city of Vancouver for the acquisition of the airport. After all, I would remind him that even in the city of Vancouver it takes two to make a bargain. The federal administration and the Department of Transport have repeatedly done their level best to come to some agreement in respect of the purchase of that airport where, today, for every dollar invested by the city the government of Canada has at least twenty.

There were and there still are on the city-council in Vancouver some members who think that the airport is a goose which will lay golden eggs, and that the city should retain it. I am not of that opinion because I think that, from the very nature of the airport, the cost should be visited upon the widest possible taxation basis, and that is all the people of Canada. I would suggest to him that in the ensuing months we may have an opportunity of reopening with the city council of Vancouver the question of the acquisition of the airport, and I know that any help he will be able to give us at that time will be deeply appreciated. It will then be soon enough for us to consider a contribution by the federal administration toward the cost of improvements and increased facilities at that airport.
There is another problem which is of great concern to my city and which was referred to in the speech from the throne, which stated that Canada had been blessed with the greatest grain crop on record. I had made a short compilation of the storage facilities at different points, which are as follows:
Millions
of
bushels
Vancouver and Westminster	 20-6
Prince Rupert	 1-25
Fort William-Port	Arthur	 93-1
Montreal	 15-9
Saint John, N.B	 3-0
Churchill	 2-5
Halifax	 2-2
I think it would be helpful if we had a factor indicating the shipments made from the various points in relation to the storage capacity. The following figures are for the last crop year for which we have a record, the one ending on August 1 this year:
Vancouver	 5-4
Prince Rupert	 4-8
Fort William-Port Arthur	 5 0
Montreal	 7-8
Saint John, N.B	 4-7
Churchill	 3-0
Halifax	 45
There is every indication that additional storage capacity is required for Canadian grains and this capacity should be located at the points closest to the eventual markets. We are assured by -people in Vancouver that during the current year they will ship not less than 125 million bushels, which would give us a factor of over six bushels. I am assured also that during the current year Prince Rupert will ship no less than ten million bushels. Vancouver has many great advantages, not the least being our magnificent weather. Vancouver is an all-year port
The Address-Mr. Laing and we have advantages which are denied to other ports in Canada where storage facilities are located.
In addition to that we are strategically located, and this refers also to that great and growing port of Prince Rupert. As a result, during recent years considerable shipments of United States grain have been made through Vancouver from the great area in Washington state. There have been other shipments of United States corn for partial storage. Because of the situation existing on the Pacific, in the eventuality of that tragedy which we all fear, the dispersal of this grain is of great advantage to those people who are on our side.
I suggest that the time will soon arrive when we should have increased storage capacity in the port of Vancouver. I leave this matter with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in the hope that he or the wheat board will find some way to increase this capacity. I think it could well be increased at this time by not less than ten million bushels.
I was delighted yesterday to hear the speech delivered in this house by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). I want to take my place beside him in asking for a parliamentary committee to investigate every aspect of a national system of health insurance. I do that because I cannot support the subamendment introduced by the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell); for implicit in that subamendment is the thought that we can embark immediately upon a system of national health insurance.
I want to say at the start that I have no confidence in state medicine, which has been so construed in some countries and which it has been attempted to put into operation in others. I want no system that will interfere with the normal relation that exists between patient and doctor. But I do want, as soon as we can bring it about in this country, a system that will place the responsibility for illness, accident, incapacity and ill health upon all the people of the country instead of upon those unfortunates who happen to be in that position.
This is a problem of tremendous area. It is a problem whose horizons are forever receding. I was interested recently in reading some material put out by some medical men who point out that recent studies in endocrinology and the use of antibiotics may well increase longevity by another ten years by the end of this century. That would have a tremendous influence upon the whole problem and I believe that the eventual action that will have to be taken will be indicated

The Address-Mr. Laing more clearly if we appoint a committee at once to make the broadest possible inquiries in every sphere.
The social services which we now have in Canada are more generous than those of any nation on the face of the earth having regard to our population. I was interested in an article which appeared in the December 5 issue of U. S. News and World Report entitled "Pay-As-You-Go Social Security" and subheaded "The Plan: Today's Benefits from Today's Taxes." The article reads:
A new plan, favoured by a growing number of businessmen and business organizations, calls for an end to the idea of a multibillion-dollar social security reserve fund. Payroll taxes, instead, would be levied only as needed to finance pensions for all on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Which is the very plan that we decided upon recently in Canada. Here is a further indication of the generosity of the Canadian system:
Retired workers, aged 65 or more, who now are not eligible for pensions will start to draw monthly benefits of $25 to $35 a month. Their wives, if 65 or over, will draw half that much.
In the realm of old age pensions, old age insurance, veterans pensions, veterans allowances and family allowances, we are paying something in excess of one billion dollars. If we add to that the cost of the health plans upon which we have embarked we find we are paying one and a quarter billion dollars annually. I think we have in Canada today the most enlightened and most generous plans in the way of social security. Notwithstanding that, I am prepared to support the hon. member for Spadina in the very excellent presentation he made yesterday.
I want for a few moments to deal with some matters of trade, and with particular reference to the attitude that is apparently growing among members of the official opposition. During the last interlude between our sessional sittings we had visits to the city of Vancouver by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Coldwell). Both of them received a resounding Vancouver welcome. That is to be expected because all the girls love to be courted even though the swain is ineligible. Somebody behind me says we had a visit from the Prime Minister. Yes, we did. We had a visit from the Prime Minister, and I detract nothing from my references to the other two hon. members when I say I think the Prime Minister was the most sincerely and deeply loved of them all.
I was particularly interested in certain comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in his Vancouver speech to which I

listened. It took me back to the days of 1949 when there was circulated within our province a piece of Tory propaganda which started out by saying "lost". They told the people of British Columbia that all the markets for lumber had been lost, all the markets for fish had been lost, and all the markets for apples had been lost. They said we had lost everything. This propaganda was printed on white paper in Tory blue, and the contents were bluer and more pessimistic than the ink. I have some of it here. This is the material that was put out for Progressive Conservative speakers in 1949-"lost, lost, lost, lost". Well, we are hearing it all over again.


An hon. Member:: They lost the election.


Arthur Laing: We heard it all over again in Vancouver. The Leader of the Opposition had been in the United Kingdom a short time previously and when he said to his audience in Vancouver that we want to re-establish contacts with the mother country he was speaking to a receptive audience, and he knew it. There is great thought, there is great hope in our province for the mother country. He said it was not good enough to say that we could not conduct business between the United Kingdom and Canada. He said that if a trigger-happy Russian soldier were to start a third world war we would find a way in two weeks. Of course we would find a way. We would find the identical way we found in the last war, by loans and gifts, because I am now convinced that all of us on the free side of the world will quickly act as firemen if a fire starts in the house of any one of us.
But what contribution is that to the idea of trade, not aid? We want something better than that. As a matter of fact I never expected to hear such a comment in our city from the leader of the Conservative party. We have been hearing that kind of stuff for years from the leaders of the provincial group of the C.C.F. party. We have been hearing that we will not have any prosperity unless we get involved in a capitalistic war. That is what the C.C.F. provincial leadership has been telling us for a long time. Well, we are going 'to have trade and not aid. The very nature of trade makes it a two-way street, and I think that is a fact that has been lost on the members of the Conservative party in this house. We cannot bring meat from England. They eat meat but they do not produce it. They have no wheat. They import wheat. If we are going to trade with the United Kingdom we must be prepared to take the things that they are best adapted to give us, textiles.

I want to quote certain remarks of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), a man for whom I have the greatest respect. On March 7, 1952, he stated in the house that Great Britain is the chief exporter of woollen goods to Canada, and has now obtained an increasing share of our domestic market amounting to 86 per cent of all imports. He also said, as found at page 209 of Hansard:
A great percentage of the wool fabrics that have been imported into Canada came from Great Britain, and there is no control or restriction on the volume of these imports.
Trade, not aid; but as soon as the old mother country sends us the things that she is most capable of giving us we raise once again the cry that once resounded in this house, tariffs as high as Haman's gallows.
I was most interested in a speech made in the house the other night by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) dealing with sugar and tobacco. He wants neither sugar nor tobacco brought into this country but ample protection given for Canadian production of both. In that he is joined by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), who advised me yesterday that he wanted some protection for sugar, and he is going to let me know how much at a later date. The hon. member for Lambton West had a great deal to say about sugar, and there was another time when he had a great deal to say about the cost of living in this country. In the house on February 8, 1951, when the cry of the Tory party was that the government had better get busy and do something about inflation and the rising cost of living, the hon. member for Lambton West had this to say, as found at page 189 of Hansard:
It is the story of the housewife in Sarnia and in Ottawa, in Winnipeg and in Vancouver, who daily is fighting a losing battle against the rising cost of living. And for the housewife with a family of small children it is a bitter struggle as the household dollar shrinks to the point where food has to be sacrificed in order to buy clothes, or clothes have to be sacrificed in order that enough can be provided the family to eat. Here again the federal government stubbornly refuses to translate into action facts as they exist.
He was full of tears that night for the consumers of Canada. As the result of actions of this government, what has happened to prices? I now wish to refer to the Toronto Star of November 22, 1952, with respect to what prices are doing. Sugar was $10.30 a hundred pounds in November, 1951, and it is now $8.60. Does the hon. member for Lambton West deplore the fact that sugar has come down from $10.30 to $8.60? Does he want it to be protected so that it will go back from $8.60 to $10.30?


An hon. Member:: Certainly.
The Address-Mr. Laing


Arthur Laing: Is that the attitude of the hon. member for Lethbridge too? So far as the hon. member for Lethbridge is concerned, I have told him privately since he spoke yesterday that it is my opinion that the farmers in his area who are producing sugar are doing exceptionally well. I am told that every year when the company opens its offices for quotas there is a line-up and many are turned away because capacity does not exist to the extent that the people in that area want to grow sugar beets.


Mr. Blackmore:: Canada wants to keep it that way too.


Arthur Laing: Well, I don't know.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, I do.


Arthur Laing: I think the consumers of
Canada, for whom hon. members on the other side of the house were so solicitous in 1951, require something of a break too.
I want to deal with some utter inconsistencies that have existed on the other side of the house. We have talked about exports, and when we come to make exports available in this country somebody on that side of the house says, "Do not expect anything; keep it all here to build up this country." That has been the cry. On May 9, 1950, the Leader of the Opposition said, as found at page 2327 of Hansard:
We may withdraw nickel, copper or iron from the soil. We may refine it and send it in bulk to the United States, to the United Kingdom or to any other country in the world; and we have received the money for what we have produced . . . But as to power, we are not only exporting a commodity, something that comes from the soil; we are exporting the thing which in turn produces products of other kinds.
Then, I quote from the Ottawa Journal of October 18, 1952, an article reporting a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition at Nipigon. This is the headline, "Drew wants resources used for benefit of people of Canada".


Mr. Fulton:: Don't you?


Arthur Laing: To what an admirable degree we are doing just that today. We are using those resources for the benefit of the people of Canada. My hon. friend says "Don't you?". I came here to point out some of the inconsistencies, and how inconsistent that statement of the Leader of the Opposition is with a statement made in this house the other night by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Nickle). The hon. member quoted Mr. Ash, president of the Shell Oil Company, and recommended that gentleman's speech to the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. The hon. member was in favour of the immediate export of both gas and oil from his

The Address-Mr. Laing province. There is nothing very consistent about the whole plan. The arrows point nowhere.
I come now to iron ore. I am sorry the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) is not in his seat. We are exporting iron ore from British Columbia to Japan at the rate of about 100,000 tons per month. The hon. member has called it a scandal and a disgrace. What is the situation with respect to that iron ore? The Japanese came out of the conflict with a steel capacity of about 10 million tons. It was decided by the people on our side that it was imperative that that capacity be used to its full extent. Japan formerly drew its ore from Korea and the mainland, and with that source entirely cut off they are taking iron ore from British Columbia today on a basis that is not economic. They are paying $8 or $8.50 a ton for the ore and they are paying over $12 a ton for the freight. The United States, which our friends see as a dangerous country to deal with and a country of which we should beware, is subsidizing the economy of Japan to the extent of $700 million annually to keep Japan out of the sphere of red China.
Unless we make a study of our position, I do not see how we can have a policy in this country in respect to trade. The hit and miss style I have heard coming from the other side I think might well place Canada, if these people came to power, in one of the most dangerous positions in which Canada has ever been.
Today trade is difficult. It is based fundamentally on conciliation, and if you are going to say to someone, "Keep your goods, we will not buy them but we demand a market for ours," then this trade situation which is very critical in the world today could be delivered into disaster.


Mr. Brooks:: That is what we are doing with Great Britain.


Arthur Laing: I am quoting from the supporters of the same leader that my hon. friend supports. If he wants to read Hansard and the various points that they have made, I do not think he will find much continuity of thought in it. As a matter of fact, it was only last session that my hon. friend was advocating we should keep all the resources within Canada. I asked him a question then as to how he would apply that to the importation of bauxite for the production of aluminum. His reply was, "Well, if other countries want to act that way, that is all right, but Canada should keep her own resources".
Well, there is a very great story to tell in the development of just that question,

and I want to deal with it for just a moment. We have a number of items which are of considerable importance to us, one of which is petroleum. Where would Canada have been during the war had she not the co-operation of the United States government in shipping petroleum? Our production today is going ahead by leaps and bounds, but where would we be today without imports of petroleum? Today we are bringing in petroleum at the rate of $158 million per annum from the United States, and to a greater extent from other countries.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where do you stand on the pipe line question? On both sides of it, as usual?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Which pipe line is the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) talking about?


Arthur Laing: What about the bauxite to which my hon. friend referred?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They have not the hydro power with which to develop it in those countries, and that is why it is selling here.


Arthur Laing: We have not got bauxite. We have the power and the intelligence to make aluminum. In the last year we bought 2-5 million tons of bauxite.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have the hydro power which those people have not.


Mr. Fulford:: There is plenty of hydro power in British Guiana, but not developed.


Arthur Laing: This bauxite was not of very great value, but the resultant aluminum which we shipped out of this country constituted one of our greatest exports.
Then, in our province of British Columbia we have the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, with one of the greatest fertilizer plants in the world.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And great hydro power.


Arthur Laing: We have great hydro power there, and we have the intelligence there to make fertilizer. We have not any phosphate rock in the Dominion of Canada, at least none of commercial values to date which could be used in the making of ammonium phosphate, phosphoric acid or superphosphates. Last year we brought in from the state of Montana 500,000 tons of raw rock phosphate. It was worth only seven dollars a ton and the import cost was $3-5 million. We shipped back to the United States 118,000 tons of ammonium phosphate worth $7-5 million. In addition to that, out of the raw phosphate rock we made 100,000 tons of ammonium phosphate for the Canadian prairies to produce more wheat. In addition to that, we exported some 75,000 tons abroad.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How much did we get from the United States?


Arthur Laing: If my hon. friend wants to make a speech, he can make one after I am through.


An hon. Member:: He has made his, such as it was.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes; and the hon. member made a great one too.


Arthur Laing: If the attitude of my hon. friend were to prevail in this house, he would say: "We will take all the advantages and we will deny you any entry of your goods".


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No. I never said that.


Arthur Laing: That attitude could lead only to retaliation; and in a world of retaliation I think this young country of 14J million people probably would have more to lose than would any other country.


An hon. Member:: R. B. Bennett found that out, too.


Arthur Laing: I am glad of the interjection dealing with Mr. R. B. Bennett. I must return again to my good friend the hon. member for Lambton West, who spoke in this house on November 28. He made a statement that I never thought I would hear a Tory utter. As reported at page 187, he said:
In the early 1930's we did have action by the then Conservative government, when the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was prime minister of this country. We face the same situation today and we still have the same remedies.
In 1932 the entire trade of Canada was a little bit over $1 billion. This year it is $8 billion. But the hon. member wants to return to 1932! In that year the receipts of the federal government were a little bit more than one-fifteenth of what they are today. They were operating on deficit financing and the deficit in one of those years was a little bit greater than the surplus produced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman knows that was an inheritance from the 1928 Liberal policies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Arthur Laing: I cannot do better than commend to the hon. member's attention the words of the hon. member for Lambton West to the effect that we have the same conditions and the same remedies.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Go and read the bureau of statistics figures and you will see that situation was inherited from the 1928 Liberal policies. That fact has been proven over and over again.


An hon. Member:: How about making a speech?
The Address-Mr. Blair


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will.


An hon. Member:: Hire a hall.


Arthur Laing: Positive things have been done in recent years by this country in the matter of trade. I am not going to stand up here and say that every fine thing that has been done in the matter of trade has been done by this government. If conditions were different, however, there are those on the other side of the house who would be prepared to take the opposite argument. This I do say, however. With the precarious nature of trade today, with a condition in the world where reconciliation and conciliation are necessary at all times, I think Canada has been fortunate to have as its Minister of Trade and Commerce a man of whom, in spite of the fact that he seemingly has arrived at the position where he is not greatly influenced by either praise or blame, it will be said, when the history of his times is written, that the contribution he made was at least as great as that made by any other Canadian.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the mover, (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Their speeches were well prepared and well delivered. It is my intention today to devote my time to a discussion of the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). The subamendment reads as follows:
We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed: (a) To recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial administration; (b) to implement their proposals to the dominion-provincial conference of 1945.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that this matter will be freely debated in this house and that all members will express their opinions concerning a question of such vital importance.
During the time that I have been a member of this house I have advocated a plan of health insurance and in consideration of statistics involving mortality rates, incidence of disease, hospital accommodation, preventive measures and other considerations relating to this subject, I have frequently expressed impatience that we were not proceeding more rapidly to a solution of a matter so vital to our nation.
I regard this subject as of such grave importance that I hope there will be in no way any political shadow-boxing either in this chamber or in the forthcoming general elections. There is no doubt of the necessity of additional health measures, but we must have a clear understanding of the whole situation

The Address-Mr. Blair and the measures necessary to remedy and to correct inadequacies of our present situation.
It is a trait of human nature that man should be concerned about the physical wellbeing of his family; and there exists in the mind of every citizen the fear of sickness and suffering in his immediate circle. Sickness or accident may invade any member of the family-the breadwinner, the mother or the children.' But when for financial reasons medical services cannot be secured, the fear becomes intensified and becomes a matter of constant worry. The consideration of health services should not be a dull routine discussion in the House of Commons. Serious consideration to measures which would give proper assurance against the recurring fear of uncertainty in the ability of all citizens to obtain adequate treatment should be the concern of any government that has regard for the happiness of the people.
The most important asset of any country is its people. There can be only one sound foundation upon which a happy and prosperous nation can be built, namely, the good health of its members. This should be the primary concern of government. The ultimate objective of various departments of health should be to bring to everyone an equal opportunity to attain physical and mental health regardless of race, economic status or geographical position.
There are certain factors that are necessary to a proper health program. I place these factors as follows: One, sufficient hospitals and other institutions concerned with the care of those members of the nation who are ill; two, sufficient doctors, nurses, and trained personnel to carry out a full and complete program; three, diagnostic and preventive facilities; four, research; five, an educational program in order that the plan may receive the support of the public; six and last, but most important, government aid and direction.
The position in which we find ourselves in Canada is not one that we can view with complacency regarding our national health. Much has been accomplished, but much remains to be done before we can feel satisfied that we have corrected all existing deficiencies.
Let us give consideration to our present situation. The cost of medical care has increased tremendously in the past twenty years, as new methods of diagnosis and treatment have been discovered. However, these new methods of diagnosis have resulted in the successful treatment of diseases that were formerly considered incurable. The

costs of medical services are increasing, but the ability of the people to pay for these services has not increased.
Medical science is making great strides, but the application of some of those discoveries has not been made available to all our people. It is the duty of the community and of the state to care for the unfortunate who are unable to seek and procure proper attention. It is unfortunate that people in the lower salaries who formerly were able to pay are no longer able to do so on account of the high and increasing costs of hospitalization and treatment. Even in the most severe illnesses, they cannot afford the necessities such as special nurses and hospital service. Unless an illness is acute, these people are forced to neglect chronic conditions for financial reasons.
Family allowances have done much for children, but it is regrettable that children belonging to those families cannot have defects corrected at a time when such correction would be of most benefit to them. It is most important that we develop good citizens in Canada, since the future of the nation depends on the physical, mental and moral health of our youth. The necessity of the physical health of our young men was brought sharply to our attention during the last war when over 40 per cent of our young men did not measure up to the required standards at the time of enlistment.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay a tribute to those serving on boards of hospital administration throughout Canada. Faced with mounting costs of maintenance, and almost prohibitive costs of new construction, they have endeavoured to meet those additional expenses and provide accommodation for their patients at a daily rate as low as possible. In this they have not been successful. The costs to the patients have risen to a point where sickness is getting beyond the financial meang of the average citizen.
In view of the marked shortage of beds in some areas, it has been necessary to place patients on a waiting list for weeks and even months. I pay tribute to the staffs of the hospitals, and especially to the doctors, both in their practices in and outside hospitals. To their credit let it be said that they have not hesitated to give freely of their service without recompense. I especially mention the general practitioners, who made it a point of pride that no cases requiring attention should go unattended.

It should be pointed out that while doctors charge their patients who can pay, they also provide free attention to those who cannot pay. Unfortunately the public does not give the doctor credit for the large amount of service given gratis.
There are few hospitals which do not have a deficit at the end of each financial year. Often hospital boards attempt to make up this deficit by an appeal for voluntary support. Both in the financial help required and in the number of appeals in the past few years, it is doubtful whether the general public can satisfy this need, in view of the higher living costs and higher taxes. The heavy expenses incurred by hospitals, and to which these deficits are accountable, are largely in providing public ward accommodation and diagnostic services, in addition to the general costs of maintenance of the whole hospital. This places a heavy burden on the patient who pays for private or semiprivate rooms. While considering hospital costs and accommodation, we must mention the number of chronic cases occupying beds which could very well be used for the treatment of acute cases. Unfortunately, there is very little in the way of hospitals in Canada for chronic cases. General hospitals in most areas are the only accommodation. These patients occupy active treatment beds for long periods at considerable expense, and cause a shortage of hospital beds for acute cases. The shortage of hospital beds exists in many provinces in spite of hospital grants as in Ontario, my own province, where the province and the dominion both give grants for new hospital construction on a rate per bed. But even with these grants, rising construction costs overcome the grants and these grants, while a help, are insufficient.
It is true that the federal government has made grants toward construction of a large number of hospital beds since the introduction of the health plans in 1948. These grants amount to $1,000 per bed for acute cases, and $1,500 per bed for chronic cases. When the late prime minister, Mr. King, introduced health grants in the House of Commons he said, as reported in Hansard of May, 1948, at page 3934:
The proposed hospital construction grants represent only a portion of the costs of hospital construction. The balance will have to be met by provincial grants and by local funds from other sources.
There has been a sharp rise in building costs since that time. Building costs vary in different areas, but I am informed that in one Ontario city contemplating further hospital extension, the cost per bed has been estimated at $15,000. Allowing for the federal grant and the grant which will come
The Address-Mr. Blair from the province, this will leave a sum of approximately $1,300,000 to be financed by the province and the municipality.
I have mentioned hospitals for chronic cases and the fact that we are faced with a shortage of beds for this type of case. Owing to the introduction of new treatment, our population is increasing in the older age groups.
New treatment is making our population longer-lived. Diseases such as pneumonia, which afflicted so many people in advanced age and rated high in the list of the causes of death, is no longer such a menace. But it is natural that old people should ultimately become afflicted with some form of invalidism requiring institutional care. Not only old people but many in the younger age groups require care for chronic conditions. At present there is a shortage of beds for such cases and they become a problem for the hospitals requiring beds for the acute cases. Cancer cases may be included in this group requiring a long period of hospitalization.
Cancer may be regarded as the greatest problem facing medical research today, and any attack we make on this problem must be a long-term attack. Education must be an important factor. An educational program should emphasize not only early symptoms but ability to procure early treatment.
We must see to it that opportunities for early treatment and diagnosis are made available to every patient. In the last year for which I was able to obtain statistics, 16,258 people in Canada died of this disease. Better and more extensive facilities are required if we are to bring this terrible disease under some semblance of control. But the real tragedy of the fact lies in this, that many of these cases occurred because the disease was not recognized in its early stages, when a cure could have been effected. Although the number of cases of tuberculosis is slowly being lessened, yet we must not believe that a disease which caused over 4,000 deaths in the last year is under control. Not only is hospital care for this disease expensive, but it is a disease of early adult life, and occurs in the most productive age group.
In consideration of the mortality of 4,000 cases in the last year, we must also remember the thousands of people who have been cured, and the fact that this disease is a menace to our population.
We can be proud of our progress in maternal mortality, but our infant mortality rates are much higher as compared with other countries. A high percentage of these deaths occurred in the first month of life. In 1948, the last year for which I was able to obtain

The Address-Mr. Blair statistics, 3,892 babies died because of prematurity. Excellent results have been obtained in handling premature cases, but such care is not available to all mothers. The infant mortality rate for Canada was 44 last year per thousand live births. I shall give the rate per province, because there is a variation in it. That information is as follows:
Infant mortality rate per province
New Brunswick	 61
Quebec	 54
Nova Scotia	 39
Manitoba	 41
Saskatchewan	 40
Alberta	 39
Prince Edward Island	 34
Ontario	 35
British Columbia	 33
And now, with the rate in Canada of 44 per thousand live births in mind, it would be interesting to hon. members to compare that with the world rate, which is as follows:
Infant
mortality
rate
Iceland	 22
New Zealand (including the Maoris) ______ 22
Sweden	 23
Australia	 28
Netherlands	 29
Norway	 30
United States	 32
England and Wales	 34
Denmark	 35
Israel (Jewish population)	 35
Switzerland	 36
Union of South Africa (whites)	 37
Northern Ireland	 45
Scotland	 45
Ireland	 4g
Panama	 50
France	 51
Finland	 52
Belgium	 59
Spain	 59
Italy	 70
Austria	 76
Japan	 76
Ceylon	 92
Costa Rica	 92
Jamaica	 92
El Salvador	 96
Hungary	] " [ ' m
Bulgaria	 130
Chile	 160
Roumania	 199
I would draw attention particularly to the rate in the United States as compared with that in Canada.
The number of deaths in Canada of children under five years of age was 17,899. Many of these cases were the result of communicable disease; yet a comparison of several years' statistics shows that there are wide variations between provinces.
[Mr. Blair.)
Several years ago, when I was speaking in 'this chamber regarding our infant mortality rates, I made the statement that these babies were the best immigrants that Canada could procure. They are the descendants of those sturdy people responsible for the building of our nation. Canada can ill afford to lose them.
It is not my purpose to elaborate upon statistics of all mortality rates in diseases, but I have mentioned these for the purpose of showing the further need for action in Canada. I could also mention the high and increasing incidence of mental disease and, again, the shortage of beds for these cases.
According to a recent statement by the bureau of statistics, the number of oases in mental institutions has increased proportionately by nearly 31 per cent in the last twenty years. The first survey since 1931 shows that 394 out of every 100,000 are patients in mental institutions. This shows an increase of 93 from the former figure of 301 per 100,000 registered in the 1931 census. These statistics are disturbing and we must take every means to lower these percentages. Hospital beds must be available, staffed with psychiatrists and trained personnel. Let me summarize our needs as follows:
1.	Hospital beds for-
(a) acute cases; (b) chronic cases; (c) mental illness.
2.	Adequate provision for early diagnosis and early treatment of cancer.
3.	Relief to our people from the high costs of treatment, especially from the high cost of hospitalization.
4.	Extension of program to train more personnel to staff hospitals, especially facilities to provide trained nurses.
5.	Further program to cut down infant and child mortality rate.
If any health plan is undertaken it is essential to have a sufficient number of beds and sufficient personnel trained to carry out such a scheme. To anyone present who is satisfied with our present conditions, let me again refer him to the fact that such a large number of our young men were unfit for service in the last war. During my time in the House of Commons I have almost yearly pleaded for a health plan to overcome these drawbacks to our nation. In 1949 I made the following statement on behalf of the party and the position taken by it. This statement, as reported at page 1154 of Hansard for Friday, March 4, 1949, and which still stands as our policy, is as follows:
This party has long realized the necessity for a plan of health in the Dominion of Canada. Let there be no doubt where this party stands on that

now. We stand in favour of a plan which, in cooperation with the provinces, will give the people the maximum of services, and yet be a plan of freedom, where the doctors will not be civil servants, and which will allow free choice between doctor and patient. We have got a full realization of the deficiencies in treatment services, and we stand ready to implement a plan to overcome these deficiencies, and which will raise health standards in Canada to the equal of that in any other country of the world.
All political parties in this house are committed to health insurance. The Liberal party promised health insurance in 1919. Since that time, they have never at any time suggested that they did not stand by that promise, but on the contrary have reasserted it on a number of occasions. It is appropriate to point out that it would be unfortunate if any promises were made, in addition to those which already have been made, which could not be carried into effect.
The present government placed certain general proposals regarding a national health program before the dominion-provincial conference of 1945. These proposals may be found in the blue book relating to national health insurance, which was placed before that conference. Discussion of that part of the proposals did not proceed in any detail, because the government emphasized the fact that this could not be proceeded with until there was a full and general examination of this problem. That has been the position of the government, and it is for this reason that we have been pressing for some years to have an inquiry of this nature take place, which will provide the basic information without which no satisfactory plan for Canada can be developed.
Health grants were brought into effect in 1948. We gladly voted for these grants on the ground that any money voted for health purposes would help in some degree to cut down mortality and relieve suffering and misery. We felt that in many ways the grants were insufficient and only a stopgap to avoid dealing with a broader problem. Let me make this clear. We recognize that any health plan may accomplish some good, but at the same time by objectional features may not give return for the money expended, or may disturb certain relationships which should be retained if the plan is to meet with success.
For the safety of the state we have made commitments of $5 billion for defence. We require large sums for social security measures already in effect. Any political party which recommends the inauguration of a health plan must display a sense of
The Address-Mr. Blair responsibility and should not attempt to obtain political support by deliberately overlooking the difficulties in the way.
Let me emphasize that we stand for the introduction of a contributory health plan. When we form a government we will proceed with contributory national health insurance. But we think it should be carefully planned.
In the event of total war, there would be added a tremendous burden of taxes in addition to our already heavy commitments. The safety of Canada must rank first in our expenditures. In the process of development of a young nation there will be other expenditures of a nature vital to our growth and expansion. But we must realize also that medical science has infinitely more to give than the people receive. Professor Sigerist of the Johns Hopkins university has stated:
We could eliminate venereal diseases in a couple of years at the cost of one or two battleships, but we are not doing so.
We have solved more difficult economic problems in the past. When we are attacked by an enemy we can raise the money we need. Disease is also an enemy. It may have a less spectacular attack, but it is just as pernicious as actual warfare. We can find the funds to fight to a victorious end this war against disease and misery.
In view of the fact that the high cost of sickness and hospitalization is becoming beyond the financial means of our people, for the safety and benefit of the state we must eliminate deficiencies in our present health situation and lay the groundwork for a plan of national health. There has been too much glib talk about such a plan without getting down to certain basic and essential considerations. We hear statements from time to time that the reason health insurance is not introduced in Canada is that there are insufficient beds to carry out such a plan. When such a statement has been made there should also be added another potent reason- that health is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments.
The following steps are necessary before any plan can be brought into effect. Any political statement that does not take these steps into consideration is futile.
1.	Under the British North America Act, except for marine and military services, health is under the control of the provinces. There must be no interference with that right.
2.	Before any plan can be brought into effect there must be further consultations with and between the dominion and the provinces, and agreement reached. It will be necessary to make financial agreements and allocation of funds.

The Address-Mr. Blair
3.	There must be a thorough investigation in advance as regards the best type of plan.
4.	The plan must meet the approval of municipal and provincial authorities. Medical authorities must be fully consulted, as to a large degree success of the plan rests with their approval.
We should proceed to lay the groundwork of the plan by calling a dominion-provincial conference and open discussions. I believe that all provinces are willing and anxious to better health conditions in their respective provinces, provided there is no interference with their rights to control health services. There should be a thorough investigation of conditions in addition to the mass of information already accumulated.
Because of the fact that municipalities are today so gravely concerned about their increasing obligations in connection with the construction of new hospital accommodation, and also the maintenance of existing hospitals, I have stated that the municipalities should have a part in any discussions that take place. Municipalities gain their power and existence through provincial legislation. The municipalities are the authorities mostly concerned with the responsibility of assuring that the hospitals continue to operate on a satisfactory scale. For this reason I would strongly emphasize their place in any preliminary discussions and in the steps which will lead up to satisfactory agreements.
As for the type of plan, let me state that some of the prepaid plans already in existence are unsatisfactory. Other plans are rendering excellent service. Very often people do not read the clauses in their contract, sometimes in small print, and find themselves where they are not fully covered for insurance. The hon. leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) stated in his speech that the plan already in existence in England would be satisfactory.


Mr. Coldwell:: Satisfactory there, I said.


William Gourlay Blair: This plan is unsatisfactory. It is a plan with a very heavy drain on the treasury. Owing to the socialistic nature of this scheme, it is arbitrary, with features unsuitable to this country. In any plans for Canada it is essential that doctors be not civil servants, and the fine relationship between doctor and patient must be preserved. There must be a free choice and it must be a plan of freedom. It is quite plain that the subamendment favours a plan of state medicine. It is also plain that consultations with the provinces must be the first step, followed thereafter by legislation. We are in favour of a contributory health insurance plan for this country, and that we proceed to lay the


groundwork for the plan as our finances permit; yet we must be careful of the choice we make. Under these circumstances we cannot support the subamendment.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to take part in this debate as there are one or two things I should like to draw to the attention of the government. Before I do that may I say that I support the amendment to the amendment moved by the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell). As the subamendment has been read two or three times I shall not read it again.
I think it is safe to say that national health insurance is long overdue. It was in the platform of the Liberal party in 1919 and has been discussed many times since. The government and other organizations have compiled about 40 reports in the last 30 years dealing with national health plans.
National health insurance is not something new. As a matter of fact many countries have had national health plans for a great many years. These countries are Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Of the larger countries only three are without health insurance, namely, Canada, the United States and Australia; but Australia has a hospitalization plan of some kind. I had the privilege of meeting a group of parliamentarians from all over the commonwealth, and while we discussed many subjects naturally health insurance in the United Kingdom was one of the things we discussed. I talked with different members about the plan they have. There was general agreement that, while there might have been some difficulties in the plan when it was first introduced, it was today not only the most popular piece of legislation in the United Kingdom but also the most beneficial.
When we think of the various organizations that over the last several years have asked for a national health scheme or plan for this country, we find that they make a very impressive list. We have several representative organizations such as the federation of agriculture and other farm organizations, both national labour congresses-the American Federation of Labor and the Canadian Congress of Labour-the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, the railway transportation brotherhoods, the Canadian Legion, the board of evangelism of the United Church of Canada and numerous other organizations which have all asked for a national health plan.
It seems to me that if other countries can provide their people with health insurance there is no reason why Canada should lag behind. Travelling throughout the country one

meets very few people who have anything against health insurance. One runs up against the problem sometimes of where the money is going to come from. When we consider the cost of a national health plan we should remember that it will not be a new expense for the nation. We are already spending vast sums on health services which are inadequate. It is estimated that Canadians spent $500 million for medical and hospital bills last year, and our government spent $175 million for various health services. Altogether therefore the Canadian people, as individuals and as governments, spent approximately $675 million. That is something that people should remember, especially those who criticize health insurance on the ground that it would cost too much.
Health insurance would replace the amounts spent by individuals and would replace a large portion of the present expenditures by federal and provincial governments. The C.C.F. believes that the bulk of the cost can likely be met out of present budget surpluses and that there need not be any substantial increase in taxes to pay for it. However, if it is found necessary to make special financial provision to meet some of the cost the C.C.F. believes that the supplementary amount should be raised by a social security contribution graduated according to ability to pay.
I could go on longer, Mr. Speaker, dealing with this subject but I think it has been pretty well covered and I have some other items that I want to place before the government. Some time ago I saw in the Winnipeg papers that Mr. Patterson had resigned from the board of transport commissioners in order to become lieutenant governor of the province of Saskatchewan. I watched the papers to see who would get his job on the board, and in due time I saw the announcement by the minister that Mr. Matthews of Kingston had been appointed. At the time I thought that was funny, an easterner taking a westerner's job, but I waited. I thought that perhaps there were too many westerners already members of the board, but later I found that there is only one western man on it.
It is a disgrace that western Canada has only one representative on the board of transport commissioners. I made it my business to find out who the members of the board are and I have the information here. The chief commissioner is the Hon. Mr. Justice John D. Kearney of Montreal. The assistant chief commissioner is Hugh War-drope of Hamilton, Ontario. The deputy chief commissioner is Armand Sylvestre of Quebec. The commissioners are Frank M. MacPherson
The Address-Mr. Bryce from Ontario, but thank goodness he can represent the west because he spent twenty-five years there. He knows the western train of thought. Then there is Howard B. Chase of Ottawa and the gentleman who took Mr. Patterson's place, O. A. Matthews, Q.C.
I think it is terrible that there should be only one westerner on the board. We had two but one left and another easterner was appointed. We of the west, who bear the brunt of any freight rate increases, have only one representative on the board. I do not think that is fair. Central Canada is sitting in a fine position so far as rates are concerned, because rates are lowered to meet truck and water competition. With five members of the board coming from Ontario or Quebec, it is just not good enough for the western people.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How about the maritimes?


William Scottie Bryce: And the maritimes too. I have a big enough job fighting for the westerners without fighting for the maritimers but I can assure those who come from the maritimes that I am sympathetic to them. You have no representation whatever on the board and we have only one member who comes from British Columbia. Then there are Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta which, as I said before, bear the brunt of any increases in freight rates made by the board.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Most unfair.


William Scottie Bryce: The west wants a square deal so far as representation on the board of transport commissioners is concerned. The minister may tell me that the act does not say where a man must live in order to be a member of the board, but it is only common sense that the west should have representation. This sort of thing creates disunity in Canada. It creates the impression that we are a country of two parts, the haves and the have-nots. Continued high freight rates can easily lead to a depressed economy in western Canada. Such a calamity should be headed off by the government immediately pending the appointment of additional western representatives on the board of transport commissioners so the western point of view can be given adequate consideration.
I have another matter I want to raise at this time and that is the question of the war veterans allowance. I have been requested to do so by the Legion branches in my constituency. The minister certainly did something for members who asked for an increase because the pensions were increased last year from $40 to $50 for a single veteran and from $70 to $90 for a married veteran.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The war veterans allowance.

The Address-Mr. Bryce


William Scottie Bryce: Yes. The recommendation was made by the Legion that the rates should be $60 and $120. When you consider the cost of living today, and then consider what you paid for the same things when the pensions were set, I think you will realize that the Legion is not asking for too much. Many cases could be cited in which the circumstances warrant a much higher pension. I have in mind a veteran who is paralysed on one side and unable to work. One of his girls is training to be a nurse, and she receives only $5 per month. He has two other children for whom to provide. With an income of only $90 per month, this family must do some real planning to exist. The Canadian Legion's request has been a reasonable one, and speaking as a member of the Legion I think it should have further consideration.
I want to call attention to a matter that I raised last year. I spoke about the sewage disposal system at Roblin Park subdivision in my constituency. The department was good enough to make an investigation, but the engineer who was employed to make the investigation was the engineer who laid out the scheme in the first place. Surely the V.L.A. did not expect Mr. Scott, the engineer, to condemn his own work. If I hired someone to build a house and the occupants were not satisfied with the work done, it would be of no value to ask the man who built the house in the first place if he had done a good job. I am sure the same thing would be true in this case. Mr. Scott did the work in the first place, and having inspected the work is satisfied. In section 18 of his report he says:
With intelligent operation and maintenance therefor, I am of the opinion that these sewage disposal systems will give satisfactory service-as they did during the first years of operation. They need first however to be cleaned and freed of obstructions. Many an owner with a pump (a necessity) and hose and a few tools could do most of this work himself.
It is difficult to understand, after reading Mr. Scott's report, how he determines that this sewage system is in good shape, in view of the quality of the gravel and the distribution of the fluid throughout the field. Some digging was done and an examination of the laterals was conducted, but that was all that was done at Roblin Park. I understand that at some of the other places they did more.
In paragraph 4 Mr. Scott states that some of these tanks have given trouble-free service for from two to five years. About twenty disposal fields were frozen during the winter of 1946-47, which was the first year of operation. The number of frozen systems has steadily increased every year.
In paragraph 13, Mr. Scott states that his inspection revealed that in practically every


case the drainage tile was partly filled, and in some case completely plugged, with material which seemed to be tea leaves, coffee grounds and other such materials which did not disintegrate. Such materials should be classed as garbage and burned. At the time of the inspection the veterans requested the V.L.A. officials to have laboratory tests made to ascertain what really was in the pipes. I can find some of these veterans who would swear on a stack of bibles that they never put tea leaves or coffee grounds in that system.
I have some photographs here that I wanted to show the minister, but evidently he has stepped out of the house. When they dug up some of these fields they found that in some places the pipe was crushed by a stone. When the pipe is crushed flat it could not possibly allow the sewage through. In one case a hole was dug at the end of the lateral and then one of these roto-rooters was used. It was discovered that one pipe was about four inches below the other pipe. How could you expect such a system to work. This just shows the folly of sending a man who did the work in the first place to see if it works all right. If the department wants to do the fair thing for the veterans, they will send somebody else to look into it.
The following is a description of what was found at one residence:
Residence of H. A. Putman, 277 Pepperloaf Crescent- (1) Second lateral on the south side, removed piece of broken tile and after roto-rooter passed through and completely cleared the lateral. Level of this lateral too high to allow water to show at end when tank flushes.
(2) Third lateral on the south side cleared by roto-rooter. Also too high of level to show any water when tank flushes.
If I might explain, I would say that the tile is laid in a trench. The end of the trench next to the house is lower, so the water remains there and freezes. In another case the tile was laid in soft soil instead of hard-packed soil so that it would hold its position. The fill used was unsatisfactory because sand and large stones were used instead of the crushed stone. In some cases a test was made by plugging one end of the tile, and then when the tank was flushed no water appeared. This shows that the tile is not properly set. No purpose is served by going over all these cases, because they show the same thing. I was delighted when the minister said he would investigate the matter. I thought I had done something for the veterans. The investigation consisted of digging a hole, but the veterans are still pumping sewage out in that district.
Someone said the minister just came in, but I do not see him. I hope he will come in because I should like to talk to him about this matter. I do not know how long these

conditions are going to continue. I do not know how long the provincial sanitary-authorities are going to tolerate this condition in a district in which children are playing. I visited these homes before I left and found the men pumping out sewage. You may ask where they pump it. They pump it on to the next fellow's land and then he pumps it on to the next fellow's. The area used to be an old hay swamp, and the land is water-soaked. The soil will not absorb the sewage. I appeal to the minister to do something about this problem to assure the veterans a square deal. Things cannot go on as they are at the present time at Roblin Park. They need immediate attention. I have obtained these photographs to prove that what I am saying is correct. It is not something that somebody else told me and about which I am exaggerating. I was there. I saw the situation for myself. The actual photographs that were taken are here. A new school was built there, but those who built it certainly made sure that they did not run the sewer into the hay swamp this time. They ran it into the river, and I think that is the solution to this problem. There should be a large sewer system and it should be sent into the river. Nothing was good enough for these follows when they went to fight for us. Now that we have sold them houses, if the sewer system does not work their houses are worth about $1,000 less than they agreed to pay for them.
I want to say something about pork and the reduction in the floor price from 26 to 23 cents per pound which takes place on December 31. That is $4.50 a hog less that the farmer is going to take on January 1 than he will get on December 31. This reduction will certainly hit the small producer. A great many pigs are produced by the small men. It is a sideline with them, and this reduction in the floor price is going to hit them hard.
Another point to consider is that this price cut may actually force many pork producers out of the business altogether. This would result in a shortage, with pork becoming scarce and prices rising again. Is this not contrary to the policy of price stabilization, without which this industry is doomed to failure? Unless parity prices can be guaranteed over a reasonable period of time, enabling the producer to plan his industry, the inevitable result is instability. An inadequate floor price of 23 cents a pound, with no long-term markets assured, is bound to produce instability.
The government refers to this 23 cents as a floor price; but experience in the past has shown that government floor prices often become ceiling prices in actual practice.
The Address-Mr. Bryce Indeed, recent experience shows that there is no guarantee that the farm producers will receive even an inadequate floor price set by the government.
All these uncertainties come at a time when it is forecast-and I quote the economic division of the Department of Agriculture- that the net farm income will drop 5 per cent below that of a year ago; for farm operating costs and depreciation charges are higher than they were a year ago. The shortsightedness of the government's policy is illustrated by the fact that it is reducing the floor price two months before the United States embargo on Canadian meats is removed. It was announced by the minister that it will be removed on March 1, 1953. Why does the government not wait to determine what marketing conditions will exist in the United States after March 1? There is no assurance yet that our meat exports to the United States, when resumed, will be under the same conditions that prevailed prior to February 23 last. Indeed there are indications that the shortage of United States supplies which existed at this time last year- and upon which our meat exports depended- may have been substantially made up in the interim by the recent increase in production in that country. One does not have to be a prophet to foresee that once the United States is able to produce to meet its own needs, Canadian meat producers will again experience a loss of markets in that country.
There is also little prospect that the present commonwealth conference, even if it should prove to be a success, will be able to solve overnight the problems that hinder our trade with the United Kingdom. In this connection I wish to emphasize that it is my opinion that our government should take whatever steps are necessary to promote the maximum amount of trade at the earliest possible moment between Canada and the United Kingdom and other sterling countries. Instead of cutting production we should try to get some agreement with the United Kingdom. Get a five-year agreement and set a price. Then producers will know where they are as to price and the outlet for their produce.
Already there are plenty of signs that unless new market outlets for pork are forthcoming in the near future, serious curtailment of pork production will result. In some areas there has been an actual reduction of 30 per cent in sow breedings. I have here a clipping from the Rural Co-operator of November 27, 1952. The heading of the article is "Urges Hog Producers Avoid 'Same Old Stew' " and it reads as follows:
Bruce county survey of hog production from Tara to Port Elgin, and another survey in Carrick have

The Address-Mr. Crestohl shown a decline of about 30 per cent in sow breedings. These surveys will be taken every six months to direct the production of hogs.
The present drop indicates that if farmers keep the present number of sows they will be able to meet the limited market situation, but if any further breedings occur they will be in the same old stew with too many hogs.
Anybody wishing to take advantage of the 30 per cent decline in production, by breeding a large number of sows, is a short-sighted producer and has more concern for his own interests than the over-all good of the industry.
2 Equals 3
Why feed three sows when you can get just as much money by feeding two? Co-operation is necessary from every producer in trying to gauge our production to meet the market outlets.
The Federation of Agriculture will keep the farmer posted on production survey every six months. If as a result of this, speculators sneak into the business, it will mean that the steady producers will be asking for a controlled production.
The prospects for this important Canadian industry are not bright unless long-term markets with guaranteed stable prices can be obtained. I believe in forward prices. I have seen them in operation in New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain, and the farmers seem to favour them. If we would only try them on some things I think we would see how well they would go here.
I do not wonder why labour is always asking for an advance in wages. If we could stabilize farm prices and guarantee the farmer the same price for flv.e years, with certain qualifications, labour would then have no justification for asking for increased wages. Labour generally asks for increased wages when something has become scarce, when the farmer has not produced enough of it. Then they want higher wages to buy the product at the new prices. Therefore I think forward prices would do a wonderful job for the farmers, and at the same time they would stabilize prices in the whole country.
I should like to have said something about cattle prices, but my time has expired and I shall conclude my remarks.
(Translation) :


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate our two new colleagues on their excellent speeches in connection with the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Deslieres) and the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) have well maintained the dignity and good reputation of this house. I wish them a very successful parliamentary career. (Text):
I am moved to enter this debate by the glaring and inconceivable contradictions in the facts and the figures presented by hon. members on the opposite side of the house during the sessions of the present parliament. Their doing so can perhaps be epitomized in


the simple statement, that constant demands for large expenditures are made by them on one day, and equally vehement requests for reductions in taxes are made by them the next day. This, Mr. Speaker, is an obvious inconsistency. One cannot, even though he may be possessed of the most ingenious devices, call for increased expenditures and reduced taxes at the same time, and expect to achieve both objectives.
Let us first take a brief look at some of the additional expenditures and payments of large sums of money which have been and are constantly being urged by the hon. members of the opposition. They suggest, for example, that the government spend money for projects they consider so very vital to the interests of the country, such as the setting up of a national peace park-an item of extreme importance-without which our country could not progress. They further suggest that the government spend money to build a wall to protect an island near Toronto from erosion-another very vital matter that calls for expenditures, according to their judgment. They suggest that the government spend large sums of money to build an Alaska railway; to set up a modern merchant marine; to establish a bigger travel bureau and, Mr. Speaker, to give Great Britain a gift of $100 million and an additional credit of $80 million; also that we organize and set up a Pacific peace pact. These are suggestions that have come from the hon. members on the opposite side of the house. All of these they have suggested of their own motion, and in their burst of generosity they urge the government to supplement expenditures which already have been initiated by legislation of this house. They advise the government to increase the subsidies to farmers; to vote huge subsidies for federal aid to education and increase the subsidies to universities. They urge an increase in soldiers' pensions; an increase in old age pensions, and to make greater defence expenditures. Most recent of all, Mr. Speaker, they now urge the government to set up a national health plan.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, and I am certain the government does, too, that there was available sufficient money to do all these things without calling on the taxpayer for the necessary funds. But unfortunately there is no other way of doing so. To provide these funds would require a substantial increase in our national revenue and the consequent imposition of additional taxes. That is very obvious, but the irony of the situation is that with the request for all these things there is an overtone in what the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry) yesterday called a symphony,

calling for reduced taxes. That is just not possible, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the conductor of this inharmonious symphony knows full well that this music is nothing but an election air.
Why then are the house and the country consistently dunned by the continuous banging upon the bass drum for reduction of taxes? Of course the position taken by the opposition is obviously motivated by a desire to embarrass the government in power rather than to help the people. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) so very appropriately described these tactics in his address to the house on February 12 of last year, when he highlighted for an opposition the typical Tammany Hall precept: Never vote for a tax measure, and never oppose a public expenditure. It is therefore very simple to detect that this constant paradoxical and contradictory position has ominous motives. Is it the welfare of the country that is considered first, or is it the welfare of a political party that is sought?
Political parties must essentially place the interests of the country before the interests of their party. A famous British statesman once said: "My God comes first; my king comes next; my country follows, and then, and only then, my party". It is my respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, that the tactics of the hon. gentlemen of the opposition ignore this dictum and disclose a lamentable preference for party interest over the welfare of the country as a whole. That is sad indeed.
Why do they choose to forget the great advances made by our country in every way, and choose instead unjustifiably to harp on trivial, relatively unimportant matters? These manoeuvres, Mr. Speaker, are intended only to befog and obscure the progress of our country, and because of this it is necessary to remind the people again and again of the great achievements that have been attained.
Let the people of Canada judge from the record-from the whole record, Mr. Speaker, and not from incomplete extracts slanted for political purposes. And in looking at the record, Mr. Speaker, I am not so much concerned with the fortuitous and accidental discoveries and the worth of our natural resources; but I do want to look at the record showing the direct results of the planning, ingenuity, foresight, courage and daring of men, men of government, who I admit may not be faultless, but who nevertheless have proven by their accomplishments a perspicacity and judgment which merits the fullest and fairest recognition by all men of justice, irrespective of what side of the house they may sit on.
The Address-Mr. Crestohl
Referring, for example, to our advances in direct and intimate welfare and benefits to the people of our country, I cite only some of the legislation which our government has enacted: The veterans' charter which, together with subsequent amendments, provides for our heroes and their dependents in a way which is a model, excels similar legislation in any other country in the world. Is this a cause for criticism and for impeding the government's progress? Our legislation on unemployment insurance, family allowances and old age security is such that it challenges similar legislation in any other country, and provides our people with a social welfare program as good as if not better than any in the world. And no other country, Mr. Speaker, within such a short space of time provided its people with better social security legislation. It may hurt politically for our friends to admit this, but as men of honour and truth they cannot help but agree, and admire it. Is this a reason why our government should be criticized, ridiculed and sniped at from every salient?
Now let us have a further look at the record from the international standpoint. Our country, in proportion to its means and population, during the last seven years has done more for the preservation of peace throughout the world than any other country. This is a universally accepted fact. The dedication of our diplomats stands out over that of the diplomats of the entire world in this phase of international relations to the point where the recognition of the world acclaims the wisdom and the sense of justice of our representatives by offering to them the most responsible posts in international councils.
Is this cause for justifiable criticism? Again I emphasize that, as hon. gentlemen, our friends on the opposite side must admit -perhaps with a secret and glowing pride- the soundness of these facts.
All records disclose that our commercial and industrial progress has been truly miraculous and amazing. I use the term miraculous because our Minister of Trade and. Commerce (Mr. Howe) accomplished what he did notwithstanding the prophets of doom, some of whom sit on the opposition benches and who predicted insurmountable depression, unemployment, hunger, the collapse of our economy, the halting of industry and the impossibility of doing anything advantageous for the people of Canada. But let us see briefly what world opinion thinks of our position today. In this connection I
386	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Crestohl quote an extract from Time magazine of February 4, 1952 where, at page 25, it states:
Since 1939, Canada has: Quadrupled her national production, made a 50 per cent advance in the Canadian standard of living, raising her average income for a family of four to $4,000 a year-$622 above the corresponding U.S. average, kept her finances in splendid solvency.
Canada's growing industrial muscle has expanded her world influence to an extent never before achieved by a country of 14 million inhabitants. The swelling flood of foodstuffs, metals, oil, newsprint and goods flowing from her fields, forests, mines and factories has given Canada a position of importance in the free world's councils subordinate only to the U.S. and Britain. Canada now supplies:
More than 90 per cent of the free world's nickel, and an important share of the zinc, copper, aluminum, and other strategic metals for the west's defence.
Half the world's newsprint; three out of five of the world's newspaper pages are printed on Canada paper.
A growing share of North America's oil and natural gas from the new-found Alberta fields, the "Texas of the north".
A substantial supply of uranium for U.S. atomic bombs.
The world's second-biggest export wheat crop, a source of food for 71 nations.
Canada's vast area throbs with industrial action.
This spirit of growing confidence, both at home and abroad, has helped attract an ample supply of fresh capital to keep the boom going. Canadian investors, who were once somewhat timid about their own prospects, last year plowed back a record 22 per cent of their national income into new development. United States, British and Swiss capital is rushing into the bullish Canadian market. American investors have put more than $7 billion into Canada, the heaviest U.S. stake in any foreign country. And the flow is increasing steadily, as Canada shows that she has both the wealth and the men to work it.
The free nations overseas also look to thriving Canada for assistance. She is the only member besides the U.S. who can pay her own way and help the other eleven countries of the North Atlantic alliance. Canada has already shipped $145-4 million worth of arms to NATO allies and has sent troops to Korea and Europe. But more is expected, and from a nation of Canada's strength and promise, more will surely come.
I should like to add that similar opinions in various forms have been expressed repeatedly in leading financial, commercial and industrial publications in most of the democratic countries of the world. That is what the world thinks of the achievements of our government, and the present position of our country. Well, the right hon. minister has performed the impossible. I am reminded of a quip which was produced in a reply by an Israeli when he was questioned, in wondrous amazement, about the things being done by his little country which appeared impossible. He was asked, "How do you manage to do all these things? Some of them are impossible; the other things are extremely difficult." "Ah", replied the Israeli, "we have a system. First of all we do the impossible things, and then when we have a little more


time we do the difficult ones." That, perhaps, is the secret weapon of our efficient minister. First of all he does the things that seem impossible, the things that hon. members on the other side of the house thought were impossible, and when he has a little spare time he does the difficult things.
There is the record on this level. Can these accomplishments and achievements be criticized justifiably? Is this not a truly miraculous record of progress? Should this not provoke the admiration of hon. members of the opposition, if they considered the welfare of the country before the welfare of their party? What, then, is the resultant status of these prophets of doom when, in the face of their predictions, just the reverse has been achieved? Some hon. members opposite saw discouragement, depression, want, hunger and an ominous future for our country. On this side of the house men looked upward with courage, determination and conviction and, in spite of continuous road-blocks, this record of achievement which I have just presented was attained.
We then come to the great concern of hon. members of the opposition with respect to the reduction of taxes. If the opposition was sincerely anxious to keep taxes down, why did it not oppose the financial assistance voted to the victims of the Fraser river floods, to the extent of $5 million for rehabilitation and $4,500,000 for repairing and strengthening dikes? They did not oppose it because it was not politically wise for them to do so. Why did they not oppose the voting of funds to assist the victims of the Rimouski fire, to the extent of $2,500,000? Oh no, it was not wise for them to oppose it. And the same thing applies to the victims of the Cabano fire, to the extent of $300,000. Why did they not oppose and vote against the contributions to the victims of the Red river flood, to the extent of an interim payment of $12,500,000 plus 75 per cent of all re-diking costs? Why did they not vote against the grants to universities in the sum of $7 million? Why did they not vote against the bill to establish old age pensions to the extent of an estimated $365 million a year or $1 million per day for every day of the year? Why did they not oppose and vote against the payment of family allowances to the extent of an estimated $350 million?
At the time these requests came before the house, not only did members of the opposition fail to oppose these expenditures; on the contrary they approved them unanimously because it was then politically wise for them to do so. But what do they do today? Today when political exigency makes it advisable they change their tune and

accuse the government of overspending, which makes taxes high. If they had voted against these measures I could understand their statements today about high taxes, but having voted for these expenditures they know full well, and the country does too, that their complaint is nothing but a purely political outcry.
These tactics are so obvious that they require no emphasis. So are the tactics disclosed by the following specious type of criticism which we have been hearing. If ministers travel in their line of duty the opposition refer to them as flitting about the country for political purposes. If they do not travel and remain in Ottawa at their desks, they are criticized for being arm chair diplomats. If they are on the alert for preparedness against a sudden attack and stockpile essential supplies, they are criticized for overspending. If they do not take the necessary precautions they are criticized for exposing the security of the country to grave danger. If they vote allowances to veterans they are criticized for creating a need for higher taxation. If they do not, they are criticized for neglecting the heroes of our country. If the government subsidizes education in Canada there is another outcry of throwing a burden on the taxpayer. If they do not, they are charged with neglecting the future citizens of the country. If the government makes provision for needy families, indigents and the older citizens of our country, they are criticized again for making it necessary to impose taxes. If they do not, they are criticized for being indifferent to the progress of social security measures. If taxes are not reduced, the government is most severely criticized. If taxes are reduced, the government is accused of doing it for political purposes.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Leon David Crestohl: Exactly; hear, hear. How far can a political party go with this double talk? Do hon. members of the opposition really think they can hoodwink an intelligent public by singing one tune one day and another tune the next day? It is apparent that the hon. gentlemen are attempting to focus the attention of the Canadian public on unimportant trivialities in order to detract their attention from the basic and important things achieved by the government of this country.
I was astounded to hear intelligent men make an issue of 14,000 serving forks, or even three times 14,000. If sufficient serving forks were not available then the very same gentlemen would complain from the floor of this house that our men were being neglected and deprived of the most primitive comforts.
68108-25i
The Address-Mr. Crestohl I was equally surprised to listen to a complaint that essential stores and supplies are stockpiled for the armed forces; too many shoes, too many uniforms, too many raincoats. What a cry would come from the floor of this house if a shooting war was to break out and the country was not prepared to provide uniforms, clothing and shoes for the many thousands of men and women who would suddenly be projected into military service.
Is that not the better part of wisdom rather than to be caught short? Ah, but it makes good ground for criticism, and so it is exploited to the limit. I am confident that the Canadian people will see through these beguiling tactics.
How amusing too is the issue made about neckties. So the army has ordered three times the number of neckties that there are men in the services. I do not know how often the army issues neckties, but I know they certainly wear out very quickly. But even this is used as a basis for criticism, insignificant as the item is. I am certain that this argument only helps to emphasize to the people of Canada how very shallow and puerile are the grounds for the criticism levelled by the opposition against the government.
At this point I should like to commend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) for the full and satisfactory explanation he gave the house with respect to the forks, neckties, shoes, uniforms and raincoats. He most thoroughly exploded the entire myth which the hon. gentlemen opposite have attempted to create, a myth which was without any substance and was even devoid of sound political air to the opposition. I feel certain that he left nothing unexplained which could be the basis for criticism in any of these trivial matters. In fact I consider it a high compliment which the opposition is paying quite unwittingly to the government when for its criticism it has nothing more serious with which to make an assault than these insignificant matters. After all, when you reflect upon the tremendous obligations which the government is called upon to discharge and the fantastic responsibilities which the government carries and you find nothing more serious to criticize, then I say that even if they are true-and indeed they are not-the over-all consequence of this great but empty demonstration by the opposition is a mark of the greatest flattery to the government.
I am sure that the people of Canada understand this and they no doubt realize by reaction that this country has had, indeed, a fine, trustworthy and competent government.
388	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Crestohl The many facets of its responsibilities are almost faultlessly co-ordinated by a competent administration which has placed our country in the enviable position in which it is. What more could have been done?
Canada has acquired a position of preeminence throughout the world. How much greater could such an achievement be? How much more recognition could our diplomats bring to Canada than to be amongst the topmost diplomats in the world? Our currency is the strongest in the world. How much more perfect than the strongest in the world can the hon. members of the opposition expect [DOT]our currency to be? Canada is reputed to have the soundest industrial policy in the world. How much better than the soundest industrial policy in the world can our friends in the opposition expect our industrial policy to be? Canada is attracting the greatest quantity rf foreign capital in the world. How much more than the greatest quantity in the world could the hon. gentlemen in the opposition expect Canada to attract? Our social security program is reputed to be the best of any country in the world. How much better than the best could the hon. gentlemen of the opposition expect our social security program to be? This country enjoys living conditions that are the envy of the entire world. How much better than that could the hon. members of the opposition expect living conditions in Canada to be?
If we take a look at Canada today, impartially and purely objectively, we will see a country which abundantly discloses a steadily expanding prosperity in every field of trade, commerce and industry. We will see a country with a minimum of unemployment or poverty, a country whose people earn reasonably satisfactory salaries for their labours. We will see a country in which there is an abundance of food and comforts, a country with an enviable educational system available to every child. We will see a country which enjoys most respectful international relations. We will see a country with the finest social security program in the world, a country in which there is full and complete enjoyment by everyone of the four basic freedoms-yes, Mr. Speaker, a country which is a model of true democracy.
What more, therefore, could any country in the world wish for? We are indeed blessed. Let us all recognize it, every one of us, government, opposition,. the people of Canada, and let us work together to preserve it, not to change it, but to preserve it, in peace and national unity, for our ever-growing country and for the generations that will follow.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, being a new member it is with hesitation that I venture to take part in this debate. I desire first to join other hon. members in extending my compliments and congratulations to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the excellent manner in which they acquitted themselves in their first addresses to hon. members of this house. I certainly go along with the hon. member for Waterloo North in extending my compliments to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi for his fluency in both French and English. It is an attainment which I should like to achieve even if in a much lesser degree. Having entered parliament on the same day as these two hon. members, I feel a friendly and neighbourly kinship toward them even though they appear to have been misled in their early political training. Nevertheless I am very glad to compliment them as I feel they made a good contribution to the debate and performed a service for their constituencies.
Just as the hon. member for Waterloo North spoke with pride of the industry, thrift, integrity and other qualities of the people of his constituency, I can likewise claim those qualities for the people of my constituency. Yes, I can claim them for both French and English. We live and work side by side and enjoy the best of relations. Like people in other parts of the maritimes we respect ourselves, we respect each other and share a common pride in our community life, in the industries and institutions which have been built up in the lands by the sea.
I should like at this time to pay a compliment to my predecessor, a man beloved by the people of my constituency to whom he gave unstinting service until his passing. Although in poor health during the last year he never spared himself and always put the interests of his people first. The loyal friendship of one's associates is an outstanding achievement, and that the late Mr. H. H. Hatfield attained.
I should also like to congratulate at this time the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney) on their promotion to the cabinet. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano of course is no stranger to us in New Brunswick. He has been down there before, but now that he has become

Minister of Fisheries I am sure we will welcome him a great deal more because in the maritimes we are very much interested in his department.
Since becoming a member of this house I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches of hon. members. One cannot help but be conscious of the privilege and responsibility of helping to shape and build this vast country of ours which we are so proud to call Canada. The House of Commons is the nerve centre of our nation where east meets west and the central section is the host. The problems, privileges and obligations of the two great races in this vast area are discussed as well as the requirements of different sections of our country, and by a tolerant democratic method we hammer out on the anvil of good will laws that serve to unify this great land.
One cannot help but be inspired by the surroundings of parliament hill. On every hand you see evidence of statesmen who have, each in his own way, contributed to the building of Canada as a great democracy, a country which today in a very troubled world is an outstanding example of unity, tolerance and prosperity of people of different races, languages and habits.
This takes me back to my own constituency, a lovely section of New Brunswick lying in the beautiful Saint John river valley, settled and hewed from the wilderness by French and English speaking people who have continued to live in harmony side by side during the last 125 years. It is a portion of my province which we hope in the near future will become industrialized in large measure as a result of hydro development which at the present time is under study.
When I speak of "capital" you may think of property, stocks and bonds; but to the people of my province, and I think to the people of the maritimes generally, the word has another meaning. It is the capital of the spirit which is not only the basis of our economy but is our very way of life.
The people of my riding depend upon mixed farming, lumber and potatoes. As many hon. members know, potatoes have become a highly specialized crop with a great potential value on the one hand but a tremendous risk on the other. Potato raisers may become wealthy in a few years but just as quickly may face bankruptcy. There is something very fascinating about handling and raising potatoes. Large fields of potatoes in blossom are a beautiful picture, and when I refer to large fields I refer to hundreds of acres in some places.
This year the potato grower is very happy. His "spuds", as we call them, are a reasonably good price and are likely to remain
The Address-Mr. Montgomery so until the crop is cleaned up. However, it is a crop that cannot be carried over. The amount of money a potato farmer ties up annually in seed, fertilizer, spray materials, help and machinery is tremendous, to say nothing of his investment in land and necessary storage facilities. That is why in years of no market or low prices bankruptcy stares these men in the face and, make no mistake about it, the year 1950-51 put a lot of farmers on the rocks. They fell back on grain, hay and stock, but due to the drought this year hundreds of acres of the oat crop were not even harvested. In my constituency a good part of the grain crop that was harvested has not given more than a 50 per cent return. This season has created a difficult situation for the mixed farmer. He has no grain to sell, but still worse he is faced with the prospect of having to buy feed or dispose of his stock. Either of these possibilities would be disastrous and, notwithstanding the hardship of the coming winter, they will face another seeding season empty-handed. A situation such as we are facing this season in my constituency is discouraging, to say the least. Those who were able to finance a potato crop last spring are having a feast, while the mixed farmer is facing a famine.
Our farmers have no market for hay, and no substantial market for beef or pork. However, the farmers are hopeful now that the United States government has announced its intention of lifting the embargo in the near future. This may afford an outlet for our hay, but the farmers have been reducing their hog production.
The farmers inform me that when the English market was lost, there was no other to take its place. It is for this reason that the farmers in my province are hoping something good will come out of the commonwealth prime ministers' conference now being held in London which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) are attending. The people will follow the proceedings closely, because they want to see the United Kingdom markets reopened to Canadian farm products. The leading daily newspaper in New Brunswick, the Telegraph-Journal, after mentioning in its issue of November 26 that the Prime Minister had left for London, stated:
The meeting he will attend, the commonwealth prime ministers' conference opening in London on Thursday (the 27th), will be the biggest thing of its kind since the Ottawa conference of 1932.
We in the maritimes must have outside markets, markets that can be relied upon year after year. The farmers in my part of the province will tell you-in fact they have told me-that the United States market is not reliable. If the United States is short of
390	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Montgomery a commodity it is easy to enter their market, but ordinarily they are our greatest competitor in world markets for agricultural commodities. While they may be friendly rivals, they are nevertheless ruthless and businesslike in all their dealings. I am informed that the farm lobby in Washington is one of the most potent political forces in United States politics, ever on the alert to. see that Canadian producers get a minimum of access to the United States food market. For these reasons and others, no long-term scheme for absorbing Canadian surplus production can be arranged with the United States.
I should like to remind hon. members of this house that when our farmers are unfortunate enough to lose their grain crops because of drought, as many in my riding lost their grain crop this year, there is no relief such as the western farmer may receive under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I understand, of course, that the western farmers make a contribution under that act. It was for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that in my opening remarks I referred to "the capital of the spirit". The farmers of my province have to meet the ups and downs of uncertain markets by ingenuity in finding ways and means of carrying on and providing such prosperity and security as may be obtained through hard work, long hours and strict economy.
It is understandable, therefore, why we in the provinces by the sea are vitally interested in markets for agricultural commodities. We realize that any agricultural policy for Canada must be elastic because of our vast area and the different conditions and requirements of each area. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, and I think I fairly represent the opinion of the farmers of my province, they feel it is the responsibility of the government to do everything possible in finding and developing export markets as well as assisting in the home market.
Agriculture, industry and trade are very much tied together in this world of varying monetary systems and different standards of living. While it is recognized that the hon. members responsible have no easy task, nevertheless, because it is a vital matter to our primary producers, I am sure that all hon. members are fervently hoping for some tangible agreement under which commonwealth trade will start to flow more freely. If such an agreement is made, perhaps some form of permanent trade arrangement may be made that will provide a reliable and profitable outlet for our farmers' products. We are hoping that these results will flow from the conference now taking place in


London, in which our own Prime Minister will no doubt play a prominent role.
Having listened with interest to the speeches thus far, I felt compelled to take part in this debate in order to bring to the hon. members of this house the views of many people in my constituency, and to place their problems and difficulties before you. I feel that the solution of many of the problems of my province lies in an agricultural policy of some permanence, so that our small, mixed farmers may proceed to develop their lands on a planned economy which will give them a feeling of security and contentedness.
In conclusion I should like to say a word or two concerning a national health scheme. There is nothing in the speech from the throne that would grant the ordinary citizen relief from taxation or give him some feeling of comfort and protection in matters of health. As the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Catherwood) so well stated, there is nothing in the speech from the throne that would indicate "relief and the end of the sacrifices of the past few years". Since there appears to be no hope that the ordinary fellow who lives around the corner or across the tracks will receive better treatment, I commend my leader for proposing the amendment to the speech from the throne, and I can wholeheartedly support it.
Let me repeat what I said a few minutes ago. We are here as representatives of all parts of Canada to make laws, but according to the tolerant democratic method. This is the highest level of government in our country, and is often referred to as the federal government. How did this federal government become a reality? How did our constitution in Canada come into being? Was it not by consultation and agreement? Did not the representatives of various sections of this country get together and work out an agreement on which the British North America Act was based?
That was over 80 years ago, and many things have changed in 80 years. There have been changes that have created many problems that were never dreamed of then. In the light of such changes, further consultation among the partners in confederation-the provinces and the federal government- should again take place, in an atmosphere of tolerance and give and take, in order to sincerely try to arrive at a solution that will benefit all the people at various levels of government.
I know there have been conferences, but rightly or wrongly the people of my province -and I believe the same is true in many other provinces-feel that the federal government

is not meeting the provinces half-way. They feel that the dominion government is taking the lion's share of the national revenue. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it expresses the feeling of the people. After all, Ottawa is a long way from the homes of most citizens of Canada but the municipal government is on their doorstep, even closer than the provincial government; it therefore can be more closely supervised and more easily understood.
All governments realize, or should, that there is a limit beyond which taxation should not go unless there is a national emergency. But a proper distribution of such revenues is the problem upon which there has not been agreement. As I see it, that is the reason for my leader's amendment. If it were not so, why would a group representing the mayors of cities in every part of Canada be appearing before this government? While this group represents only the cities, other municipalities have problems which are just as serious. Coming as I do from a small town, and having had considerable interest in rural municipalities, I know that the problems with regard to education, hospital and medical care or health services are tremendous. It is growing beyond the resident taxpayers' ability to provide these services, even with all the assistance that comes from provincial governments, part of which in turn comes from Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going into all the reasons that have helped to create this heavy burden. Suffice it for me to say that it is a live issue. Many people cannot afford to have the necessaries of our standard of living, let alone to be sick. No one is ill by choice. Illness comes like a thief in the night. Sooner or later, on account of illness, anyone may be faced with obligations that he just cannot pay. It is no answer to tell these poor people: "Sorry; the municipality must look after you. It is their problem." As far as the legal responsibility is concerned, they know that they are part of the municipality. They also know that the municipality has not the wherewithal to help them.
I like the expression coined by my colleague the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) when he said that our democracy should work like a family; that the federal government is considered the senior or daddy of the family, so the lesser lights look to daddy. Is there much wonder that they do so, in view of the tremendous sums of revenue collected by daddy? This is why the mayors of cities are waiting upon this government. Unless some logical rearrangement satisfactory to all governments is worked out, the delegations will not be confined to representatives
The Address-Mr. Studer of the cities. I am no alarmist. In my humble way I am trying to bring to the attention of the government some of the problems of the ordinary people who feel that they have been forgotten.
Before closing I think it fair that I should place myself on record in reference to the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well). As I understand the constitutional issue and set-up, it seems to me that the government is being asked to do something which it is not yet in a position to carry out, namely to bring down at this session legislation providing for a national health insurance program. I am not convinced that sufficient groundwork has been done and that a common formula has been worked out with the provinces. Hence I cannot see my way clear to support the amendment to the amendment. But that fact does not in the least indicate that I am opposed to a sound health scheme. On the contrary, I am fully in accord with a scheme worked out jointly between the dominion and the provincial governments as a national health program in order to bring to families in the low and the ordinary income brackets-yes, possibly to all-the assurance that they will receive the necessary medical and hospital care when required, without the worry and hardship entailed in having to pay the bill.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Irvin Studer (Maple Creek):: This
evening, Mr. Speaker, the people whom I represent in the constituency of Maple Creek, in the southwest corner of the province of Saskatchewan, - would want to associate themselves with me in extending the good wishes and the congratulations of all of us to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is a consolation to them to know that people from all over the Dominion of Canada have an interest not only in their own constituencies but in all of the people of Canada, so that through the efforts of all of us we can continue to build the great nation that has been developed up to this time. They would also want me to say to those who may be fortunate enough to attend the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen in England next summer:	Give our good wishes to our
sovereign, that she may have the good fortune and the blessing of the Almighty upon

The Address-Mr. Studer her so that her reign may be long and glorious in the interests of all her subjects.
We represent our constituencies; therefore it is our duty to present the problems, if any, of these constituencies to the government and to the houses of parliament. In my endeavour to discharge that duty as it applies to me I would ask your indulgence for a few minutes to listen to the conditions that exist in that great constituency of Maple Creek. Conditions there today differ from those which existed at other times when I have had the privilege of speaking about that constituency. We have had a good crop this year in most of my constituency. In spite of the generally good crop conditions all over the west-which please everyone and add greatly to the wealth of Canada, since every bushel of wheat means approximately another $1.50 added to the general wealth of the people of all Canada, because we all derive benefit from it-in spite of that good fortune, nevertheless there are parts of the constituency of Maple Creek in which prairie farm assistance payments, that is crop failure payments, will again be made this year.
The reason for that is this. In that country the constituencies are large. A constituency is a whole country in itself, much larger than some of the provinces of Canada. The result is that a change in weather conditions can be very pronounced, and what may bring good conditions in one area can bring about most unfortunate conditions in another. But altogether, over the whole, we have been blessed with good fortune during the past year.
In addition to that, Maple Creek is the type of constituency, and its area is so vast, that if there are any abnormal conditions they are bound to exist there. In spite of the many times it has been my duty to point out that crop failures have existed due to drought in that constituency, this year we have had the very opposite. We have had flood conditions in that constituency, believe it or not. We had flood conditions that created for the individual just as great havoc as the flood condition at Winnipeg of a year or two ago. Although not on as extensive a scale, yet to the individual the loss was just as great. In the constituency of Maple Creek we have over 90 per cent of the irrigation in the province of Saskatchewan. We had flood conditions in that constituency which inundated whole towns such as Eastend. Towns were under water for a period of approximately a month. All the people had to be removed from those towns lying in those valleys because of the abnormal conditions.

The snow, which thawed too rapidly, produced a volume of water that no precautions could have prevented. It flooded irrigation projects, and the people living in the valleys of Eastend and Valmarie were flooded out. We almost had a tragic situation at Swift Current, Saskatchewan, where the Duncairn dam, through almost superhuman efforts of the P.F.R.A. officials, was prevented from collapsing and inundating a large part of that city.
Because of those conditions those people have suffered heavy losses. The P.F.R.A. officials went to extreme lengths to recondition the lands, rehabilitate the irrigation ditches, rebuild the streets of the towns, pump the water from the basements and make it possible for those people to go back to the towns and take up living where they left off. In the meantime many of the farmers lost their seed grain, lost their feed, lost some livestock, and had difficulty in re-establishing themselves. Some of the men on those lands are returned men.
I think under those conditions the province of Saskatchewan should have been much more willing to help out in the emergency. Officials of the province come to Ottawa and ask the federal government to assist in rehabilitating and financing the work that has to go on in those areas. As I see the situation, it was not a national disaster. As I pointed out, it was a disaster to the individual, but it was not a national disaster when compared with the Winnipeg floods and the fires in Rimouski and in other places.
Generally, the situation in connection with financing losses of that kind is this. If the loss is within the $100 class or category the municipality takes care of it. If it comes within the hundreds of thousands of dollars category, the provincial government takes care of it. If it comes within the category of millions of dollars, then the federal government takes care of it. Therefore I ask the province to reimburse those people who have suffered financial losses. If they cannot finance the situation, if the amount involved is too great, then they should come to the federal government and the federal government will consider whether or not the province can finance it. I have never known the federal government to take an attitude at any time that is not responsive to the demands of any province, any municipality or any people in difficulty. I ask the province to rehabilitate those people and place them in the financial position they deserve, as has been done when other people have found themselves in difficulty.

If any province or any area suffered from the affliction of foot-and-mouth disease, certainly the constituency of Maple Creek did, because it comprises much of the ranching area of southern Saskatchewan and of the whole of Saskatchewan. I do not know of any area that was more affected by anything that happened to the beef industry than we were when the foot-and-mouth disease disaster struck us. Another thing that afEects us is the distance from all the ports through which we ship our wheat. We are practically the same distance from Churchill as we are from Vancouver, and as we are from Fort William. That being the case, we in the southwest portion of the province are usually the last to be served in the delivery of our wheat because, as everyone knows, if there is a shortage of box cars or a shortage of space, or if deliveries of certain grades of grain have to be made on account of sales to other countries at the appropriate time, in order to make the sales those box cars can be utilized twice as often from practically any point in Manitoba to Fort William, as they could be from southwest Saskatchewan.
So just until recently we were practically still on the five-bushel quota. And while I am talking about that I hope the wheat board takes an interest in this matter, and that before all the other wheat delivery quotas are raised they will provide facilities for southwest Saskatchewan in order to equalize their quota deliveries with people in the other provinces.
Much has been mentioned about the farm storage proposition in western Canada. When there are heavy crops a great deal of farm storage becomes necessary, and the problem becomes acute. This is especially so when it is impossible to deliver your grain under the quota system. I do not know of any way to circumvent this except by providing more box cars. There is no way of limiting this except by providing more storage space.
It has been suggested by some that the government should provide facilities or make advances to the farmers so they could store farm grain. What I need in southwestern Saskatchewan is room enough for my grain so I will get the full value for it in relation to the money spent in its production, and so I do not have to borrow money and pay interest on it, and have to repay it at some future date. I have never had any trouble in borrowing money; my trouble has always been in repaying it. If facilities could be provided so there would be plenty of room for storage facilities on the farms or in the cities, through elevator storage facilities, and through government storage elevators that might pay for themselves in time-and they have paid for themselves and would pay for 68108-26
The Address-Mr. Studer themselves-then I think that southwest area of Saskatchewan, which certainly has been overlooked in connection with government terminal elevator storage and those specialized facilities, would be satisfied.
I think the government could very well consider those additional facilities either at Shaunavon or at Swift Current, and for a twofold purpose. They would be useful in conditions such as we have had in the last few years, and also when there are conditions of drought and large parts of the province are faced with crop failure. The result would be to keep the economy of that country in better condition, and there would be feed grain and seed grain in an area where it would be needed.
Only too often have the farmers in southwestern Saskatchewan had to pay freight for seed and feed from Fort William, or from some other parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, arising from crop failures which have [DOT] occurred through no fault of their own. I think proper storage facilities should be provided in southwestern Saskatchewan, and no one would lose any money on it.
There has been much talk in regard to loans to farmers on the grain. Last year in this house and again this year there has been discussion as to the amount of money that should be provided in loans or guarantees of loans to farmers who had their wheat in the snow last year and were unable to deliver this year. There was a whole lot of talk and a lot of difficulty in connection with providing a guarantee or a loan to the extent of $20 million to farmers last year. As a matter of interest, the amount actually used by farmers under that loan which was made available by the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act was $625,671.41, out of a total of $20 million.
I say again that the farmer wants a place to deliver his grain in southwestern Saskatchewan, and a place to store it as a secondary feature. We say the farmer in southwestern Saskatchewan does not want a system whereby he is going to be compelled to pay storage charges for other farmers throughout the length and breadth of the three western provinces, who can well afford to keep their grain. And if storage is paid on the grain, then the people in southwestern Saskatchewan who over a period of years have had about twelve bushels to the acre will be paying storage on the grain of other farmers in the three western provinces. Unless a new system can be devised, then the farmers in southwestern Saskatchewan will be penalized for charges that others are not obliged to pay.
394	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Studer
I am not in favour of this. I am not in favour of advances to be paid to the farmers throughout the three western provinces that the farmers in southwestern Saskatchewan cannot take advantage of. The best advance I know of is the advance that applies in connection with the sale of wheat. If the rest of us can get that, then it will take care of most of the other troubles we have in southwestern Saskatchewan; that is, if we have the wheat to sell.
We have heard a lot about subsidies in this country. It appears to me there has never seen a session of the House of Commons when subsidies have not been mentioned at some time or another. We had an instance of it the other day when a comparison was made between the subsidy that was paid to the farmers or allowed to the farmers under the Agricultural Prices Support Act during the past year, amounting to $10 million, and the subsidy paid to the gold mining industry of $40 million-a most unfair comparison if I ever heard one, because there is no similarity between them.
The Agricultural Prices Support Act provided some $200 million to stabilize the market for farm products when the price was low. It was not established to lose money, but rather to stabilize the prices of the farmers' products for a period of time. If they were not stabilized, the farmer lost money.
If you wish to make a comparison of farming and the gold mining industry in the matter of subsidies, then make a comparison between the subsidy that has actually been paid the farmers, and that has nothing at all to do with the Agricultural Prices Support Act. I have here in the Western Producer of October 9, 1952-and no one can say that this is a Liberal paper-a record of the federal government's action in subsidizing agriculture. The actual amount paid in subsidies to the agricultural industry across Canada from 1940 to 1950-51 has been $853,300,000, or more than three-quarters of a billion dollars. That has been the subsidy paid to agriculture during that time.
Let us compare that with the subsidy paid to the gold mining industry, and we will have the answer. Do not let anyone get the idea that I think the gold mining industry in Canada is in trouble. I do not know, but it seems to me the people handling that can take care of themselves pretty well. Yet I know this, that there are almost a million people engaged in gold mining, or who are earning their living from that industry. I also know that the incentive offered by gold mining has spread to other valuable minerals being produced. The incentive offered by gold mining has induced the prospector to 

go out to find other valuable minerals throughout the country. This subsidy has encouraged the gold mining industry, so that we could make the most of our mineral resources.
Let my hon. friends in Saskatchewan who are complaining about the subsidy to gold mining remember that we have the largest uranium discovery in the world in northern Saskatchewan. I am not too much concerned about the gold mining industry; I am not worried about it. I have not been troubled at any time with having too much gold under my control, and I think the same thing can be said for most of the farmers in southwestern Saskatchewan. There has never been an overabundance of gold under their control. It is a lack of gold or its equivalent that has caused a difficult situation in south Saskatchewan and the difficulties that have been inflicted upon the farmers there during past years.
If it is possible to keep a million people employed in this country, I want to see those people employed. I want to see them have the right to earn a living whether at gold mining, in industry, in oil, in agriculture, in our manufacturing plants, on our railroads or wherever they may be. Those people have a right to live and it is the government's duty to provide a means whereby they can earn a living. That is a duty the government owes to all the inhabitants of the country. If the government finds it necessary to provide a gold subsidy to maintain this million people at work, what can I do but support it in the hope that the gold mining industry along with agriculture and all other industries will prosper so that subsidies will not be needed in the future.
Something has been said about the wheat situation. I think the position in this regard can be summarized in a very few words. This government has faced tremendous problems in the last few years. The wheat board and the Department of Trade and Commerce were faced with over a billion bushels of grain last year and with more than that this year, or over two billion bushels in twenty-four months. At least half that amount has been moved. Facilities have been provided and markets found under the most adverse conditions. Over 240 million bushels of damp and tough grain has been moved at a reasonable price. That is one of the greatest accomplishments ever achieved in Canada or any country in the world.
I do not say that is good enough. Nothing is good enough in the Liberal party. If there is anything bad, they are determined to make

it good. That is the Liberal policy. If it is good they are determined to make it better. If it is wrong, they will make it right. If it is right, they will bring it to perfection. That is what we subscribe to.
The international wheat agreement will shortly be coming up again for consideration. Let no one in Canada think for one moment that every effort is not going to be made to obtain the best possible results in connection with the wheat agreement for the benefit of the farmers of this country. We are not going to have a fire sale. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will never agree to give our wheat away at any price nor attempt to blast our way into the markets of the world at any price. We are going to obtain for that wheat what it is worth, plus, in all the markets of the world; we will obtain what the markets of the world will be willing to pay. We are not going to price ourselves out of the markets of the world. There are two times when agriculture gets into difficulty; one is when there is no production, when there is a crop failure, and the other is when there is too much wheat. Our friends the socialists wish to give our production away; but they should hold up as an example what other socialist countries in the world have given away to the underprivileged people during all the time we have heard of socialism. Their policy is to give everything away until we become one of the underprivileged countries of the world.
We have the international wheat agreement and we have the wheat board. The government has just made a final payment on last year's crop. I think even the socialists will agree that that payment was quite good. However, they are not ready to give the government credit for it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce will not ask for any credit, but the fact is it was a pretty good wheat payment. If it was more than the average producer expected, and I think it was; if the government is to receive no credit for it, then why should the government be faced with a political implication that it has not acted as it should when the final payment is a few cents less than was expected?
We hear our socialist friends talking about the support they are giving to the international wheat agreement and the wheat board. Do not believe it; they are out to destroy it, and here is the proof. They asked the people to vote against the wheat steal. That is a contribution the socialists made during the by-election in Gravelbourg a year and a half ago. Vote against the wheat steal. Who stole the wheat? No one was handling wheat except the wheat board; and every farmer 68108-264
The Address-Mr. Studer and every socialist recognized that advertisement which appeared in all the papers and which was passed out to the people in the form of handbills. Vote against the wheat steal. Why didn't they say, "Vote against the wheat board?" The implication was there, yet they tell us they are in favour of the wheat board. They will never make me believe that because there are their words and this time their words speak louder than their actions.
What the socialists say west of the great lakes they do not say east of the great lakes. That is the great trouble in this country. It is exactly the same with the Progressive Conservatives. What they say in Quebec they do not say in Ontario. That is one barrier to unity throughout the whole country, the difference between what politicians in the west say for their own political advancement, and what they say in eastern Canada.
So I suggest to all who care to take the suggestion-and I do not imagine many over in that particular area of the House of Commons will take it-that they make their actions conform with their words and get behind the international wheat agreement and the wheat board. The socialists in western Canada should get behind a policy that will guarantee a wheat board in the future, and not support any political party that will be in a position to destroy what has been built up during the last fifteen years through the efforts of the farmers, their farm organizations and their wheat pools. That should not be permitted to be destroyed in one fell swoop. They have a duty to perform, not only for their own particular advancement but for the benefit of the rest of the people of Canada.
I want the Minister of Trade and Commerce to ask right now for farmer representation on the wheat board. I think this is the time for that. I suggest to him that the best possible men in the country be hired to operate the wheat board. I heard some farm union officials in western Canada criticizing the wheat board and intimating that some of the officials were not fit to operate the board because they had previously been connected with the grain trade. The Minister of Trade and Commerce should try to obtain the best men possible to operate the wheat board, and I think the minister will do that.
There is no government in the world, no grain board or wheat board that will tolerate anyone stealing the farmers' wheat. If they do, then they are not fit to handle that wheat. I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he ask the farm organizations and the wheat pools to offer their best
396	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Studer men as representatives of the farmers of western Canada on our wheat board.
We have heard a lot about floor prices. Let me tell the house that because of the inefficiency, the uselessness and the impotence of the minister of agriculture of the province of Saskatchewan, the farmers of Saskatchewan have lost $140 million.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think an hon. member of this house should reflect upon a minister of a provincial government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is all right for him to reflect upon his own minister. It might have been truer if he had said it about his own minister.


Irvin William Studer: Certainly I do not need to reflect on anybody. Everyone knows, and without any reflection, that what I said is true. The attitude the minister took in connection with the foot-and-mouth disease and his entirely unwarranted criticism as to inefficiency on the part of the federal government veterinarians in controlling the disease was immediately responsible for the embargo by the provinces and hastened the imposition of the embargo by the United States. I say the farmers lost the equivalent of what they had gained between the time the foot-and-mouth disease was first determined and the time the actual embargoes were put in force. The farmers lost $140 million; and they also lost because the provincial government and their minister of agriculture never accepted their responsibility in Saskatchewan to provide storage space for the production of the farmers of western Canada which at various times of the year, and almost every year, exceeds the demand.
As a result eggs and other products have to be shipped out of the province and the storage is paid in other provinces. That is a loss for every farmer in Saskatchewan. Then there is also the loss that arises in connection with floor prices. Under the provincial government's marketing legislation it is their direct responsibility, when floor prices are not paid to the farmers, to buy the products, sell them to the federal government at the floor price, and in the meantime pay the floor price to the farmers of western Canada.
In Saskatchewan the government was most derelict in its duty. If they have no value except to criticize, what in the world are the people of Canada doing with a provincial government and a minister of agriculture so inefficient as in the province of Saskatchewan? They are throwing away our money. The loss has been at least $140 million, and the only thing we have there is a critical attitude. That is why I said last year that under a foreign policy imported into this country by [Mr. Studer.l

the socialists, unconditional socialists are conditional Canadians because they will not co-operate with anyone in Canada unless they are willing to adopt socialist policy. I will stand by that statement.


Mr. Thafcher:: They liked it in Saskatchewan the last time.


Irvin William Studer: We have a situation with regard to socialists and health upon which I should like to dwell. In the one instance they advocate that we spend another $500 million for health. We are all in favour of health. The federal government has made available $1 billion each year for health and social services. The socialists want us to add another half billion dollars to the expenditures of the federal government. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) tells us that the country now is rich enough to support the additional expenditure of half a billion dollars, and in the same place, although perhaps not at the same time, the leader of the socialists will tell you that the country is going to the dogs and that we will not be able to continue to have our marvellous system of social services that is a credit to all. He admits that we have prosperity, but he says it is deceptive. He says it will not last, that it is a mirage, that it will deceive you, that it will disintegrate, that it will collapse, and then he asks us to spend $500 million in one fell swoop.
I should like to ask the leader of the socialists in this house, or any other socialist, what right anyone has who is not a producer of wealth to be a socialist? What right has a non-producer of wealth to be a socialist? If any one of them has the right to be a socialist I wish he would stand up in the house and proclaim it because the first thing you have to do is produce some wealth before you can distribute it. Where did the socialists get the right to be socialists when they are not producers? Did they get it from God? No. Even God knows you have to produce before you can distribute. Do they get it from Karl Marx or Engels? No; neither Marx nor Engels were producers. They did not have the right of succession passed on. Did they get it because of humanitarian reasons? Oh, it is easy to be a humanitarian and a do-gooder with somebody else's money.
Did they get it from the people? No, because they were socialists before the people ever heard of them. Did they get it from nature? No, because even the drones in the beehives have not the right to distribute the honey of the worker bees. There are too many would-be educators in this country who have found it much more profitable for themselves to become agitators. There are too

many people in other vocations in this country who have found it much more profitable for themselves to go out and try to save hides rather than save souls. Yet the socialists get up in the House of Commons and proclaim their right to be socialists. If you cannot do that, then go out in the country and tell the people that the socialist system is a fake, fraud and deception. West of the great lakes they preach one story. East of the great lakes they preach another story. East of the great lakes they are wolves in sheep's clothing and west of the great lakes sheep in wolves' clothing. That is true of all of them with the exception of that lovable, likeable member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). He is not a sheep. He is merely a well conditioned capitalistic lamb being led to a socialistic slaughter.
But there are other socialist members who have the right to be socialists, and one of them is the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). He is a producer. He has the right to be a socialist along with others. He is a successful farmer. He has made money. There are only two ways you can make money when you are a farmer and a politician. As a farmer you can make money by reason of the policies of the dominion government. That is the only way you can do it. The other is as a politician. Which of the two is it? I ask the hon. member for Melfort which it is. Socialism is built on a false premise and the people know it.
When the truth catches up with what the people have been told there will not be any more socialists because socialism means control. It means less of everything, including people. It means destruction, it means no production, it means death, and that is the truth. So we will tell these socialists that in order to have the right to be socialists they should become producers. I suggest to them that there are too many rich socialists in the country today, and that is part of our trouble in Saskatchewan. It used to be that people talked about the rich capitalists, but now it is the rich socialists. It is rank heresy in the rank and file of the socialists, and you can leave the file out because they are all rank. It is rank heresy in the ranks of the socialists.
I know of rich socialists in Saskatchewan who, through the agricultural policies of the dominion government, have accumulated from 3,000 to 5,000 acres of good agricultural land during the past fifteen years, and that is under the system they are out to destroy. When are they going to socialize the rich socialists in Saskatchewan including those who are government members?
The Address-Mr. Studer


An hon. Member:: That fits you, Ross.


Irvin William Studer: Talking about Ross, I should like to have him justify his position as a distributor at a profit of the sweat and labour of others. He is not a producer but a distributor of the work of others. Again I say it is rank heresy in the ranks of the socialists. Let them justify it. Production for use and not for profit is the battlecry of the socialists, and here we have an instance where it is distribution for profit to individuals. If that is socialism, I hope the Lord prevents us from having too much of it.
I should like to give a little bit of advice, hoping that someone will take it. I should like to suggest to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) that he adopt a system in western Canada with respect to the collection of taxes that will not be so aggressive toward the people of western Canada. We are living in Canada. We are not living in Russia. I do not like the policy that is in effect out there under which the farmers were put through the wringer, through the grindstone you might call it, to extract that which ten years ago they had no idea they were ever going to be compelled to pay. The Conservatives here talk about the overemphasis on national revenue. They say the Minister of Finance did not judge right because he has too great a surplus. That is not where the surplus came from; the surplus came from the collection of tax arrears from the farmers out in Saskatchewan. Give consideration to the farmers in applying these measures. These are not the days of the inquisition. These are days when every man has his right. I think he has the right to be heard, and these farmers in Saskatchewan are not being heard to the extent that any Canadian citizen should be heard in connection with the collection of arrears of income tax.
To the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) I should like to say that I want him to institute a plan of unemployment insurance for farm labour. I want him to get busy at that right away. If we are going to maintain any employment on our farms, it is necessary. Without question, day after day our farm labourers are going to the cities. There is one reason for that, and it is that they can receive consideration in the cities that they cannot be assured will be available on the farm. Such a measure would prevent some of that. I want every action taken in the interests of the labouring people. I ask the government never to take its eyes away from the plight of the poor. Do not worry about the rich. I never heard of one of them who did! not get along very well. We should
398	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Studer worry about the poor people of this country. In opposition to the policy of the socialists, who are always trying to make the rich poor, this government is going to make all the poor rich.
I want the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier)

give him credit for a job well done, to almost the same extent as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)
*-to continue doing what he has just done in connection with the transporting of grain in this country. After the trans-Canada highway is completed, I want him to immediately inaugurate a plan whereby we shall have separate truck roads for all trucking done in this country. I hesitate to pick up the paper each day and read about the disasters that are happening on all our highways because of the truck traffic which prevents the normal use of the roads by the motoring public. The railways built their lines for transportation, and if the trucks can transport goods cheaper than the railways then I think the co-operation of the provinces should be sought in providing roads to take advantage of this cheaper transportation. A truck road system should be made available throughout the country; then the trucks would not be continually in conflict with the motoring public, resulting in the deaths that inevitably follow.
To the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe), I would say "keep up your solicitude on behalf of the veterans of this country." They risked their lives for us, and if it were not for them we would not be here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Irvin William Studer: No matter what you do, keep a solicitous eye, a benevolent eye, on them. There are many of these veterans in southwestern Saskatchewan who are farming land under extremely difficult conditions. I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs well enough to know that he will do his utmost for them.
To the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) I would say that we want him to stabilize prices as close to parity as possible, with the help of all the provinces but not the opposition of all the provinces. If that is done we will create stability in this country unheard of in any other country in the world. But we need the co-operation of the provinces.
Finally, to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) I want to say this. Do not worry too much because there happen to be a few surplus ties or other commodities. You worry about protecting the people of Canada, and worry about that only. If you


Mr. Ray Thomas (Weiaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I think that under ordinary circumstances the hon. member who just took his seat should only be allotted twenty minutes, because he can get more words into twenty minutes than any other member in the house can get in in an hour.


Mr. Cruickshank:: He can say more in five minutes than you could in two hours.


Ray Thomas: You just woke up. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) can be assured of one thing, and that is that I shall be speaking here long after he has gone.


An hon. Member:: I doubt it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Ray Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my plea to that made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) the other night when he asked for some changes to be made in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act as it applies to hail benefits. Under the present six-section eligibility clause we find that we have a great deal of discrimination. It is not deliberate discrimination; but with hail acting in the way it does, it cannot be helped. It is almost impossible to administer an act such as the Prairie Farm Assistance Act unless there is some reduction in the eligibility clause. All westerners know that hail is extremely unpredictable. At times you will have a narrow strip where the hail will cut a swathe many miles long. At other times it will hit one farm, skip one and hit another. This phenomenon makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to administer the act as it should be administered. The only real solution to this problem would be found if the hail benefits were to be reduced to an individual basis. If the government is not willing to do that-that is, bring it down to the individual basis-they should at least bring it down to a one-section basis so the farmers who are suffering hail damage will not be discriminated against.
I was greatly interested the other night when the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production was giving his report on his visit to the troops in Germany. At that time he stated that the morale of the troops in Germany was extremely high, that they lacked nothing in the way of recreational facilities and that they were doing well. I am not prepared to argue with the parliamentary assistant on that score. I simply do not know. I am not satisfied, however, that the whole story was told.
The Address-Mr. Thomas
Last session I made the suggestion to the government that on some of these tours to theatres of action or to theatres in which we have Canadian troops, some opposition members or at least one opposition member should be taken along so that we can get the real or the whole story. If the morale is as high as the parliamentary assistant says it is, the government should be tickled to death to have an opposition member come back to the House of Commons and give the assurances that the parliamentary assistant gave the other night. If the morale is not high- and in the press there have been many reports that the morale is not as high as we would like to see it-then the people of Canada should find out, and we should have something done about it.
Whether we are having an election in the next year or whether we are not, that matter is not half as important as is the welfare of our boys who are overseas at the present time. Too often we get these glowing reports from government members and then later on have reports to the contrary. If these boys in Germany need more recreational facilities, let us see that they have them. If they need anything, we should know about it and see that they get it. After all, those fellows are there for our protection; and nothing is too good for them in the line of recreation or any other line you could mention. The only way we can find out about the matter, to the satisfaction of the people at home, is to send over somebody from the opposition so that he can speak, and agree or otherwise, as to the reports given by those on the government side of the house.
I am not going to follow the Conservatives' policy of criticizing the government's purchase of clothing, neckties, teapots and so on. Having had a certain amount of experience in the selling of clothing and other articles, I realize that it is necessary to have on hand stocks of many sizes in order to sell clothing or, as in the case of the army, to issue it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Even neckties and serving
forks?


Ray Thomas: We ought just to keep this fact in mind, and this will answer the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). We never know when we may have to make an all-out war effort and go into an all-out war. The hon. member for Kamloops would be the first to jump to his feet and holler "shame" if we were not prepared for it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Especially with neckties and serving forks.


Ray Thomas: If we are not better prepared than we were before, we shall have to strangle the enemy with neckties and poke them with forks.

The Address-Mr. Thomas


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear. Let us buy something else. I would rather spend money on something else.


Arthur Laing: Let me guess what.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Shells.


Ray Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I notice that I am getting some help.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Ammunition for Korea.


An hon. Member:: Who is making this speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Ray Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that we should supply not only present needs but that we should and must stockpile in case of an emergency. As members of our group have stated and as I, speaking for them on many occasions, have stated, we will go all-out with the government on any productive effort that they want to go on with, if it is necessary; and I think at the present time it is necessary. I believe, however, that the taxpayers of Canada are suffering great losses as a result of poor management in their defence construction program. I think the hon. member for Red Deer covered that subject fairly thoroughly the other night, and so far I have not heard one government voice dissenting. I notice that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production have spoken and that they said nothing about it.
I think it is imperative that we have a complete investigation into the defence construction program, not only in the two centres mentioned by the hon. member for Red Deer but in the centres all across Canada. Some new inspectors should be sent out to all these places to find out whether things are going well. If they are going well, we shall be pleased to hear it. If they are not going well, let us get them rectified and get on with the job.
As to smaller stores, I think there is a certain amount of misuse in consumable stores. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine was telling me one day about getting 85-cent T-bone steaks in a restaurant, -and he could not figure out how he was doing it until one day he saw the Department of National Defence stamp on the rind. If the minister or the parliamentary assistant would like to come and ask me about it, I will give him the name and location of the restaurant so they may investigate the matter.
I should like to say just a brief word about the government's T.V. policy. I want to protest most strongly against this policy of suppression of private companies. I know


that the C.B.C. claims that it is encouraging Canadian talent and Canadian culture, but it is having exactly the opposite effect. In the cities where they have Canadian television and where they can also bring in United States stations, I find that the television sets are invariably tuned to the United States, so they can absorb more of the United States culture and leave our own Canadian culture alone. I cannot understand why the government and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation insist on spending the taxpayers' money to do a job that private concerns are willing to do with no cost at all to the Canadian taxpayers. They could probably do it better and much cheaper. As a matter of fact the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation set $1 million as the cost of a television station on the west coast, where private companies have claimed that they can set one up for as little as $500,000.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in television as in radio, is operating not only as a competitor but as the controlling body, and as such can develop into the most vicious propaganda machine imaginable. They have that type of thing in Russia, but there is no place for it in a democratic country such as ours. It would make one wonder whether the forthcoming election might not have something to do with Canadian television policy.
If the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is to be the controlling body for television and radio, then it should get out of circulation as a competing body; or if it is going to be the competing body, then let us set up some other body to control both radio and television. So much for that, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to urge the government to set up a special committee on veterans affairs during this session, or better still make it a standing committee instead of a special committee. We need a complete revision of the War Veterans Allowance Act, particularly to consider increasing the ceilings on their total income, so that a man can work without being penalized. Many of them today are living in abject poverty, and it is a shame and a disgrace that those men should have to live under those conditions after all the sacrifices they made for this parliamentary system that we -have in Canada.
I would add my word to that expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) this afternoon when he asked that something be done for the blind people of this country. I suggest that the government remove the means test from the blind pension and consider it as an acknowledgment of the handicap, and let them go to work so they can take their places as producers in this country of ours.

Speaking of our group the other night the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Nickle) said that he must be guided-because he had seen no other statement of policy recently- by the platform adopted by the Social Credi-ters in Saskatchewan, asking for an old age pension of $100 without the means test, and for tax exemptions of $2,500 and $5,000. Well,
I am amazed that an hon. member of his reputed intelligence could make such a statement. Surely the hon. member has been here long enough to know our platform, if he had paid any attention to the speeches that have been made from this corner of the house. If he had any doubts about anything that has been said in this house, or needed a copy of our platform, any of our offices are just as close as his telephone. He could pick it up and telephone us and ask us what was going on. It is quite apparent that the hon. member for Calgary West prefers to remain in ignorance of our policies.


Mr. Nickle:: I have been close to them for 17 years.


Ray Thomas: In the event that he has not been able to get anything out of our speeches,
I am going to take the opportunity of sending him over a copy of our charter so that when he makes any more speeches in future he will have something to go on without digging into some resolution that was passed in the province of Saskatchewan.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Send me a copy, too.


Ray Thomas: Drop around any time.


Mr. Johnston:: You will get enough of it.


Carl Olof Nickle: Do you accept this Saskatchewan policy as national policy?


Ray Thomas: That was a resolution.


Mr. Byrne:: Based on Douglas social credit?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is $25 a month in that book?


Charles Edward Johnston: You had better take your $25 a month or you won't have a seat.


Ray Thomas: The other day the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) spoke of Social Crediters being ex-Tories and Tories at the present time. I can understand the hon. member making a statement like that, and I can understand quite a few of the hon. members on the other side of the house making such statements. It is wishful thinking. They hope that the Social Crediters will not take their strength away from them but will take only the Tories'. Many of them had better keep on hoping. The hon. member for Vancouver South shakes his head. He should be the last one to say anything about that. I had a long talk with his campaign
The Address-Mr. Thomas manager at the last general election. He ran as a Social Credit candidate in Vancouver during the last provincial election.


Charles Edward Johnston: Laugh that one off.


Arthur Laing: He ran in a different riding from mine.


Ray Thomas: He was still a Social Crediter and the hon. member was trying to intimate that we gained all our strength from the Tories.


Arthur Laing: He ran in a different place.


Charles Edward Johnston: The best Liberals are going Social Credit.


Arthur Laing: I hope he runs federally next time.


Ray Thomas: The other night the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prud-ham) read a manuscript in the house. The author of that manuscript is unknown.


Mr. Prudham:: Whom do you think it is?


Ray Thomas: We are convinced that he is the same writer who prepared a similar manuscript for Mr. J. Harper Prowse, the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta during the last provincial election.


George Prudham: It is still good stuff; it is still true.


Ray Thomas: The people of Alberta were so enthused over the platform that they elected 4 Liberal members in a house of 60. Just for comparison it may be interesting to note that that comes to one-fifteenth, and if we take the 17 federal seats in Alberta and divide them by fifteen we get one and two-fifteenths. When we use seniority we find that the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) has been here longer than any of the others, so we can presume that he is going to be elected again. That leaves two-fifteenths. I am not going to say what member is that two-fifteenths. Far be it from me to do that, but last night the minister indicated that he was coming back.


George Prudham: There will be more Liberals than the last time, anyway.


Ray Thomas: I do wish that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys would at least revise that old speech that went through the provincial campaign.


George Prudham: Don't you like it?


Ray Thomas: Because it did not do any good. He may as well admit that the Liberal party in Alberta is in a rut. The only difference between a rut and a grave is the dimensions, and they are almost ready for it. As a matter of fact many of the Liberals in Alberta were so pleased with the Social
402	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Thomas Credit administration that they did not even jiominate candidates to run in some of those ridings, and last night the minister was talking about the pathetic municipal situation within Alberta-


Charles Edward Johnston: As he called it.


Ray Thomas: Yes, as he called it; and they did not even run a candidate against the minister of municipal affairs. He went in by acclamation. I wonder just what the Liberals within that riding think of the minister of municipal affairs. We can understand quite easily how disturbed the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys must be when he knows that the Liberal following from Alberta in the next house can quite easily be nil. He has to be thinking of something, and because of that fear we have to expect numerous frenzied attacks such as we experienced last night.


George Prudham: That was just the truth.


Ray Thomas: I am speaking of Alberta, and British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: British Columbia will look after itself.


Ray Thomas: They sure did last summer.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And regret it already.


Ray Thomas: Last night the minister mentioned roads-


Arthur Laing: Nineteen out of forty-eight.


An hon. Member:: How many Liberals?


Arthur Laing: The aristocracy of the
-unqualified.


Ray Thomas: The minister mentioned roads last night. How well do I remember the road policy advocated during the provincial election campaign in 1948, when their leader Mr. Prowse stood up and said, "If the Liberals are elected we will give you the best roads you have ever seen in Alberta. First thing, we will borrow $100 million, and we will build roads with it".


John Horne Blackmore: And that would mortgage the oil industry completely.


Ray Thomas: The people of Alberta did not like it.


George Prudham: And we still have not got the roads.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You got the oil, and not
the roads.


Ray Thomas: I will come to that. While we are talking about Liberal policy, I would like to read from the Bank of Canada report which deals with the financial position of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1937.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Read about British
Columbia, too.


Arthur Laing: A Tory report.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Look on the other page.


Ray Thomas: At page 34 we find the summary and conclusions in this Bank of Canada report. Speaking of the period between 1905 and 1922, a period of Liberal administration, the report says:
After making full allowance for the rapid economic development of the new province, and the legitimate cost of facilities provided by the government to aid and stimulate this development, it remains the case-in our opinion-that the 1905-22 period was characterized by waste, loose administration, and incurrence of debt to an extent which could not be justified even when allowance is made for the optimistic spirit of the times.


Charles Edward Johnston: And that was Liberalism.


Ray Thomas: Now, when we have our province in a pretty fair position, they want to start over again and ruin it again for us. The minister also said last night in referring to Alberta that it was oil that had contributed to her wealth, and that policies had nothing to do with it. Well, listen to this same report at page 25:
By the summer of 1935 Alberta had largely exhausted its liquid and realizable assets in order to meet its chronic cash deficiencies, and when a run on the savings certificates took place in August, 1935, the necessary funds were not available.
That is what it was like when they took over.


George Prudham: That all changed in 1948, though.


Ray Thomas: Let us just go to 1937, ten years before we had oil in Alberta, and see what the Bank of Canada report says. It says this:
It is the case, however, that Alberta's budgetary position differs materially from that of the other provinces, by reason of the fact that interest payments have been reduced by 50 per cent, or $3,400,000, and, other things being equal, its cash requirements have been reduced by the same amount.
And then it goes on to say:
We find that Alberta can maintain its governmental services on as favourable a basis as Manitoba or Saskatchewan without receipt of additional assistance, and we therefore see no basis for recommending that temporary financial aid should be extended by the dominion government.
That was two years after we took over.


George Prudham: You defaulted on your
bonds, that is why. That is no credit to you.


Ray Thomas: You would like to have some of those today, wouldn't you?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Yes, after you found oil.


Ray Thomas: The minister last night-


John Horne Blackmore: After we found the brains, that was the main thing; brains and character.


Ray Thomas: The minister last night-*


George Alexander Cruickshank: You got the characters, all right; we admit that.


Ray Thomas: The minister last night tried to ridicule the hon. member for Peace River about living in Ottawa.


George Prudham: No, I did not.


Ray Thomas: He knows, as does every other member in the House of Commons, that it has been the custom for the leaders of groups to live in Ottawa, where they can be close to their work. That has been done by Liberal, Conservative, C.C.F. and Social Credit. They have to be close to their work. And if the minister does not know that-well, my goodness-


George Prudham: He never has lived in the constituency.


Ray Thomas: And he has not run from province to province trying to find a seat he can win.


George Prudham: He has run from constituency to constituency, though.


John Horne Blackmore: But they chose him.


Mr. Shaw:: How about your former prime minister?


George Alexander Cruickshank: He was a prime minister, not the leader of a little jerkwater joint.


Ray Thomas: Sour grapes won't help you.


William Scottie Bryce: Read what Bruce Hutchison said about him.


Arthur Laing: Leave it over to the next election.


Ray Thomas: The minister last night made reference to our taking the stand that we have the only Christians, or that we are the only political party in Canada with Christian beliefs. We have never claimed to be the only one.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You have so.


Ray Thomas: No; but we do claim we have Christian principles today in our movement. That is correct.


George Prudham: I said you have po monopoly; that is all.


Ray Thomas: There is probably a lot of Christianity in the Liberal policy. But the financial set-up that we are labouring under and which the Canadian government adheres to is as anti-Christian as anything could be, and the minister knows it. The Creator placed all things on this earth so that we might use them. They were put there for our use.
The Address-Mr. Boisvert Yet we are tied down to a financial system which will not allow us to use them. Money was created to use, as a means of distribution of the wealth of this country. Today we find that the productive system of the country is enslaved by the monetary system.


Arthur Laing: Who are these international financiers?


John Horne Blackmore: I will give you a book about them, so you can find out.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You send a book, and then you charge 50 cents for it.


Arthur Laing: Tell us now.


Ray Thomas: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) mentioned funny money. Could there be anything funnier than money that has reduced its value 50 per cent in the last ten years?


Arthur Laing: Explain to us the fair price. What is the fair price?


Frederick Davis Shaw: Funny money-50 cents on the dollar.


Ray Thomas: They talk about the printing press. Every dollar the minister has in his pocket tonight came from the printing press.


Arthur Laing: Explain the meaning of the fair price.


Ray Thomas: The only difference between Social Credit policy and the policy of the present government is the fact that we use some common sense in the issuing of that money.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Our money is good, yours is not; that's the only difference.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Fifty cents for every dollar.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And it is good anywhere in the world.


Frederick Davis Shaw: At a 50 per cent discount.


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of each session the speech from the throne informs parliament of the matters that will be discussed and forecasts the legislation to be enacted for the good of the country. The speech contains wide, general and sometimes vague statements. One must read between the lines to find out exactly what legislation is proposed. The wider the meaning, the greater opportunity it affords of debating the various aspects of our national problems. This year the speech places before us such important matters as international policy, the St. Lawrence seaway project, radio television, international trade, and so forth. Before expressing an opinion on one or two of those problems which are so important to Canadians I should like to add my congratulations to

The Address

Mr. Boisvert those already offered to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mr. Deslieres) and to the seconder, the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) upon the manner in which they have discharged a difficult task. They have won the admiration of this house and have fully justified the confidence placed in them by the electors of their respective constituencies.
I should like also to congratulate the two hon. gentlemen who have been appointed members of the government. I refer to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney) who is an Associate Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) who is our new Minister of Fisheries. I have no doubt that both of these gentlemen will carry out their duties with competence and with the highest standards of responsibility.
I want to extend a welcome to our new colleagues the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) and the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque). Their presence in this chamber is evidence that hon. members opposite are in a brown study if they think the Liberal party has lost any of its strength in the province of Quebec. (Translation):
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in my mother tongue about a matter that has already been dealt with by the hon. members for Labelle (Mr. Court-emanche) and for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier). It is about a great Canadian, Mr. Henri Bourassa. In doing so, I must not forget that one of his friends, Mr. Paul-Emile Lamarche, was member for Nicolet-Yamaska from 1911 to 1917 and I should also recall to the house that Mr. Paul-Emile Lamarche was always true to Mr. Bourassa.
As I said a moment ago, the hon. members for Labelle and for Portneuf paid a well-deserved tribute to Mr. Bourassa. At the turn of the century, I was too young to accept or reject Mr. Bourassa's ideas. However I had occasion to meet him during the course of my legal practice and I always had much admiration and sympathy for his wide talent and his spirited oratory. He was a dangerous politician and he will be remembered.
A friend of Laurier, he fought against him and then made friends again. He deserves that we honour his memory, that we remember him as a man of exceptional culture, constantly inspired by a strong desire to clash with someone on the ideological field.
In the course of the last debates in which he took part, he voted against the party to which the hon. member for Labelle is quite

proud and happy to belong. I am sorry that he is not in his seat tonight. On a matter of great interest, trade relations between Great Britain and the commonwealth, Mr. Bourassa spoke as follows, on May 15, 1930. I quote from page 2127 of Hansard:
"I sympathize with the English, I think the world would be worse if England disappeared, the world would suffer if English power were too greatly weakened. However, it is ridiculous, it is the thought of a parvenu or of a child who has not measured his strength, to imagine that we can settle the affairs of England. Let us rather come back to the thought which has been frequently expressed by the leader of this government and by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe): Let us frame our policy first to suit ourselves, but frame it with an open eye, so that we may deal preferentially with people who are prepared to deal with us. I wish to state that there is no people on earth with whom I would rather deal, or with whom I would rather commune mentally or politically, than the British people.
At this very moment, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) are in England where they are attending a conference which will deal with problems similar to those we had to face in 1930. There is no doubt, on this side of the house, that our representatives will take stands consistent with the best traditions of our party and in the best interest of our country. We do not see very well how our relations with Great Britain and the nations of the commonwealth could affect our actual sovereignty and the authority of our parliament over our own affairs as a nation. It is difficult to understand what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) meant when he said, during the present debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as reported on page 28 of Hansard:
Our real sovereignty and full authority over our own affairs as a nation will depend in very large measure on the extent to which the Canadian government succeeds in reopening the commonwealth and sterling markets so that our trade is better balanced, and we have some freedom of action in the event of economic storms in the United States or acting at any time by their government which might interrupt the flow of our exports. There is nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate any intention on the part of the government to take appropriate action in pursuance of this great need.
It is strange that the Leader of the Opposition could have spoken of centralization in connection with relations between the government and the provinces, when, in his opinion, our sovereignty as a nation would be threatened if we failed to resume trade relations with England and the commonwealth countries. Does it mean that our sovereignty is still

partly dependent on Great Britain? If that were the case, it would be imperative for the hon. member from Labelle to shed his Harlequin's coat. His nationalism is closely akin to that of those who betrayed Bourassa and of whom he complained all his life. (Text):
I should like to deal with some of the international problems. What emerges most strikingly from the speech from the throne, the terms, aspects and forecasts of which we are now studying, are policies both national and international. There are very few questions which are not in one way or another linked up with the unsettled and threatening international situation. Certain problems which seem to be of a purely local economic nature become interwoven with conditions that arise in distant or neighbouring countries. For instance, the outbreak of the foot-and-mouth disease was a local affair, but that was followed by an embargo imposed by the government of the United States which made inoperative for a time a trade agreement of international character.
Canada was blessed with a bumper crop this year, but our western farmers will not benefit unless it is disposed of in the markets of the world under our trade agreements. Again this is a matter of policy at the international level.
I have already stated that in the international field the situation is confused, uncertain and even gloomy. The Korean war does not seem to have given rise, in so far as the democratic countries are concerned, to an emotional reaction which would cause this struggle to be considered by the people involved as a holy war, one which falls well within the terms of the first paragraph of article 1 of the United Nations charter signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945. This article reads as follows:
The purposes ot the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.
When the United Nations charter was signed a wave of confidence swept over the world. It seemed to us all that at last the whole globe would be delivered from the nightmare of war and that the peoples of the world, having walked a bloody path for so long, would at length understand how to adapt civilization to modern conditions, would be capable of establishing an international sovereignty based on a peaceful rule of law,
The Address-Mr. Boisvert with no recourse to armaments more shocking and terrifying than the fires of heaven. Yet, unfortunately, nothing has changed except for the worse. Russia, thanks to its communist agents, has managed to bring into its sphere of influence, through devious means incorporating blackmail and threats, would-be free nations such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Roumania, to speak of Europe. In Asia we have China, this inexhaustible reservoir of human beings whose poverty and fatalism may in time make possible the formation of immense armies ready to undertake violent wars of conquest at Russia's behest in the name of that materialistic ideology which, so to speak, divorces the human spirit from its true function, which is thought, and weds it instead to a doctrine of blind animal subservience. The docility and servility of these armies would turn them into instruments of mass murder and destruction.
For the past two years Asia Minor and Africa have been shaken by a series of disquieting events. This brings us to the Iranian oil question, the question of treaties between England and Egypt, the uprising of the negroes in Kenya, the racial question in South Africa. I say these things to show that, from the point of view of international strategy, the area of the territories where large-scale manoeuvres could be undertaken to bring about the victory of our armies is more and more narrowing, more and more shrinking. If Russia, through its agents urging the indigenous population of African countries to revolt, succeeded in putting the political, economic and military situation of our allies and the member states of the North Atlantic treaty in a precarious position should war break out anew, which heaven forbid, then it will be possible to win it only by the virtual obliteration of the enemies of the liberty and security of all peoples, a solution that would annihilate more than half the globe. It means that we would have to use atomic bombs as well as the hydrogen bomb, whose unavoidable use would be equivalent to a real betrayal of our civilization. As between losing and winning, of course we will have to win, but at what a shameful price.
In the face of this pessimistic view of things, I wonder whether it would not be advisable to revise the international policy of free peoples and revert to secret diplomacy rather than this open diplomacy which has been practised since the last war. We well realize that the meetings of the United Nations are a forum for Moscow-inspired diplomats. They are thus in a position to

The Address-Mr. Boisvert submerge the whole world, as they do indeed, with their insidious and skilful propaganda. So far as our side is concerned, Russia by all means conceivable, as much within its own borders as beyond those of satellite countries, prevents the diplomats of the member nations of the North Atlantic treaty from reciprocating by informing their nationals of the objectives which we intend to achieve in order to maintain universal order in an atmosphere of peaceful stability, and in adopting for this purpose only amicable solutions liable to produce earnest advantages for all peace loving and progressive peoples. As long as the United Nations are serving the objectives of Russia and communism in the world, would it not be better to rely on a much more secret diplomacy which would plunge Russian diplomats and Russophiles into perplexity as regards our means, and leave the Russian people in a troublesome anxiety?
Is it not true that controversies break out here and there within the member nations of the North Atlantic pact to the effect that the United Nations is not able to achieve the end it had in view? It seems also that the Korean war will not be settled by the general assembly of the United Nations, as it appears that the meetings of the United Nations are becoming a source of conflict between member nations. France, for instance, complains bitterly of the stand taken by the United States on the claims made by the people of Tunisia and Morocco. The United Nations meetings are truly marathons of oratory by the Russians and advocates of the so-called people's democracies, who stir up throughout the world a kind of propaganda which is likely to push farther and farther back the horizon where, at one point, it appeared to us that the star of peace had risen in a sky still red with the fires of destruction. Russia and communism profit considerably by our divisions and our disagreements which, however normal and understandable they may be, show that notwithstanding our efforts toward peace we are far from seeing eye to eye on the means of attaining it.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) deserves to be complimented on his appointment to the general assembly of the United Nations. His appointment reflects the position our country occupies among the nations of the world, and it shows up the personality of our Secretary of State for External Affairs, a personality which is acknowledged by the government of Canada, the House of Commons and the Canadian people. The Secretary of State for External Affairs wants peace. If he does not attain it

we shall know where to put the blame, for he will waste no opportunity to make use of his ability and wisdom in order to find and have accepted a formula which will respect the rights based on international justice. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is not far from the views I have just expressed when, in the foreword to the book "Canada and the United Nations, 1951-1952" he writes:
The United Nations is neither a military alliance against communism nor an embryonic form of world government. Essentially the charter of the United Nations is a multilateral treaty which has been ratified by the great majority of sovereign states. It is a treaty with enormous scope and has led to the establishment of machinery for nearly every form of international political, social, economic, cultural and humanitarian co-operation. Yet it is a treaty which is meant specifically to protect the jurisdiction of states in essentially domestic matters. Moreover, it is a treaty which in collective security matters requires for its full enforcement unanimity among the great powers. Not only does this unanimity not exist; there is acute division between these powers-between the free world and the Soviet world. The United Nations did not create this division but it does reflect it.
In view of the fact that the United Nations seems unable to reach our objective of peace without taking the risk of being involved in a general conflict, it might be wiser to revert to ancient diplomacy and try to ward off war by a web of military defensive alliances. These alliances would see nations bind themselves through clauses similar to article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty which reads as follows:
The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by article 51 of the charter of the United Nations, will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
The North Atlantic treaty will undoubtedly become the stumbling block on the road to peace because, under this treaty, in order to deter aggression rather than as a menace to Russia and her satellites, the member nations are engaged in building military strength capable of holding in check any possible enemy who might be tempted to infringe the security of the United Nations or threaten their territorial integrity. In order to reinforce the clauses of the treaty, multilateral pacts should be signed, even between nations who are parties to the North Atlantic treaty and their immediate neighbours. Such treaties could be arranged between groups of Asiatic, African or South American nations which would, at a later

date, become part of the North Atlantic alliance. This would ensure that the clauses of the United Nations charter would become the law of all nations.
The study of diplomacy shows us that offensive and defensive military treaties did not prevent the wars of 1914 and 1939. Let us not forget, however, that the parties to those alliances were separated by other countries which demanded that their neutrality be respected by their neighbours. Because of these neutrality agreements, the nation which was ready to wage a war and hoped to turn its aggression to the best advantage has always attacked one or other of these "neutral" countries which had fondly believed that it would not be engulfed in a conflict or become victim of an invasion. Once disarmed, these nations were easy prey. This neutrality was one of the reasons the military agreements remained ineffective. The signing of agreements similar to the North Atlantic treaty between groups of two or three adjoining nations would ensure a more effective defence of their territory, and offer a salient of resistance which would permit the forces set up by the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to rush to the rescue of the country which might be attacked or invaded directly by Russia or her satellites. Mr. Heeney, Canada's permanent representative to the North Atlantic council, in a speech at Oxford on September 10, 1952, made the following statement, which I quote from the External Affairs Bulletin of October, 1952, page 342 of the English edition:
Now it is true, of course, that our fourteen nations have much in common beyond our determination to remain free and to build up our strength to deter, and, if need be, to fight together against aggression. But, if it is difficult to delimit in terms of strategy the extent of our community, how much more difficult is it to set geographical boundaries to the spiritual community of free men?
I am not suggesting that there is no essential unity, no political or other logic in the present grouping of nations in NATO. Much less am I suggesting that NATO should put on a drive for new members! Of course the present composition of the alliance makes sense-but it is primarily military sense at the present stage of events. All that I am trying to say is that we should remember that NATO does not comprise the whole community of free men. And we should look forward to the widening, as well as the deepening, of our association, particularly in those fields of endeavour associated with article 2 of the treaty which, in NATO parlance, have come to be known as the "non-military aspects".
I shall go further. If a war is in the making by the enemies of freedom, the whole community of free peoples should be militarily organized, not to launch an attack but to defend itself more effectively. The nations which have become conscious of their ability
The Address-Mr. Boisvert to resist aggression may want to avail themselves increasingly of the provisions of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty concerning peaceful and friendly international relations. It is impossible to stabilize free institutions when people are living in a state of uncertainty and insecurity.
War itself must be looked upon as an institution. Mythology had a god of war. Mankind, since it has been able to form groups and societies, has always waged war and, alas, always had to bear it. There have been racial and religious wars, wars of conquest and revenge, slave wars and so forth. Even the most developed civilizations could not stop them, and it must be granted that the more men have been policed and civilized, the more wars have destroyed lives, wealth, cities and countries. Before our Christian era conquerors took prisoners and put them into slavery. In more recent times prisoners have been taken and put into concentration camps to die, or been subjected to experiments that are loathsome to the mind. Were the mass slaughters practised in China thousands of years before Christ more inhuman than the executions that took place during the last great war? If war itself is an institution then it should be dealt with as such, especially when we know that a nation or a group of nations takes pleasure in creating situations and difficulties that may cause an outbreak at any moment.
Multifarious military alliances would make nations, great and small, more realistic about their security and their governments would be less inclined to rely on the armies of America to safeguard their territorial integrity. There is great danger of the people of America being led to believe that they will be the sole guardians of peace and security for the western bloc of nations. Our economic power is acting as a sedative on many European individuals. If nations that we have undertaken to protect and to defend were unable to offer the least resistance in case of an invasion, our armies on the spot could be destroyed far from their homeland, our own means of defence would be weakened, and our people would have to endure a siege of aerial war that could last a long time. There exists such a trend in United States policy. I can see this trend in connection with the Korean war. A well-known Republican representative, Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, declared during a recent interview:
We must waste no time in building up the anticommunist forces in Asia. We have got to build up the Korean army so that our boys can be withdrawn from the front line. I think we should build up the Japanese forces to deter aggression and we should encourage rebellions on the mainland of China.

The Address-Mr. Boisvert
I do not agree with the last part of Mr. Martin's statement because under the principle of self-determination for nations and peoples, they must be free to adopt the means they find proper to avoid and to defeat aggression. It would be a mistake on the part of United States diplomacy to make itself the agent of revolutions and rebellions. This would irritate the Chinese masses and enlarge the gap between Asiatic and American thought. On the other hand, if we could set up a Korean army with sufficient power to end the conflict and, at the same time, to bring home our troops, this would be a great step toward ensuring a better understanding between Asia, Europe and America.
From the moment he assumed command of the United Nations troops in Korea, General Van Fleet turned his activity in that direction. He has recruited young Koreans, and has instructed and trained them with great success. Korean soldiers proved equal to ours during the recent fighting to hold the hills. The presence of United Nations soldiers in Asia was necessary. However, one should not try to hide the fact that hundreds of millions of individuals consider it rather as a symbol of territorial claims rather than a move to defeat an unjust aggression. The United Nations army looks as though it were starting on a conquest of Asia where, according to Russian and Chinese propaganda, we are imposing by force our way of life, our ideas, etc. In time it would become possible, through the efforts of skilful diplomacy, to bring the populations of Asia to live in peace with one another and with ourselves, and to have relations with Europe and America which would, little by little, rescue them from the influence of Moscow.
I have not lost faith in the United Nations. We must not, either, lose faith in the efforts made by the general assembly of the United Nations to bring about a better understanding among all the nations of the world, among nations and peoples of different religions and races. There is much to be expected from what is going on in Europe. For the first time in history, France, Germany and Italy, to mention only the principal nations which have adopted the Schuman plan, have agreed to pool their resources of coal and steel to ensure a better distribution; for this has been the cause, in the past, of many conflicts. Another step is being made with a constituent assembly of Europe organizing itself to form a true European community with supranational powers granted by the states which
will join that new and unique community of nations.
Freedom is one and indivisible; it exists for all human beings wherever they happen to live by reason of their birth. To retain its value, freedom requires a peaceful atmosphere. Such an atmosphere will exist only when war has been defeated. It is the spirit which prevailed in 1945 at the signing of the charter of the United Nations. The principles enunciated in the charter of the United Nations cannot be too often reiterated; and it is important for all of us to seek to bring about, at long last, the state of things which should exist, and then to ensure a lasting peace for the world at any cost whatever, be it money or gold. Gold and money can be recovered, but human lives cannot be restored.
Dark as may appear the sky under which the sessions of the general assembly of the United Nations are being held, one must share the views which were recently expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in the following terms:
After seven years the United Nations is still a young organization, still largely an experiment. But one thing has become increasingly evident. Despite the disappointments we have all encountered, there is no doubt that the spirit of interdependence in the world is growing . . . The progress is slow, but it is in the right direction and is constantly being made, often in the United Nations bodies which receive very little publicity. We must not, then, think of the United Nations solely in terms of the bitter disputes which now loom so large in the headlines. Our hope for the future of our world organization has a deeper and more solid foundation than these headlines would suggest. The battle against ignorance and prejudice and, yes, even against fear is steadily and perseveringly being fought. It must continue until one day victory is achieved.
I wish I could have expressed opinions on the question of radio television, the St. Lawrence seaway project and federal-provincial relations. I am sure we shall be given the opportunity to do so during the debates which will follow on those matters of great interest that will, of course, influence the progress and development of our country toward a destiny which we want all nations to envy and which should be based on law, justice, broad-mindedness, mutual understanding and, above all, respect of the human person and dignity.
On motion of Mr. Weir the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, December 8, 1952