1952-12-08

Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement of government policy on television.
For some time the government has been giving careful consideration to the development of television broadcasting in Canada. In its consideration it has had in mind the report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences. The commission recommended that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation proceed with the production of television programs and with plans for national coverage. It spoke of extension of national coverage both through publicly and privately-owned stations. It said that no private station should be licensed until the C.B.C. had available national television programs and that all private stations established should be required to serve as outlets for national programs. It emphasized the need for direction and control of television broadcasting in Canada to prevent Canadian stations from becoming mere channels for broadcasting material from outside Canada and to encourage Canadian content.
The government believes, with the royal commission, that television should be developed in Canada with the aim of benefiting our national life and that it should have the structure and the means required by Canadian conditions to ensure an adequate amount of suitable Canadian programs for Canadians as well as using some material from outside the country. Television will undoubtedly play a considerable part in the lives of many Canadian families. It is bound to have a strong effect on the growing minds of young people watching it in their own homes. The government believes it should be so developed in Canada that it is capable of providing a sensible pattern of programming for Canadian homes with at least a good portion of Canadian content reflecting Canadian ideas and creative abilities of our own people and life in all parts of Canada.
The government knows also that, because of the nature of our country, there must be
a wide integration of effort and resources if we are to have adequate television service suitable to our national needs and reaching at least a major part of the public in all regions. Now that national television service has started, the government believes that it should be extended as widely and as quickly as possible to other areas. Therefore, it is proposed to ask parliament to approve a loan to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of building stations on the Pacific coast, in the prairie provinces, and in the Atlantic provinces. These would be established in the Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax areas. Thus, in addition to the stations at Montreal and Toronto, and that to be built at Ottawa, there would be publicly-owned stations with some production facilities at least in each of the main regions of the country.
In addition the government will now be ready to receive applications for licences for private stations to serve areas not now served or to be served by publicly-owned facilities already announced. The government has indicated to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that it is prepared to consider applications for such licences which may be recommended by the corporation after being made in the usual way to the Department of Transport.
The objective will be to make national television service available to as many Canadians as possible through co-operation between private and public enterprise. Under this plan the private stations licensed will carry national program service, besides having time for programming of their own. There will be plenty of opportunity for enterprise by private interests in television broadcasting, and at the same time provision for wide extension of the national service. Since the objective will be to extend services as widely throughout Canada as is practicable, no two stations will be licensed at the present to serve the same area. A television station can serve only a comparatively small area. Canada is very large and it will require a good many stations before television can be brought to the people in most parts of our country. It is desirable to have one station in as many areas as possible before there are two in any one area.
The government believes that the policy adopted will provide for the integration of effort and resources, both public and private,

Television
that is necessary for the development of our television broadcasting serving our family and national life, and reaching as great a number as possible of Canadians.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, since the presentation of a statement of policy such as that which we have just received is by concurrence of the house and not by strict rule, I assume that it will be permissible to make comments on this statement which has been accepted in this way.
I would point out that what has been said seems to be an intermediate stage between the speech from the throne and the presentation of the actual legislation which will deal with the subject matter of the comments now before us. And since this is merely in anticipation of further steps to be taken, I believe it is appropriate to place before the government considerations which I think should be in their minds in regard to this very important subject, in the hope that an irretrievable plan will not be made in regard to this vitally important medium of communicating thought and news and the presentation of the events which come before our eyes.
The minister responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in this house has reiterated the previous statement that was made that private stations are not to receive licences in those places where public stations are now operating, or are to operate, as stated to us today, in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Halifax, in addition to Montreal and Toronto.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, for the consideration of the government, before they present this legislation or take further steps, a proposition which it seems to me is inherent in the whole concept of the C.B.C. as I understood it, and as I believe many other Canadians understood it.
The idea- of the publicly-owned system was that it was designed to assure the reception of broadcasting to the people in Canada who otherwise might not receive it, unless there were a publicly-owned system, because of the economic factors involved in a very large country of this kind. In the case of the broadcasting of radio broadcasts as distinct from television broadcasts, it was obviously essential to provide networks into areas where the ordinary competitive private systems might not find it financially attractive to operate. All parties in this house have subscribed to that idea. There are differences of opinion as to the way in which it has been carried out; there are differences of opinion as to the manner in which the administration and supervision of this system should

be carried out. But in the case of television, which now enters the scene and is brought under the authority of the C.B.C., an entirely different factor presents itself. In the first place, as the minister has just pointed out, television covers at this time, no matter what may happen in future years, only a relatively small radius surrounding each television station. There are the two main devices for carrying the program, the co-axial cable and the microwave relay. Either one of those systems however will in turn carry only the television broadcast to another station, which in turn has a limited area of coverage, and not the wide coverage of those great radio broadcasting stations which now reach the most remote parts of Canada. Therefore, if the concept of the C.B.C., in relation to this new medium of communicating thoughts, news and pictures of events as well, is to be carried forward consistently with the original idea, then, surely it should be the purpose of the C.B.C. to provide television broadcasts in those areas where private broadcasting will not find it economically convenient to do so.
That was the intention of the C.B.C. in relation to radio broadcasting. If the same principle is carried forward, then surely the whole purpose of the C.B.C. in relation to television should be to let the private stations, without public expense, broadcast the television broadcasts in the great areas of concentrated population where that is financially possible, and for the C.B.C. to provide the television broadcasts in those areas where the ordinary financial returns will not justify private investment. Surely that is a clear, a simple concept of the role of the C.B.C. in this new medium of communicating ideas and pictures, if we follow the same concept which has always been accepted as the guiding purpose of the C.B.C. in regard to radio broadcasting, no matter how much any one of us may think they have departed from it.
I strongly urge the government to review its position in relation to that basic concept of public ownership in relation to broadcasting, either radio or television, and that before a bill to authorize this step be presented to the house they will have given full consideration to the purpose of the C.B.C., to the reason why it was decided to have a publicly-owned system in this country. And I would hope that in reviewing the situation they would come to the conclusion that if they return to basic principles they will change the policy as now announced.
Then may I also point out that there has been no reason placed before us at this time as to why there should be only one station in any one centre. No explanation has been

given to us as to why there is this fundamental difference between television and radio broadcasting in regard to programs of this type. Whether they be private or public stations, surely competition in such areas will be beneficial from the point of view of the ultimate programs and the variety of programs available in the larger centres.
After all, what should be remembered is that in many of the large Canadian centres today Canadians already have a variety of programs available to them. They are able now in Toronto, Vancouver, Windsor, Sarnia, Niagara Falls and in many other places in Ontario and other parts of Canada to bring in several different programs which are competing with our own programs.
If we want to raise the standard of our television to the point where people will watch our television instead of American television in those areas now served, it would be well for us to take advantage of competition here in Canada as well as in the United States.
Also might I point out one inconsistency in the statement made to the house by the minister in regard to the policy just announced. He has stated it is the intention of the government to do what it can to prevent stations becoming mere outlets for programs from the United States. Now, that sounds like a very admirable purpose. But, Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing is that, although the apparent desire of the C.B.C. is to prevent our stations becoming outlets for programs from the United States, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation already, at very considerable expense, has built a microwave relay connection with what is hardly a Canadian station at Buffalo, so that we can pipe in Canadian programs from there.
We do not need to pipe programs from Buffalo because the Buffalo programs are already coming in. As a matter of fact the record shows that they are being watched by a much larger Canadian audience than Canadian programs in that area.


James Joseph McCann: The C.B.C. has no relay.


George Alexander Drew: What is that?


James Joseph McCann: The C.B.C. has not built any microwave relay anywhere.


Mr. Sinclair:: Is this a debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think now the house is entering upon a debate on the subject. Of course I cannot allow a debate on it at this time. The remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) should be directed strictly to the statement which has been read. We cannot generalize.
Television


George Alexander Drew: I am dealing strictly with what the minister has said. I was pointing out his reference to the introduction of programs here. I was referring to the fact that the C.B.C. has made facilities available for the introduction of United States programs into Canada, and indicated that the C.B.C. has expressed its regrets that it has been unable to make appropriate arrangements to bring those programs in because of certain pending discussions that are still under way.
I submit, again, that there should be a clear policy in this respect, and that the House of Commons should know what that policy is. It should be given further consideration. Although the purpose is to provide Canadian programs, if Canadian money is going to be put up for publicly-owned stations in areas where private enterprise has indicated that it is ready to go on, then I suggest that Canadian money does not need to be put up to bring programs in from the United States, because those commercial interests are ready to bring them in in any event.



PROGRAM ENTITLED &quot;HILDA MORGAN&quot;

George Alexander Drew: When the minister refers to the quality of the programs I would express the hope, in relation to what I said in the house the other day, that he will also tell us what his answer is to be in regard to that disgraceful program which was put over the C.B.C., and which I mentioned in the house a few days ago.


James Joseph McCann: May I answer that now? I think the hon. member is referring to the program called "Hilda Morgan". The government does not propose to take any action regarding the play "Hilda Morgan" recently telecast by the C.B.C. Under the Canadian Broadcasting Act, the C.B.C. itself has the full responsibility for all programming matters.
The C.B.C. has received only three unfavourable comments on the play, and a considerable number more of favourable comments. The only press comment found was in the Toronto Telegram, and that was favourable.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Most members of the House of Commons have been receiving postcards reading as follows:
I am deeply disturbed by sections 46, 49 , 63 , 365 and 372 of Bill H8 (the proposed revision of the

Criminal Code
Criminal Code), now being reviewed by the standing committee on banking and commerce in the Senate.
These and other sections of the bill have no place on the statute books of a democratic country, and I strongly urge you to oppose such police state legislation if and when it comes before the House of Commons.
The name and address of each hon. member to whom these cards are sent is not typewritten but printed on each postcard, indicating clearly that those responsible for this campaign are making it as easy as they can for the citizens to whom cards are circulated to merely sign the card and send it on under the franking privileges of the hon. member to whom it is addressed. The contents and purport of the sections of the code referred to are not indicated in any way, so that it is impossible for those who send the cards to get from the cards themselves any idea as to what they are protesting against. These cards are the latest phase of a well-organized and financed campaign directed against the enactment of these clauses of Bill "O" of the Senate. Although the revised code, or as it is now numbered Bill "O" of the Senate is not yet before the house, it is desirable in the public interest to place before the house information about the true origin, character and intent of this systematic campaign to discredit this legislation.
Certain hon. members have indicated some puzzlement as to what the significance of it was and suggested that it might be of interest to all hon. members that a statement be made.
This intensive campaign is conducted by the communists in Canada. To disguise the real communist control behind the campaign, the attack on Bill "O" is operated through the league for democratic rights, a front organization which is thoroughly communist-controlled and communist-inspired. The propaganda by the league for democratic rights, while directed to a wide variety of groups, is especially aimed at the trade unions.
Long before these postcards were circulated amongst many Canadian unions, I checked with the Ottawa head offices of the Canadian Congress of Labour and the Trades and Labour Congress to make sure that they were aware of what was going on. Not only had they been for some time well aware of the efforts the league for democratic rights was putting forth to line up their respective unions in opposition to Bill "O" but I am glad to pay tribute to the measures which they have taken to expose this barefaced communist manoeuvre to influence their locals and members.
[Mr. Garson.l
As examples of the measures they took, I think perhaps hon. members would welcome my quoting from some of the editorials in the labour papers, if for no other reason than that the hon. members themselves might use those quotations in replying to the postcards they have received. In many cases, I am sorry to say, good, patriotic, innocent Canadians have been taken in by this sort of propaganda. I should like to quote from the November issue of the Trades and Labour Congress Journal which, I believe, has not yet come to the attention of all hon. members of the house. It is as follows:
One of the most difficult problems confronting democratically elected governments is how to frame laws that will give needed protection against those who work and scheme to destroy democracy and democratic institutions and at the same time not Infringe on the fundamental freedoms and rights which people in the free world cherish.
Most right thinking citizens desire some protection from the treachery or the Boyers, the Allens, the Mays and the Roses, and many others who are actively and continually exploiting the weaknesses of democracy with the sole objective of substituting dictatorship for democracy and slave camps for freedom. None recognize this problem more than the international communist party. It was for this reason that such fronts as the league for democratic rights came into being. In Britain they are known as the National Council of Civil Liberties.
At the present time a flood of circulars are being mailed out by the so-called league for democratic rights regarding some of the proposed amendments to Canada's Criminal Code as contained in Bill H8. Reading this stuff one is supposed to believe that the writers of the circular are really concerned with the organized labour movement and are fronting an expensive campaign on its behalf in order to protect Canadian workers from the hangman for the well-established crime of criticizing the government. To cinch this eyewash, the league for democratic "wrongs" with the assistance of the communist-controlled press (which has instructions to play it up) is quoting: "British opinion deplores Canada's Criminal Code amendments". Take a look at this British opinion. It is not that of the British Trades Union Congress, the British Labour party or the Churchill government, but it is the propaganda views of the counterpart of the same front in Britain.
The reference there to Bill H8 is really to Bill "O" of the Senate. This bill was introduced into the Senate last year and was given lengthy and careful consideration by the Senate. It has been reintroduced in the Senate this year and is now being considered by the Senate banking and commerce committee. When it is reported to this house we shall set up a committee with power to hear evidence from interested persons and organizations, as I stated in reply to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) just the other day. The unions of Canada from the beginning, as I am informed, have planned to study this bill from the standpoint of organized labour

and will have an adequate opportunity to make representations concerning it.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 18, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this bill is based upon the authority vested in the parliament of Canada to amend the British North America Act in respect to matters which are exclusively federal. The purpose of this bill is to increase the quorum of the House of Commons from a minimum of 20 to a minimum of 30 members. A still higher figure might well have been proposed, but this bill suggests 30 because that will at least maintain the proportion established in 1867. The house then had 181 members with a quorum of 20. On that basis, since we now have 262 members and will have 265 members after the next election, it would seem that the quorum should be at least 30 members.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN VESSEL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 19, to amend the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act.


Mr. Green:: Could we have an explanation?


Lionel Chevrier: Section 7 of the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act allows a taxpayer, who in that case would be a ship owner, to claim as an item of deduction in his income tax return an amount which he is likely to expend in a quadrennial or any special survey under the Canada Shipping Act. This bill will provide for the recapture of any amount which he may have claimed but has not actually spent because the ship has either been lost, destroyed, sold or disposed of or for any other reason within the meaning of the section.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Proposed Legislation



PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the first reading of Bill No. 10 (from the Senate), to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 13, for the relief of Frances Wavertree Harris McClure.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Nicole Jeanne Andree Marion Comys.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Joseph Mattioli. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Gabrielle Bertrand McCullough.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Katherine Jessie McArthur.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 11, for the relief of Barbara Car-rique Cordeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 12, for the relief of Frederick Kenneth Hare.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Before the orders of the day are called may I ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, of which I have given notice. Has the attention of the government been called to the apparent increasing severity of religious persecution behind the iron curtain, particularly in Bulgaria?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is "yes". Possibly I might be permitted to make a very short statement in regard to this persecution.
During the past few years the civilized world has been repeatedly shocked by the brutal persecution of religious leaders which has taken place behind the iron curtain. Protests have been made by this government in this house and in the general assembly of the United Nations against these attacks.
Recently 40 members of a religious order in Bulgaria were brought to trial charged with subversive activities. The trial followed the usual horrible and grotesque communist pattern, and death was decreed for the principal defendants, in this case on four priests, including Monsignor Eugene Boss-ilkoff, Passionist Bishop of Nicopol.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I am sure I am reflecting the view of every member of this house when I express our detestation and condemnation of this additional and shocking case of religious persecution. It is our intention at the first opportunity to voice our protest in the general assembly of the United Nations.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Joseph McCann: I should like to answer a question which was asked on December 5 by the Leader of the Opposition with reference to Poland. I shall not repeat the question but in answer will say that there are no regular programs of the international service directed to Poland. Policy matters such as this are decided in consultation with the Department of External Affairs. The importance of the Polish people in the future of Europe and their trials of the present are fully recognized. Transmitter time for Europe, however, is limited and is fully occupied. It has so far been felt, taking all factors into consideration, that the transmission time and funds available should be divided as they are at present. Of the countries behind the iron curtain, regular services are directed to the U.S.S.R. in Russian and Ukrainian, and to Czechoslovakia in Czech and Slovak. Other European language services are French, German, Italian, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish.


George Alexander Drew: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house whether a gentleman of Polish extraction or Polish stock has been engaged for the purpose of starting such a program? If so, what is his name?


James Joseph McCann: I have no knowledge of such an appointment or of consideration thereof.


George Alexander Drew: I would ask the minister to take this as notice of a question, to check the name of the man who, it is reported, has been engaged and inform the house whether or not that is correct and, if so, what the name of the man is.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister give any information as to the progress of negotiations for the sale of the government

telegraph and telephone service facilities in British Columbia? Can he outline what arrangements will be made to protect the position of the employees of the service with respect to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -their continuation in employment and their pension rights?


Mr. Speaker:: Could that question not
appear on the order paper?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are a number of
employees and others in the province who are interested in this matter. Negotiations have been under way for some time-


Mr. Howe:: The question can wait till Wednesday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and I think it is a matter of sufficient importance and urgency to those concerned. I believe the minister may be ready to answer. I telephoned his office this morning and told him I was going to make the inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances, if the Minister of Transport would like to answer the question now-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer. The hon. gentleman did advise me he was going to ask the question but I feel, as I am sure the house feels, that it is a matter for the order paper. I do not want to be unjust to my hon. friend. I can answer it if it is the wish of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances
perhaps the minister might reply.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I should say in fairness that the Minister of Fisheries and the Solicitor General, both before their appointments and since, as well as the hon. members for Cariboo and Skeena, have shown a very keen interest in the question which my hon. friend has asked.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why were they objecting to having it answered?


James Sinclair: We know the answer.


Lionel Chevrier: 1 gathered the house was objecting, but in any event the simple answer to my hon. friend's question is no. I should perhaps add that negotiations did take place and a substantial and complete report respecting government facilities has been made by Canadian National Telegraphs and the British Columbia Telephone Company, but it has not been possible to study the report. I have seen officers of both companies, and I do not believe it will be possible to begin negotiations until early next year.

Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Defence. Is he in a position yet to inform us definitely when we may receive a copy of the report by Mr. Currie which was promised us last spring?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Acting Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to say because I have not received the report yet myself.


George Alexander Drew: Will the acting minister take steps to find out from Mr. Currie when the report will be available?


Ralph Osborne Campney: From the remarks which the minister made in the house a few days ago I understood that Mr. Currie had indicated that the report would be forthcoming within a week or ten days. I presume that estimate was made with knowledge of what was possible on his part. I do not mind making inquiry if it is desired.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that the minister made a general statement-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -with regard to that before he made the statement in the house that he had not been in touch with Mr. Currie. It is for that reason I ask the direct question: Will the acting minister find out from Mr. Currie when the report will be ready?


Mr. Graydon:: What is all the delay about anyway?



PROPOSED ARMY TRAINING AREA, N. B.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. A. Riley (Saint John-Alberi):: I
should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has he at any time discussed with Mr. Donald Gordon, or any of the directors or officials of the Canadian National Railways, the location of the administration site or installations of the proposed army training area in New Brunswick?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is no. I have not discussed that subject with Mr. Donald Gordon or with any director of the railway, and in fact have not seen any of them, for several months, except that I sat beside Mr. Gordon at a luncheon the other day, when we did not discuss that subject. I have no knowledge
of the problem. It is a problem for the Department of National Defence. I have not discussed it with anyone and am not competent to do so.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I should like to direct the same question to the Minister of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I would have to make the same answer. I would say, however, that I have conversations with Mr. Donald Gordon from time to time but I have no recollection of having discussed that subject with him at any time, and in any event it is a matter for the Department of National Defence.


An hon. Member:: Better try another
minister.



REPORTS ON MORALE OF TROOPS IN EUROPE

Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General, the Acting Minister of National Defence. In view of the Canadian Press story in this morning's Montreal Gazette regarding low morale among our troops in Europe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At the last sitting of the house I brought to the attention of hon. members that the proper procedure for them to follow, if they wished to bring a press dispatch to the attention of a minister, is to send it to the minister. I cannot allow the practice to continue of reading press dispatches.


Percy Ellis Wright: I was not reading a press dispatch. I merely asked whether it had been brought to the minister's attention. Can the Acting Minister of National Defence inform the house whether or not he has received a report or reports from the clergymen of several Canadian denominations who visited our troops in Europe earlier this year, and will the minister table such reports?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not aware of any such reports having been received by the minister but I will make inquiry.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I understand he has investigated the case of the immigrant who offered to sell a child-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member put his question?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask the minister what action the government is taking with respect to the immigrant who offered to sell a child for $1,000. I understand he has investigated.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I am wholly uninformed as to what is in the hon. member's mind except that he may have read in the newspapers this morning that some magistrate in Sarnia was reported to have said in a speech that he knew of a case where an immigrant mother had been trying to dispose of her child by adoption for the sum of $1,000. My knowledge is only to the extent of reading the report this morning. If my hon. friend wants me to look into the matter and find out why the mother is doing it I suppose I can, but I fancy I would receive the answer that it was her business and not the government's.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The reason I ask is that if it is true the immigrant should be deported.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue a question. I am sorry that I was not able to give him notice, and perhaps he would like to take it as notice. Has Bishop Fulton Sheen or have his sponsors applied to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to have their program telecast? If so, has the application been refused? Would the minister care to make a statement with respect to the application?


James Joseph McCann: I shall take the hon. member's question as notice and answer tomorrow or the next day.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. Has the minister or the government received any requests from workers' organizations to the effect that the government consider the feasibility of giving workers, such as those caught in a move like that of the Ford Company to Oakville, the opportunity of buying homes on the same terms as defence workers? If so, what consideration has the government given to these requests?


Mr. Speaker:: The questions asked by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) and toy the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) should, I feel, appear on the order paper. Those hon. members might put their questions on the order paper.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the' orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: May I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. McCusker). Is it the intention of the department to issue the December cheques for old age pensions before Christmas, as was the practice formerly when these cheques were handled by the provinces?


Mr. E. A. McCusker (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I shall take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe). Why is the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) in Newfoundland at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will be glad to refer that question to the Secretary of State when he returns and I have no doubt as to what his answer will be.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) as house leader. Will the minister indicate the date on which it is proposed that the house will adjourn-in view of the necessity of making reservations with the Christmas holidays coming on?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would be ready to do that if I knew on what date we could dispose of the debate on the address. It is the intention of the government to proceed with this debate to its conclusion. We do not think it would be reasonable to postpone the debate until after the recess. With some co-operation from all members of the house I will in the near future give an answer as to the date.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Christmas is not a variable date and this debate cannot adjust itself to that time. It is perfectly certain that members from some distance, who expect to be with their families, are going to leave here by the twentieth, and it might just as well be decided now that this house will adjourn on the twentieth.


Alphonse Fournier: Last year during the session Christmas was on the twenty-fifth of December.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alphonse Fournier: We remained here until New Year's eve.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, so that there may be no misunderstanding, this is a perfectly normal procedure that we are now contemplating. At that time last year we were taking steps to try to prevent the government from ramming through some very objectionable legislation.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? Did his first answer imply that, should the debate conclude tomorrow, the house would then adjourn?


Alphonse Fournier: I would not go that far, Mr. Speaker, because we have about two pages of legislation that we are ready to proceed with.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). Was it in his mind, when he renovated the caucus room of the opposition, that after the next election there would be a few of the present government occupying that particular room?



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, December 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. L. Deslieres for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity, an opportunity which I have not had before in this session, of intervening in the debate to make a statement that will
&8108-27
The Address-Mr. Pearson be as brief as I can make it, although I am going to try to cover a good deal of ground, more particularly on the work of the United
Nations assembly which I have just left and to which I am returning. Also, if there is time, I will speak on one or two other questions of international interest.
Mr. Speaker, I have been attending the seventh assembly of the United Nations and though while doing so I have been engaged in international discussions, I have been conscious of the fact during those discussions that there is a very direct connection between what we have been talking about in New York at the United Nations and matters of more immediate domestic concern and, possibly, which have been under discussion in this house. We have been discussing international questions which bear on peace, welfare and good relations between states; mutual aid between states; and all those questions have a very direct effect on domestic policies and domestic interests in this country -even on such matters as trade and taxation. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it has been said that foreign policy is merely domestic policy with its hat on.
This afternoon, therefore, I propose to keep that hat on and discuss for a short time, I hope, the work of the United Nations assembly, and, possibly, the forthcoming NATO council meeting in Paris.
I should say in the beginning that this parliament is, I think, well represented at what is turning out to be a very important assembly indeed. It is one which may well represent a critical turning point in the fortunes of the United Nations. In our delegation which is working in New York-and I think it is accurate to say it is working hard-all parties in this house are represented and are working together. They are working in different ways, of course, but they are working together as, if I may say so, a Canadian team. It is true that members of the delegation who represent the party in charge of government have a special responsibility. Other members who represent other parties have their own responsibilities of opposition. Nevertheless that has never prevented them from working together in a friendly and useful way in New York.
The main question before the United Nations assembly, the main challenge to the United Nations at this session, has been Korea. Almost at the beginning of our session it was agreed, and I think it was agreed unanimously if I recollect correctly, that that question should be given priority in our discussions. It was quite right that we should do that because fighting is going

The Address-Mr. Pearson on in Korea and surely it is the first responsibility of the United Nations to bring that fighting to an end if that can be done on honourable and acceptable terms. In the discussion of this question of Korea much of the debate and much of our thoughts centred around the one remaining obstacle to the achievement of such an honourable armistice in Korea-the question of prisoners of war.
In the discussion of that particular question the communist delegations have exploited to the full the situation which they claim, without adequate evidence to back it up, has existed in the prisoner of war camps and more particularly the Koje island camp. I was interested, Mr. Speaker, in reading the debates of this house, to learn that at least one member, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), displayed particular interest in what had gone on in that camp and the relationship of that issue to the retirement of an officer of the Canadian army. By way of interpolation, and to dispel any remaining suspicion which may linger in his mind in regard to the relationship of myself and my department to that matter, I would merely say at this time-to clear the matter up, and I hope that it will as far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned-that neither I nor my department made any representations, oral or written, formal or informal, to the Department of National Defence about Brigadier Connelly and the Koje incident at any time. Neither I nor my department have had anything whatever to do with his retirement. That, Mr. Speaker, is by way of an aside which I consider in the circumstances to be necessary, as I did not have the privilege of attending the session of the house when this matter came up.
This question of prisoners of war, we are told even by the communists, is the only obstacle to the completion of armistice negotiations. It is the only question that remains unsettled. In respect of it and of Korea generally-and some hon. members in this house who have been in New York will particularly be aware of this-there were four resolutions submitted to our assembly which dealt with this question.
One was a resolution of those members of the United Nations who had forces in Korea, participating in operations there. That resolution became known as the 21-power resolution. Canada was one of the sponsoring members of that resolution which endorsed the steps that had been taken and the effort that had been made by the unified command in Korea and the other side for an armistice, and called on the other side to accept those proposals and to bring about an armistice.


There were two other resolutions from delegations from Mexico and Peru which dealt with more specialized aspects of the question; and there was at the same time introduced by the Soviet delegation a resolution which would have set up an 11-power commission representing both sides of the conflict, and which would have had authority to deal not only with the prisoners of war question but with Korea generally and indeed with other Asiatic questions. On the face of it, that resolution by the Soviet delegation may have seemed to be not without some aspects of reason and possibility. The 11-power commission had four communist members but, in order to make quite certain that this 11-power commission would not be able to act, the Soviet, within a day of the introduction of this resolution, introduced an amendment to make it quite clear that that commission could act only by a two-thirds majority. A two-thirds majority of eleven is seven and a quarter; that would have meant that eight members of the commission would have been required to agree in order to reach a decision. The meaning of that provision, of course, is quite obvious. It would have given the Soviet and their satellites a veto on all the actions and all the activities of the commission.
After the introduction of these four resolutions the Indian delegation, after consultation with a good many Asian and Arab delegations-and indeed other delegations-introduced a resolution which narrowed the issue before the assembly and before the political committee to the prisoners of war question alone and left out of the resolution all that had gone on before and other aspects of the questions than that of prisoners of war. They produced a proposal which attempted to reconcile the two ideas, the one to which our side clung as right and just and the other which the communists said was a sine qua non of any agreement on their part to a prisoners of war solution. Those two ideas were, on the one hand, the right to repatriation guaranteed under the Geneva convention of 1949, and on the other the refusal to use force to drive prisoners of war back to communist territories if they did not wish to go.
As to the first, although we had a great deal of discussion on the subject, I think it is quite clear, from the legal point of view, that the right of repatriation is guaranteed under the Geneva convention in question. The right is clear, I think, and the right is unambiguous. It seems that the delegations which made that prisoners of war convention-that is the Red Cross convention in Geneva in 1949-were at that time, quite naturally, thinking more of a future war when the problem would be forced retention rather

than forced repatriation. The question of forced repatriation did not enter into their calculations at that time to any noticeable extent. So this right of repatriation, without that particular qualification in its terms, does exist.


Gordon Graydon: That is the right of the
prisoner?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right of the prisoner; the right of repatriation.


Gordon Graydon: That is the right of the prisoner to repatriation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Freedom of the prisoner and the right of the prisoner to be repatriated and go back home; the right of the individual prisoner to be repatriated.
On the other hand the other issue-no force to be used in connection with prisoners of war

involves a principle which we on our side could not and would not give up; because if we had done so, we would have violated the understanding we had and the undertaking which we gave to some of these prisoners who came over from the other side.
The Indian resolution was an effort to reconcile these two points of view in a way which should have been acceptable to all men of good will on either side. It did that in terms of the resolution; and to carry out those terms and make this reconciliation effective in practice as well as in principle, it set up a repatriation commission to which prisoners would be immediately released as the first stage of their repatriation. That repatriation commission, which would have taken over the prisoners from the detaining powers, would have consisted of Czechoslovakia and Poland, two communist states; Sweden and Switzerland, two non-communist states; and provision was made for the appointment of an umpire who will be an important member of that commission if it is ever set up. If that kind of commission could not be established, an alternative procedure for setting one up is embodied in the resolution.
We considered this resolution to be, on the part of the Indian delegation, an important and constructive move to solve this question. It was not a perfect resolution; it was not clear in all of its terms, and there were reasons for some of those ambiguities. But we felt that it was a resolution which could work and which, if it did work, would bring the fighting in Korea to an end; so we in the Canadian delegation gave it our support from the beginning.
08108-27i
The Address-Mr. Pearson
We were then confronted by two problems. One was whether we should give this resolution priority over our own 21-power resolution, and we agreed to do that as did all the other sponsoring powers of the 21-power resolution. The other problem was to achieve the maximum support possible for this Indian resolution. To do that certain clarifications -certain changes, if you like-were required. These in their turn required long and difficult discussions and negotiations between the authors of the resolution and certain other governments who wished to see it clarified in certain respects.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like to pay a tribute to the honesty of purpose, the industry and the refusal to give way to discouragement of the Indian authors of this resolution who, at this time, and at the United Nations, took a responsibility which I think we must all applaud. In the press, of course, there were reports of differences. In the process of negotiating clarification between the United States delegation and between other delegations there were such differences, but they were not as fundamental or as important as might appear from reading some of the reports. There were, however, sincere differences of approach and differences of opinion about what should be clarified in this resolution in order to make it acceptable to everybody.
Eventually, those differences were overcome. Some changes were made by the Indian delegation which made the text perfectly acceptable to practically all delegations at the assembly. That process of acceptance and that process of coming together was made less difficult, I think, by the Soviet attitude toward the resolution, which was one of complete, unalterable and violent opposition to a constructive initiative by the nation putting it forward; indeed it was referred to by the leader of the Soviet delegation himself as a "rotten compromise". Their opposition was based on the fact that we should first have an automatic cease-fire declared and then armistice negotiations later. The objection to that, of course, was that, if the cease-fire took place and it was without an armistice, the prisoners would still be prisoners, the issues which centred around the prisoners of war would not be solved, and there was no assurance that they would be solved.
Meanwhile, from the point of view of military security, the cease-fire would have meant that one side was under a military disadvantage in comparison with the other side which had its base close at hand.
However, as I said, the Indian text was clarified; it was put to the vote a few days ago, with a result which is not usual these

The Address-Mr. Pearson days in the United Nations assembly. Fifty-iour nations of the assembly voted for it, including every Asian, Arab, Latin-American and African state, and only five members of the assembly voted against it: the Soviet delegation and its four communist satellites. One delegation, China, abstained. Therefore that Indian resolution has now become a resolution of the United Nations; and in my capacity as president of the assembly, under the terms of the resolution, I have submitted it to the foreign minister of the communist government at Peking, and the foreign minister of the North Korean regime, together with a covering letter in which I attempted to meet some of the objections which they had previously put forward over the radio, and in other ways, and to clarify some of the points which they claimed were still doubtful. At the same time I thought it was probably not inappropriate, as president of the assembly, to make an appeal to them to accept these proposals as the basis of an armistice and eventual peace, if they really wish to bring the war there to an end.
I do not know, of course, what the result of this transmission and appeal will be. It may mean an armistice, or it may not. I would not like to give odds on one side of the question; but whether the communists accept this United Nations resolution or not, it surely has very great value to the United Nations and to us all even if it is turned *down, because that resolution now becomes the United Nations' basis from which negotiations must now begin, if they are to be resumed. And in the future that may turn out to be a very important and very useful development because, of course, this resolution, having been accepted by the United States government, now becomes operative in respect of the unified command in Korea. And I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that whatever may happen to this resolution in Peking and Pyongyang, it has been a very worth-while initiative to have taken, and a very valuable result has been achieved, since this initiative was tak,en by a great Asian country and supported enthusiastically by every other Asian, Arab and African state.
If this resolution is rejected, what do we do then? Well, of course there are at least three courses: The United Nations can preserve and hold on in Korea along the present line, bringing about as much military success as is possible within the limits of the present strategy. It may be possible within those limits-consideration by the military authorities in the unified command is being given to this-to add to the number of Koreans who are defending their own country. But in respect of that it should not be forgotten


-indeed it was mentioned in this house the other day by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill)-that at the present time a 155-mile line in Korea is being defended by 15 divisions, of which I think 9 are from the Republic of Korea, 5 from the United States and 1 division is from the commonwealth. Of this line, 60 per cent is being held now by Korean troops; 25 per cent by United States troops, and 15 per cent by other United Nations' forces. This course, following our present strategy, will require of course a steadiness and patience not only in Korea, among the soldiers, but at home; it will require military steadiness, and it will certainly require political steadiness.
The second course would be to increase military pressure, to formulate new strategy in the hope that by doing so we will bring this struggle to an end by military means. There are obvious risks in following that course. There is the risk that we might extend the war to the continent of Asia without ending the war in Korea, and that is a risk which is in all our minds, and which indeed we have discussed in this house before.
But there is a third course, to withdraw and turn Korea over to the aggressor, and that is one that will not be supported I am sure by any government, any parliament or any people, which have accepted United Nations' intervention in Korea against the attacker
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to recall that the president-elect of the United States- with whom I had the pleasure of renewing acquaintance the other day in New York- has returned from Korea and has already stated that there is no easy, no trick solution, no panacea for this Korean campaign, and he is quoted in the press as having said in Seoul during his visit to Korea:
How difficult it seems to be in a war of this kind to work out a plan that would bring a positive and definite victory without possibly running grave risks of enlarging the war.
But while we may be discouraged about our lack of immediate progress in ending this campaign, with its great drain on resources and men of the United Nations, and particularly on those of the United States, and those from the Korean forces, which are bearing the brunt of the struggle and bearing it steadily and courageously, apart from that difficulty, we must not forget that we have gained also by intervention in Korea, because we have stopped aggression there, and the lesson of that action is not lost on those who would begin aggression elsewhere. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is not only the course of honour, it is the course of ultimate safety not to weaken in this United Nations' operation which we have

taken in Korea, while always emphasizing, taking advantage of every opportunity to emphasize, that we are ready for an honourable political solution with the Chinese communist government.
The Indian resolution-indeed my letter to the foreign minister of communist China- emphasized that fact, that once an armistice can be achieved in Korea-and there is supposed to be only one obstacle to that achievement-then we should be ready to sit down with the Chinese at a political conference to deal with Korean political problems generally. It is not only implicit, it is actually written in the terms of this United Nations' resolution.
If the Chinese communist government will abandon the aggression that has been going on in Korea and refrain from participating in aggression elsewhere they have nothing to fear from us on the other side, and much indeed to gain by that course.
That, Mr. Speaker, is all that I think I need to say on Korea at this time. But in concentrating on Korea I would not wish the house to be left with the impression- as I am sure it would not be, because of its knowledge of international developments- that Korea is the only danger spot in Asia. One has only to mention Indo-China, where the situation is not propitious; Malaya, where the banditry and the fighting still goes on, though the situation is improving; Iran, where there are elements of discontent which might deteriorate into chaos, and we know who exploits chaos; and indeed in the whole of the Middle East, where there is division, disruption, social unrest and political awakening.
There were of course other important questions before the United Nations assembly, and some of them are still before the assembly. I heard the other day, at a plenary session of the assembly, the leader of one of the important Asian delegations speaking in connection with a resolution which has been supported by all the Arab and, all the African, but opposed by a good many of the western powers-I heard this delegate, who is not unfriendly to the West, in deploring this division on resolutions of that kind, say that Asia and Africa are on the march, and will not be denied.
We should realize, and the realization is not always a pleasant one, that they are not invariably marching with the West as they move. That philosopher and historian, Arnold Toynbee, in a very interesting article which appeared the other day under the significant title "The World and The West"
The Address-Mr. Pearson gives three explanations for this discouraging development, why Asia and the Asians do not always seem to be with us on issues that we think are fundamental to the development of freedom and democracy in their own part of the world.
These three reasons lie, he said, in the appeal that communist doctrine inevitably makes to the people in those countries of the world. It is a threefold Russian communist appeal, and it is not always easy to resist. Certainly it is not easy to resist at the United Nations, and the Russians there know how to exploit this appeal to a maximum value.
The first appeal they make to the Asian is: If you follow the Russian example, communism will give you strength to stand up against the West, as communist Russia does today. To some Asians the West does not mean what we know it should mean1-freedom and democracy

and that is an appeal which makes its impression on certain Asian minds.
The second appeal is to the Asian peasantry, and that is that communism can and private enterprise neither can nor, if it could, would, get rid of the extreme inequality between the rich luxury-loving minority and the poverty-stricken majority.
Then the third appeal from the communists, about which we hear so much in the United Nations and elsewhere-and it is offered most confidently and dogmatically- is an appeal for a unity in policy and in doctrine which, in some form or another, is the only alternative to self-destruction in the atomic age. We know it is a spurious and fatal unity; but our knowledge is not shared by all the peoples of Asia to whom it is addressed.
Now, the danger of this kind of appeal is being shown today, and the effect that it is having today is being shown in the other great and difficult complex of problems which are before the United Nations assembly. That complex of connected problems involves the relationship of colonial peoples to administering states, and expresses itself in charges of racial discrimination, in tensions between the haves and the have-nots, and in the responsibility of the former for technical and other kinds of help for the latter; it also expresses itself in worries on the part of the haves that the have-not blocs are pushing extreme and premature resolutions through the United Nations by force of a mathematical majority.
These problems appear in various items of our United Nations agenda today, some of which have not yet come up for discussion. In considering them it is depressing to realize

The Address-Mr. Pearson that Asian, and Arab states are nearly always together and not always on our side. On our side sometimes we are restricted to some of the countries of the western world.
The United Nations assembly, with all its faults and with all its possibilities, has become the forum for the expression of these discontents, confusions and divisions, for the expression of these aspirations and, indeed, these fears. The problems which they involve and the solutions we find to these problems may in the long run have just as important a relationship to peace and, indeed, to the future of the United Nations as the question of Korea itself. We have to try to reconcile the domestic jurisdiction of sovereign states, and the administrative responsibility of some of those sovereign states over dependent peoples in their progress toward independence -with the legitimate interests of the United Nations in human rights and racial discrimination, and freedom for all peoples.
The United Nations is not having an easy time in this assembly in making this reconciliation. The United Nations is not there, I suggest'-and its charter did not intend it- to make this progress, which we all agree is so essential, either explosive or violent; but it is there to make this progress steady and sure.
In a delegation like the Canadian delegation, as it confronts these fundamental long-range issues, decisions on individual resolutions are never easy, especially in respect of the disputes between colonial powers and members who have only recently evolved from colonial status, and others who have gone beyond the colonial status.
In those disputes many resolutions are put forward which do not provide an easy problem, for a delegation such as the Canadian delegation.
I should like, if I may, for a moment or two, to try to explain some of these difficulties and the principles upon which in our delegation we have tried to act, principles which have been approved by our government.
In the United Nations charter the administering powers accepted as a binding international obligation a concept of progress toward self-government for all dependent peoples, which they had long recognized as a moral imperative. Their acceptance was completely voluntary. At the time of San Francisco there was no external power which could have forced the victor states to surrender the smallest portion of this aspect of their sovereignty. Their response was not due to outside pressure, but to their own consciences; and if world opinion played a part in their decision-and this it did-it
TMr. Pearson.]
was able to do so only because it reinforced those irresistible currents that were already at work within the democratic states.
That is the inevitable consequence of the acceptance of colonial responsibilities by a democratic state. Yet, can anyone believe that these same consequences would ever have been accepted by a totalitarian state? Would they have been accepted by totalitarian states which at the United Nations assembly attack, and very often viciously attack, what they call colonial powers?
Would India and Burma have won their freedom' from a totalitarian system, with its slave labour camps and its secret police? Would world opinion have been of the slightest help to Indonesia if it had been in the grip of such masters?
For that matter, has dialectical materialism any way of explaining how such advances to freedom could possibly take place, not merely with the assent but with the positive cooperation of the administering powers?
We have watched the exponents of this totalitarian philosophy in the United Nations and elsewhere in their assiduous efforts to capture such noble words as freedom and democracy and put them to slave labour. We have seen them reduced at this session of the United Nations assembly to denying all evidence of colonial advancement in the face of the plain accomplished facts.
On their side, the administering powers have pledged themselves to work towards the progressive replacing of their own authority by that of the peoples hitherto subject to them. The charter accepts and establishes them as the instruments for achieving this end. In doing so it recognizes what is called colonialism as an integral aspect of the effort to establish peace and stability. But it gives no comfort to the illusion that the immediate and unconditional abandonment of the dependent territories would be a good thing for the international community.
The whole tenor of the United Nations charter assumes a balanced process of evolution. It lays commitments on the administering powers and it recognizes in every paragraph that the fulfilment of those commitments must be a gradual process whose rapidity will vary with each case. Colonialism, in short, is made the instrument of its own disappearance.
That is a responsibility whose formidable nature must surely be recognized and respected by those of us who do not share it. It is the task of fitting various societies, some of them primitive societies, to take place in this modern and highly integrated world. It is not enough to waken in these

The Address-Mr. Pearson
societies a desire to run their own affairs; they must also be trained to the necessary level of ability, and if this essential process is interfered with or frustrated, or if on the other hand it is rushed too recklessly and precipitately, it will be to the detriment of the prosperity and security and future advancement of these colonial territories themselves.
While accepting these principles, Canadian decisions on specific colonial questions at the United Nations are based on our judgment of their merits, conditioned only by our sincere desire to help reach the maximum common agreement that is consistent with the welfare of the dependent peoples themselves and the interests of the international community.
I think this problem has come most concretely to our attention in connection with the South African items which are now on the agenda of the United Nations and which were dealt with last week. They are not in themselves colonial problems, but they represent a problem of the relationship of dependent people to a sovereign state and a sovereign government. They are problems of discrimination.
These South African items illustrate the difficulties of that problem and they also illustrate the danger of friendly nations dividing in their approach to it. Probably the best single example of this difficulty is the item on the agenda itself called "race conflict in South Africa" and the introduction under that item of a resolution by certain Asian states challenging the South African legislation, challenging South African policy and setting up an agency of the United Nations to intervene in this matter.
At the same time there have been introduced other resolutions on the same subject. South Africa's defence against these charges -this defence has been carried on lengthily, vigorously and skilfully by the South African representative at the United Nations-has been the legal defence that the assembly is simply not competent even to consider these matters under article 2, paragraph 7, of the charter which reserves domestic jurisdiction to the states themselves.
On the other hand, members on the other side of the argument pointed to articles of the charter which pledged its members to cooperate for the achievement of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race. Members on the other side of this argument, that is the other side from the South African side, have attempted to show that this kind of legislation, this kind of policy in South Africa is itself a
threat to international peace by what it is stirring up in the minds of the coloured people on that continent.
As far as the decisions of the Canadian delegation were concerned-I gather that these decisions have caused some comment in this country-we joined the majority of the assembly in voting against South Africa's contention that under the charter the United Nations was not competent even to consider these matters. In voting in that way we drew a distinction between consideration in the form of discussion and consideration in the form of intervention.
We felt, and I think it is becoming the established jurisprudence and established doctrine of the United Nations, that the assembly is now competent to discuss anything as the town meeting of the world, but that that does not mean that the assembly is competent to interfere in the domestic affairs of member states by certain types of resolutions or by setting up committees and commissions to visit those countries and report and possibly take action at succeeding assemblies. It was in the light of those considerations that we made our decision in respect to this particular resolution.
We voted for a resolution inspired by the Scandinavian states and supported by I think 18 delegations which, while not singling out South Africa in terms, while not setting up any machinery to go to South Africa, and while not calling on South Africa to rescind any item of domestic legislation, called upon South Africa and all other member states to bring their policies into conformity with their obligation under the charter to co-operate for the achievement of and universal respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It has been said that in voting for this and abstaining from voting on other resolutions we were avoiding our responsibilities. As the head of our delegation the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) said:
The Scandinavian resolution is not just a means of dodging the issue, but rather of dodging a reaction which will be harmful to the people who would like to help.
As far as the Asian resolution was concerned, we abstained on that because we thought it was of doubtful legality. For the same reason we also abstained on the South African resolution which said that this particular Asian resolution was ultra vires. In the committee considering this matter 21 other delegations joined us in abstention on this issue. In the plenary session, which was held last Friday, most of these delegations switched their vote from abstention to voting against the Asian contention and in favour of the South African contention that a
424	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Pearson
particular clause of this resolution was ultra vires. We did not switch; we remained and abstained on that issue.
However, abstention on this particular issue, which was caused by doubt in our minds as to the legality of this action and as to the practical effect the action would have, did not mean on our part any judgment one way or the other on the issue of the question. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed out when he spoke on this measure:
Our friendship for the South African people is deep and abiding. We in Canada recognize the immensity of the racial problem-which is not only a South African problem, but we are also very acutely conscious of the concern of the Canadian people and of people throughout the world on questions involving racial discrimination. Discriminatory policies of any kind anywhere are contrary to the spirit both of the charter and of our times. We do not believe that in the long run history offers much hope that such policies can accomplish their purpose or can endure.
There are other questions of this kind which are before the assembly but which have not yet come up for decision and I think it would be inappropriate for me to speak of them at this time. In concluding my observations on the United Nations and on the assembly I should like to make one or two general remarks. The United Nations Organization-and this assembly certainly shows it-is in a very difficult stage of its development. It is having troubles and new obstacles to overcome. It is having its discouragements and its defeats, but those of us who are inclined to criticize it too prematurely, too rashly or too strongly should realize, I think, that the United Nations is not either a court or a superstate. If I may put it this way, it is only a mirror which reflects the picture of what is going on in the world today, and if the picture is unpleasant, and indeed at times terrifying, that is not the fault of the mirror if the reflection is an honest one. It is the fault of those who belong to the United Nations and who, by their policies, do not make it possible for that organization to work as it was intended it should work by those who drew up the charter at San Francisco.
Above all, it is the fault of this division of the world into two camps, which is reflected in the cold war. Practically every item that comes before any United Nations body now, including the general assembly, is interpreted in terms of the cold war, even the most minute and technical item. That indeed is a tragic development and one which we could hardly have foreseen when the charter was drawn up. When you are confronted at New York now with a resolution, a proposal or a statement, the first reaction of most
IMr. Pearson.]
people is not "what does it say" but "who said it" or "who wrote it"? That in itself gives a fairly discouraging picture of our chances of making constructive progress in these major political issues as long as this tragic division continues.
These difficulties are increased, I think, by the uneasiness and low morale in the secretariat of the United Nations which is the agent for conducting the day to day business of the organization. It is a fact that in some minds and because of certain developments the international character of the secretariat, which we so rightly stressed at San Francisco, may be lost and that members of the secretariat will merely become the nominees of their respective governments owing loyalty not primarily to the international organization, which should be the case, but to these governments.
Yet with all these difficulties, difficulties outside the United Nations and difficulties inside the United Nations, I suggest that this is no time to weaken in our support for, let alone abandon support for, this indispensable piece of international machinery merely because it has falsified some of the illusions that we may have had when the charter was drafted. After all, we do not throw away a car because the wrong kind of gas stalls it.
Having painted a rather gloomy picture of some aspects of the work of the assembly, I think it is only fair I should add that real achievements are being made in the seventh assembly, and that in one sense it is a tribute to the United Nations itself and to the importance of the assembly that these controversial political issues are being discussed there and that the big powers take this agency so seriously as to discuss them in the terms that they do. It would indeed be the end of all hope for the United Nations if it became a body merely for the exchange of meaningless courtesies. Furthermore, headline controversies should not lead to ignoring the solid achievements made by the United Nations in the social, humanitarian and economic fields. Progress is being made along those lines in this seventh session but the progress is not such as to command very much attention.
I should like to say a few words now on another but not unrelated subject, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the ministerial council of which meets in Paris a week from today. In NATO we have continued to make progress since the last report I made to the house on this matter. The accession to membership of Greece and Turkey, with their considerable national forces, has added to the strength of the organization particularly

on the southeastern flank. A NATO command on the Atlantic has been established with headquarters at Norfolk, Virginia. General Ridgway's forces in Europe have been increasing in numbers and improving in effectiveness from the point of view of defence installations, particularly airfields, and through training exercises. I had the privilege of attending one of the latter last September, and it showed how much experience in co-operation between national forces has been gained in the relatively short time that these operations have been conducted.
There have been comments in the press from time to time that the NATO program for 1952, agreed upon at Lisbon last February and so strongly criticized in certain quarters, will not be 100 per cent completed by the end of this year. This will, I suppose, turn out to be the case though we do not yet know exactly what the total NATO forces available by the end of this year will be. Yet on the information that has been made available to me I am quite confident now that the so-called "Lisbon goals" for 1952-this will surprise many who thought these goals were unattainable and that the very effort to reach them would result in economic chaos-will be in very large measure achieved. I do not think I should say anything more on this subject until after the council meeting.
In any event, I do not think we should lay too great emphasis on mathematical targets for any given date for forces under arms, provided we are making steady progress towards our goals and are not at any time dangerously short of what has been planned for a particular period.
In one important respect, which is sometimes overlooked, the NATO countries certainly are much stronger. Production lines for military equipment are now rolling in North America and in the United Kingdom, and very considerable progress has been made in this field in western Europe. The equipment position of NATO forces is steadily and encouragingly improving.
If there are some signs of lessening international tension-and there are-this is because of the growing strength and continuing unity of the North Atlantic alliance. But there is certainly nothing to warrant resting on our oars because of that fact, though, as we settle down to the long pull-I believe this is good rowing technique-we may decide to strike a somewhat slower rate. There is certainly no evidence that the Russian military strength has been reduced. There is evidence that an increasing proportion of their military budget is being spent in developing and producing new equipment to R8108-28
The Address-Mr. Pearson strengthen their already huge forces. They are certainly preparing for the long pull, confident that they can outlast the west and, if necessary, wait for the "inherent and inevitable contradictions and conflicts of capitalist society" to divide, weaken and ultimately destroy us.
In this long pull we must not ignore of course-and we do not-the effects of rearmament on the economies of member nations. The national economy of nearly every European member of NATO has been a tender plant since the war, and in the case of European members particularly rearmament has meant continued sacrifices for their peoples. However urgent rearmament is, it has to proceed in accordance with the economic and political capabilities of the member states. Otherwise we would invite those economic and social conditions within member nations which would create a favourable climate for the growth of communism in our society.
It was to avoid this sort of danger that the council of NATO, as hon. members know, established at its Ottawa meeting over a year ago a temporary committee to review military requirements and national programs in the light of the economic, social and political capabilities of member nations. A similar review for the current year is now under way and will be shortly completed; but that review has been conducted in a different fashion. I think this is of some interest in the light of the fears that were expressed here at the time of the last meeting- that NATO might fall completely under the military. The council of NATO, which has established its position, is the directing and controlling body of NATO and is now in permanent session. That council, through its secretariat, is conducting these annual studies and will control the decisions which will be made and passed on to various governments and parliaments arising out of the studies. When this review is concluded, and it should be concluded shortly, NATO members will no doubt have further guidance on NATO requirements and on their national programs. These, while agreed plans, must be flexible and constantly reviewed in the light of changing circumstances and requirements.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to military security and national security, it is certain that we have not yet achieved it. Although we have made real progress there is still a long way to go in making NATO a defensive bulwark against aggression and as one element in that security. The risk of aggression remains and our recent gains in defensive strength must be consolidated

The Address-Mr. Pearson ahd extended, and our co-operation strengthened and enlarged before we can feel safe. So, I suggest, we must press ahead in our own country, and in other countries of NATO, not merely with strengthening the military side of the alliance but also with building its political, economic and moral strength as well, where progress is sometimes difficult and discouragingly slow.
We have no reason to assume on our part that there has been any change of policy or of heart on the part of the Kremlin and its satellites in recent months since Stalin has laid down the new party line- characteristically enough in an article in a magazine. It is possible, however, that there has been a switch in tactics in Moscow, as has frequently happened before in the history of communist imperialism. During the immediate post-war period its aim in the west was to extend political control over whatever areas its armies occupied, and to exploit the post-war instability in other countries of western Europe so as to bring into power governments which would be friendly and could ultimately be controlled by the Kremlin. But the governments and peoples of the democracies have awakened to the danger and, particularly through NATO, have begun to organize their defences against it. An immediate present aim of the Kremlin is clearly to stop this progress toward security and unification by dividing and wrecking the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, by exploiting distrust of the United States within and without that organization.
With this object in view communist imperialists have mounted an offensive of propaganda and subversion designed to weaken, confuse, and discourage the democracies. The main vehicle of this offensive, that is up to the present although there have been some signs that it has been reduced, is the so-called "peace campaign" in which not only the formal peace organization but all communist-front organizations are actively working. Meanwhile, much emphasis is being placed on the possibility of peaceful co-existence between the communist world and the democratic world which only the warmongering policies of the United States prevent-so goes the line, and some misunderstanding is being caused by it.
The ideal of "peaceful co-existence", in which indeed every man of good will must believe, presupposes an absence of aggressive intention. The communist imperialists have not produced any evidence that their policies have in fact become compatible with their peaceful professions. They certainly have

not produced any such evidence in the present assembly of the United Nations. A genuine policy of peaceful co-existence implies a readiness to co-operate for the purposes of peace and for the promotion of human welfare. Instead of a readiness to co-operate for these purposes, the communist imperialists resort to propaganda campaigns of hatred and falsehood. "Peaceful coexistence" in Soviet terminology seems indeed to mean simply all mischief short of war, just as Soviet policy seems to mean military aggression if necessary but not necessarily military aggression.
I have left out a good many of the subjeots on which I had hoped to touch this afternoon but considerations of time and your patience prevent me from doing so. I hope to have another opportunity before this session has gone too far of making another statement on the final results of the United Nations assembly and, indeed, on the results of the NATO council meeting which takes place this month. What I have said, however, about our policies at the United Nations, and about the policies which we continue to pursue in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, does, I hope, confirm what indeed probably does not need confirmation- that Canadian policy is directed solely toward bringing about in the United Nations and in NATO, and in any other organization devoted to peace, a peace which will be more than the kind of peace we have today. It is directed toward a peace which will mean more than merely the absence ' of fighting; and to the bringing about of a security that can ultimately be based upon something stronger and more permanent than force.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister just one question. He is not here very much and I would like to ask him, if I may: Is Trygve Lie going to resign from the position of secretary general, and, if so, is there any speculation about his successor?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To the first part of the question, there is an item on the agenda of the assembly which, I think, reads: appointment of a new secretary general. I think that may answer the first part of the question. To the second part, there has indeed been a great deal of speculation as to who might be his successor-much of it very academic and hypothetical.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister if he would make a statement concerning the Pacific?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry about that. It was one of the matters I had down on my list to talk about but I did not wish to appear to

underestimate the importance of the matter by saying just a few casual words on it. If the hon. member will wait until my next appearance I promise to devote to that very important subject both the time and the attention which it deserves.


Ernest George Hansell: Might it not be to the
advantage of all members if the minister would place on Hansard, perhaps as an appendix, the United Nations resolutions to which he has referred? We would then be better able to analyse the minister's speech and the situation that exists.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the house desires, that can be very easily done.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is being done, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs include copies of his letters to the foreign ministers of China and North Korea to which he referred?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of above, see Appendix to Hansard for Tuesday, December 9, pages 500-506.)


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Although I have the great honour of following the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) I am sure no one will expect from me any comment upon the interesting report which he has brought to us from the United Nations in New York. I think, however, that I am safe in saying, and that I am expressing the opinion of all members of the house, that we are grateful to him for giving us a good idea of what has been going on down there and some of the difficulties with which the United Nations Organization is confronted.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in congratulating the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Deslieres) on his maiden speech in the house. I am sure that all members have found his speech very interesting and very intelligently prepared.
I wish also to convey my most respectful congratulations to His Eminence Cardinal Paul-Emile Leger, Archbishop of Montreal, on the occasion of his recent elevation to the Sacred College of Cardinals, by our holy father the Pope.
We are happy to have again two cardinals in Canada, and the honour of being the second youngest member of the Sacred College, which is enjoyed by our new cardinal,
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne is shared by all French Canadians. I am sure that all Canadians unite in presenting to him their most respectful wishes.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) on his maiden speech and to call attention to his hope that over the new sound system which has been installed-and for which we are all grateful to you, sir, and to the committee and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier)-we shall hear constructive and helpful criticism. I am afraid that it has not met with unanimous approval, because in a report of a speech made recently by a distinguished and venerable member of the press gallery we find he said that "we could hear better but did anyone notice that the speeches were any better?"
I have been reading in Hansard the speeches which have been made, because I have not been able to attend all the sittings of the house, and it seems to me that there have been many interesting speeches. I should like to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) on the magnificent speech he made here and also the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) on his maiden speech. While congratulations are being given, I think something should be said about the wonderful speech made the other day by the hon. member for Edmonton West, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham). If he had not said so, I would not have thought he had written that speech because it was given with such verve and seemed to be such a racy account of the Social Credit misfortunes and the misconduct of the government in Alberta.


An hon. Member:: Misrepresentation.


William Joseph Browne: I should also like to congratulate the new Solicitor General (Mr. Campney) and also the new Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair). The new Minister of Fisheries is, I am sure, the youngest member in the cabinet. He has the reputation of being able and energetic, and of saying what he thinks. I shall have something more to say concerning him when I come to speak of affairs in Newfoundland.
At this time I should like to express my gratitude and that of a small community in my riding in Newfoundland, namely the people of Colinet island, to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) for having established there a system of radio communication. This island is situated about three miles from the nearest telephone but six miles from
68108-28J

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne the connecting road. This system of communication by radio which has been established has been a great boon to them. A number of other places in Newfoundland are to have the same facilities. I am sure all of them will be grateful for the work of the Minister of Transport in putting these radiotelephones there. Colinet island is an admirable community which has two settlements. Most of the men are fishermen. With the co-operation ot the Minister of Public Works <Mr. Fournier) who is putting in wharves and making canals to shelter their boats, and with the system of communication that has been put in by the Minister of Transport they are very pleased.
I should also like to thank the Minister of Transport for his efforts in assisting the various organizations concerned in reducing the rates for long distance telephone calls between Newfoundland and the mainland. The other day he read for us the report which had been submitted to him as to the negotiations that had taken place between the six different organizations concerned. They were the two government agencies, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation and the Canadian National Telegraphs; the Avalon Telephone Company in Newfoundland, the Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company, the Bell Telephone Company and the New Brunswick Telephone Company. All these have met together and have brought into effect certain reductions.
I may say in the first place that a telephone call between Ottawa and St. John's, Newfoundland, or any part of Newfoundland cost $7.50 for three minutes and was regarded in the same way as an overseas telephone call. Newfoundland was looked upon almost as a foreign country and did not enjoy the same privileges as did people living on the mainland in other parts of Canada. The greatest reductions have been made in calls between Newfoundland and the maritimes. The minister announced that they will be on a mileage basis instead of a flat rate. Although roughly only 100 miles of water extends between Port aux Basques and North Sydney, the cost of a call between the two places was $7.20. It has now been reduced to $2.65. For a call between Newfoundland and the province of Quebec the cost is $4.50 and for one between Newfoundland and the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, it is $6.
I drew the minister's attention immediately to the fact that in Canada and the United States there is a practice of having lower rates out of business hours; that is after six o'clock in the evening and on Sundays. This is reasonable because these are the times


when social calls are made, when members of the family put in calls. There is a special rate from station to station. That is, if you wish to call your telephone number in Winnipeg or in Vancouver you get a special low rate if it does not matter who answers the phone; whereas if you are calling a particular person you have to pay on a person to person basis, which is the highest rate. Therefore there are four different rates in Canada. Of day rates there are two, namely person to person and station to station; and for nights and Sundays, there are two more, namely person to person and station to station. During the past week or so I have been able to make three calls to New York for less than the price of one call to Newfoundland, although the distance to New York is nearly 600 miles. The distance to Ottawa, of course, is much greater.
With regard to the objection which I raised, the minister said that the companies are going to look upon these rates as an experiment, that they will see how they get on and then will give consideration to introducing new rates. But I make this submission, Mr. Speaker. Why are we not entitled to better rates immediately? After three and a half years of confederation, what is the sense of Newfoundland being treated differently from the rest of Canada? Why should it not get those rates at the present time? Why should it not have had those rates from the beginning? I certainly submit that no prolonged period is necessary for experiment in order to see whether the present rates are satisfactory and acceptable.
I made out a little list showing the different distances, because the minister said that the rate between Newfoundland and the maritime provinces was going to be on a mileage basis instead of a flat rate cost of $7.20. For example, the price of a call now from Corner Brook to Moncton will be $2.65; from St. John's to Halifax it will be $3.20. I have worked out the distances. It is 572 miles from Corner Brook to Moncton. I should like to point out that you can speak to New York for 75 cents-that is the low rate-and that is for the same distance. St. John's to Montreal is 1,629 miles and the cost is $4.50. That is '25 cents per mile. The old rate was $7.20. It is a 40 per cent reduction. I have here a little table, Mr. Speaker. If hon. members would permit me to do so I could put it on Hansard instead of reading it. However, from St. John's to Ottawa is 1,746 miles and a call now costs $6 or -34 cents per mile. The old rate was $7.50. That is a reduction of 20 per cent. From St. John's to

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne
Winnipeg is 2,988 miles, and it is the same rate as St. John's to Ottawa, although it is two-thirds farther. It costs -20 cents a mile, the cheapest rate granted. The old rate was $9, therefore the reduction is 33 per cent.
I hold in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a comparison of the rates between Ottawa and various parts of Canada by telephone. Do you
Dist.
Corner Brook to Moncton	 572
St. John's to Halifax	 915
St. John's to Montreal	 1,629
St. John's to Ottawa	 1,746
St. John's to Winnipeg	 2,988
Dist.
Ottawa-Saint John, N.B	 600
Ottawa-Moncton	
Ottawa-Charlottetown	 795
Ottawa-Halifax	 957
Ottawa-Winnipeg	 1,242
A perusal of these rates will show that Newfoundland is not being fairly treated in this matter.
I said a moment ago that I intended to make some reference to the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in regard to Korea which, I am glad to see, has top priority at the United Nations. The speech from the throne has this to say about Korea:
Nevertheless, because of the steadfast resistance of our Canadian forces and their comrades in arms to aggression in Korea and because of the increasing strength of the forces of freedom in Europe, there are signs of a lessening of the danger of an outbreak of war on a global scale.
It is certainly right that every tribute should be paid to our brave soldiers who are doing a grand job in Korea, but I think it was a good thing that someone should say something about the South Koreans themselves. The South Koreans have been recognized as very patriotic people. They are very anxious to take a larger part in the war, although at the present time they are carrying on the bulk of the fighting. This afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that they supply 60 per cent of the soldiers of nine divisions. They want to get better training. It seems to me very essential that the South Korean soldiers, who are just as good as any others when they are properly trained, should be armed and equipped so that less drain would be made upon the United States and the other countries of the United Nations who have sent forces to Korea.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to an article which appeared in the
wish me to read these, or may I put them on Hansard?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member shall put them on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Joseph Browne: The rates follow:
New	Rate	Old	Per centRate	per mi.	Rate	Reduction$	?	2-65	[DOT]45	7-20	633-20	[DOT]34	7-20	554-50	[DOT]25	7-20	40600	[DOT]34	7-50	206 00	[DOT]20	9-00	33Day Rate	Night Rate	St. -St.	Pers.-Pers.	St. -St.	Pers.-Pers.1-70 (-28)	2-20 (-37)	1 00 (-16)	1-50 (-25)1-85	2-40	110	1-602-35 (-30)	3-10 (-40)	1*35 (-17)	210 (-26)2-35 (-25)	310 (-30)	1-35 (-14)	210 (-22)3 00 (-25)	3-85 (-30)	1-80 (-15)	2-65 (-21)Ensign back in June, 1951, that has a bearing	upon this	suggestion.	When we	realize thatpractically	no progress	has been	made since
that time; when we realize from the report given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs today that no progress is being made at the present time, and no progress is expected to be made, because the Chinese reds are going to reject this appeal which he has sent to them; and when we realize, sir- at least many of us on this side of the house -that from the very beginning most of us were of the opinion that those negotiations were bound to end in this way, or to be carried on in this way, then I think it is important to see what a writer, Edgar Ansel Mowrer, said back as long ago as June, 1951: Asia can be saved from communism without a third world war. It can be saved by the immediate creation of local anti-communist forces roughly equal in strength to the local communist forces. Whether Americans side with General MacArthur or with the joint chiefs of staff, they can surely agree on one point: the weakness of the free world in Asia is that it is forced to use its chief armies- American, British and French against satellite Asiatics-North Koreans, Chinese, Indo-Chinese and Malayans, while the U.S.S.R. preserves its forces intact outside local wars.
Is that not what General Eisenhower is reported to have said the other day, when he said that we were using our best troops against a second team? This writer then laid down six conditions which he thought should be met if it was considered necessary to defeat communism in Asia, and I am sure we all agree to that. I was astonished that some of

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne the words used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs today were identical with words used in this article. His first condition is:
1.	Hold on in Korea until the Chinese communists either surrender or until the French and VietNamese have smashed the communist rebels in Indo-China, the British have crushed them in Malaya and the Filipinos have eliminated them from their islands. These are not impossible.
2.	Settle the Kashmir dispute on any reasonable basis, thus freeing Pakistan's great energy and influence for use elsewhere and giving Indian opponents of neutralism a chance to assert themselves.
3.	Bring Burma, Siam and free Viet-Nam into a southeast Asian alliance to include India and Pakistan as soon as either is ready to join.
4.	Extend the new Pacific pact between the United States, New Zealand and Australia to include the Philippines and a rearmed Japan. At the appropriate time, link it with the southeast Asian alliance.
5.	Instead of recognizing red China, create all possible difficulties for that regime. This means supporting Chiang Kai-shek on Formosa and encouraging any other anti-communist forces that emerge.
6.	Urge the Japanese, once they again become independent, to create a sizable military force as quickly as possible.
I believe that carrying out these six undertakings, or most of them, would save Asia-and that nothing less will.
Now, sir, for the remainder of my time I should like to devote some attention first of all to the amendment to the amendment introduced by the C.C.F., and lastly to the fisheries situation in Newfoundland. May I first of all deal with the amendment to the amendment which asks for the immediate introduction of national health insurance. It seems to me that the C.C.F. party is out to get this during this session for some reason or other. I notice from the reports that have been filed by the different provinces that Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan seem to favour the idea, but the other provinces do not. Newfoundland is the only province which has not reported up to the present time, but my understanding of the situation there is that it would be chaotic to introduce national health insurance at the present time.
Hon. members from Alberta and Saskatchewan, the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low), the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) all have spoken about the wonderful progress that has been made in their provinces. I think representatives from all provinces could give a similar story. I know that in Newfoundland, going back as far as 1934, we can tell a story of almost the elimination of tuberculosis as a major cause of death; the erection of 26 cottage hospitals, and the extension of hospital and medical facilities to at least 60 per cent of the people. But, although a great number of beds have


been provided in the past ten years, they are certainly not yet sufficient to justify an all-out health insurance plan.
I think the matter was considered by the people of Ontario in the election last year. The leader of the Liberal party went to the country at that time with a national health insurance plan as his chief policy. The premier of Ontario said it would be a fraud upon the people to allow them to think that such a program could be put into force at that time. Neither could it. Therefore it seems to me that the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) is the wisest course for this country to pursue.
Members of the Liberal party have suggested that we should have a committee of the house. That would not go far enough; for it is necessary to have concurrence between the governments of the different provinces and the principal municipalities that operate hospitals and have to do with health matters. Therefore it seems to me that until the C.C.F. party can show how it can be done, the best way would be to hold a conference between representatives of the dominion government, the provinces, the municipalities and the medical profession, as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech the other day.
I should like to refer to the fisheries situation at this time. I am glad the minister is present while I am making these remarks. I know he is interested. I know that already he has sent the deputy minister down to Newfoundland to look over the situation, and I suppose he has brought back a report.
Perhaps what I have to say is an analysis of what has been happening during the last few years, but I think it is just as well that we should have it in summary form. There has been in Newfoundland in the last ten or twelve years a distinct trend toward the development of fresh fish markets, especially in the United States. During the war we had a big fresh fish market in Great Britain, but that is now completely lost, so that we are dependent now upon the fresh fish market in the United States. Emphasis has been directed toward this by the government of Newfoundland, with the result that everyone is fresh-fish minded.
It seems to me, however, that a word of caution is necessary, because what the United States gives now the United States can take away by the stroke of a pen, by the alteration of the tariff. In that way the fresh fish market could be lost. We should know that in Gloucester there are fish interests deeply concerned with the entry of Canadian fish on the United States market, and at any time they may ask the United States

government to make it more difficult for Canadian and other foreign fish to enter that market.
There can be no doubt that the United States market has been beneficial to the fisheries of Newfoundland, generally speaking. However it has helped to bring about a decline in the salt codfish industry. The salt cod fisheries constitute an industry which has existed since the days of discovery by Cabot. He brought back his report stating that the waters around the new land, around Newfoundland, were teeming with cod. People from England, from Spain and from Portugal, as well as from France, visited there every year. They have been coming out from Spain, Portugal and France almost every year since that time, with the exception of the war years. All those people have been interested in the salt cod fisheries.
As Newfoundland developed, the salt cod fisheries became the staple industry. It can no longer be regarded as the principal industry of Newfoundland, however, because one brings to mind the great volume of paper produced, and the increasing wealth due to the discovery and operation of mines producing mineral ores. Nevertheless the salt codfish industry is regarded very highly, because so many people take part in the salt cod fisheries. These people have their homes situated around the numerous bays and inlets and harbours along the six thousand miles of coast line. They have little gardens and farms which, with the fisheries, give them a very comfortable living in most cases.
The cod fisheries declined for the following reasons, it seems to me. First of all there were the effects of the war. Many enlisted, left their homes and did not return. Then there has been the construction by the United States government as well as by the Canadian government of defence bases in Newfoundland. Especially since the war there has been a great expansion of United States forces there. All this has drawn thousands of people away from the fisheries. I was surprised recently to be in several fishing villages and find them eating fish bought in St. John's. There was not a boat on the beach, not a fisherman in the place. Then hundreds more are going to Seven Islands to work on the railway, and to do such other work as is necessary for the development of the iron ore deposits found along the border between Quebec and Labrador.
In addition there has been a program of government industrial spending. In my opinion the government of Newfoundland has very unwisely gone into the experiment of starting business enterprises, establishing a
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne cement plant, gypsum plant, hardwood plant, machine plant and the like, the outcome of which to say the least is very problematical. Nevertheless it has drawn many people away from the fisheries. Indeed this was a deliberate policy intended to take people from the fisheries.
We remember, too, the low prices of 1950. In that year the prices of fish were the lowest they had been in ten years. Many were discouraged and did not return to the fisheries in 1951 or since. Then the government of Canada made the stipulation that it would not give any assistance, through the fisheries prices support board, to any fisherman who decided to go to Labrador and take part in the Labrador fisheries. If they did so it would be at their own risk.
Then there has been the loss of markets due to exchange. Brazil, a country in South America with a population of 53 million people, used to buy thousands of quintals of our fish, but has not been buying it recently. Spain has not been buying our fish, and this year we had to practically beg the Portuguese government to buy some of it. The situation is changed, and this has had a great effect upon our people. I think therefore the minister has a difficult task ahead of him. I have every sympathy for him, and I shall be glad to help in any way I can.
The government of Newfoundland, in conjunction with that of the dominion, has been making experiments in the manner of catching fish. I believe it was the provincial government that was responsible for the idea that people must get away from the slavery of producing salt codfish. "Slavery" was the word used by the premier of the province. I do not agree with him at all; I think it produces a most unwise psychological approach. However, four boats were brought from Iceland. The experiment cost $450,000. The Icelanders were going to show the Newfoundlanders how to catch fish. The boats are down at St. John's harbour now, and anyone who looks at them will say, "How did they happen to bring out these four tubs?"
That experiment failed. Then they introduced long liners. I believe the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) cherishes the idea that the long liners are going to be the solution of the difficulties of fishermen in Newfoundland. The federal and provincial governments have been experimenting with these long liners. I believe the provincial government has now abandoned the experiment and switched over to the Danish seine, so that the Danes can teach us how to fish. The federal government had the misfortune to have one of their long liner vessels blow up last year. There has not been sufficient data published to

The Address-Mr. IV. J. Browne enable us to judge the value of these experiments. I have no doubt that probably managed with a small crew, if the boat and the equipment do not cost too much, operations of that kind might prove profitable; but I cannot see how it could ever replace cod fishing operations with the use of traps, where in a month or two people can catch 800, 900 or 1,000 quintals of fish, a quintal being 112 pounds of dried fish.
In addition to this problem connected with experiments, within the next year or so the minister will have to face the problem of the marketing of codfish. The marketing of salt cod is always a difficult problem. In the old days, when we had free trade, it is notorious that merchants would undersell one another; and on one occasion at the close of the first world war there was chaos in the salt codfish industry because of this marketing difficulty.
In 1936, at the time of the commission of government, a fisheries board was set up. It was later on agreed that the merchants should have exclusive control of the marketing of salt codfish, and that this control would be under an organization known as the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited. That body still has the right to export fish. It is composed entirely of merchants, and hon. members will have some idea as to the organization itself when I state that it costs $10,000 to join it. Only a wealthy merchant can belong to the organization.
Therefore eventually all fish must come to the members who export it. A 3 per cent charge is made, and put in the coffers of NAFEL. Whether those concerned make the distribution or not, I cannot say. When the deputy minister of fisheries, Mr. Bates, was in St. John's recently, he threw out a suggestion that he would like to know what the fishermen wanted. Do they want to continue this method of exporting their fish, or what do they want?
His invitation was taken up by the Daily News, and in an article on November 8 it said that there seemed to be only two alternatives to the association which exists at present. There would have to be either a fishermen's marketing co-operative or a board. It seems to me that the board they had in mind was something along the lines of the wheat board in western Canada. Because I was interested in the matter I took time to look up the constitution of the board which was organized under the act passed in 1935 by the Bennett government. I read it through and it seemed to me that the idea was sound, that if a board could handle the export of millions of bushels of

wheat a similar board could handle the export of a million quintals of salt codfish from Newfoundland.
There is in Newfoundland at the present time another organization which has a great deal to say about fisheries matters, and I refer to the fishermen's federation. Some hon. members will remember that on February 6, 1951, I made a speech during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne during which I discussed the fisheries of Newfoundland and recommended that the government should follow the example that was set in 1929 when a commission recommended the teaching of co-operative methods to the fishermen. I suggested that Dr. Coady should be sent to Newfoundland to establish a school for the training of fishermen in cd-operative methods. The provincial government took up the idea, got Dr. Coady down there and subsidized the formation of the fishermen's federation which now has ten to fifteen thousand fishermen members all around Newfoundland. The majority of the .men interested in the catching of salt codfish, and fresh fish as well, are members of this federation. According to an article in the Daily News of August 8, 1951, Mr. Lane, the secretary of the federation, indicated that the federation was opposed to the continuation of the NAFEL organization.
I notice that the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) was down there recently and said that this organization was there to stay. I did not read the full report of what he said, but I did read the comments made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) the other day in answer to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins). I believe the situation is still fluid and I hope the minister is giving consideration to what will be best for the fishermen. That is the criterion that should always be used in connection with the fisheries of Newfoundland: what is going to be best for the fishermen.
There are three things that can be done. The present association can be continued or fishermen's marketing co-operatives can be set up. I am sure the minister will realize that that involves a lot of teaching, as it would be an educational process. It is not something that can be done in a day. It will take some time to train these men in the principles of co-operation, although during the past twelve or fifteen years many of them have become familiar with co-operative methods in buying and in the operation of credit societies. They have not had a great deal of experience with co-operative marketing. The third thing would be to set up a board similar to the wheat board. Eventually the minister will have to decide which is

best. I do not know which would be the best at the present time. Under the terms of union the present fisheries board continues for five years after April 1, 1949, so it will cease operations on April 1, 1954 unless legislation is brought in to continue it.
There was one other criticism in the Daily News article to which I referred. They said that the deputy minister seemed to be overlooking the premier of the province, that he did not consult with the government but asked only for suggestions from the public and the press as to what future methods of marketing should be adopted in Newfoundland. As the federal government has the responsibility in regard to fisheries it seems to me there was nothing that should arouse great objection by anybody in his simply asking for suggestions.
I am not prepared at the present time to say which is the best, but I do feel that the criterion I mentioned before, that is, what is going to be for the best interests of the fishermen, should be followed. No doubt the minister since taking over his office has realized something of the difficulties that exist down there.
Before I conclude I should like to draw his attention to certain other features of the situation facing the fisheries in Newfoundland.
He knows that trawlers and bankers come out from Portugal, Spain and France every year in hundreds. Most of these are sailing vessels with diesel power and they carry from 50 to 75 dories, which means that there are 50 to 75 fishermen because one fisherman goes out in a dory. The speech from the throne forecasts that legislation is to be introduced in connection with these Portuguese and Spanish fishermen coming into Newfoundland ports for bait and supplies.
This practice was stopped on July 1 as far as the other maritime provinces are concerned, but because Newfoundland at the time of union had an agreement with these countries permitting these fishermen to come into Newfoundland ports, the practice was continued there. I do not know if it is the intention of the government to forbid these vessels coming into Newfoundland ports, but I urge the minister to give earnest consideration to the matter before he refuses them entrance.
These are very industrious people. They undergo great hardship. They are brave men fishing the hard way, and they cause no trouble in St. John's. Many of them are married men with families and they live in countries where the standard of living is much lower than ours. Therefore I suggest that consideration be given to the problem before a hard and fast rule is laid down that
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne they be not allowed to come into Newfoundland ports to purchase bait and supplies as they have been doing for so many years.
The Portuguese government has taken a great interest in their fishermen to see that they have the latest boats and equipment. It looks after their welfare at home by providing houses, maternity benefits for wives and recreational benefits for the fishermen and their families. No one seems to be taking a similar interest in the fishermen of Newfoundland.
On previous occasions I have drawn attention to the benefits which are available to the farmers of western Canada, and other regions too, through farm improvement loans. The farmers of Newfoundland have received very little benefit from this legislation because for some reason or another they have not been able to get loans. The fishermen of Canada have no benefits under any comparable act. I believe the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) has a resolution on the order paper asking that the government give consideration to providing advantages for the fishermen similar to those being provided for our farmers.
Does it not seem strange that thousands of houses are going up in and around our cities at a cost of millions of dollars provided either by the government or government agencies, when nothing is being provided for the thousands and thousands of fishermen who live in small places, merely because they are not located on serviced land. It will be a thousand years before they will have serviced land in some of these small settlements. It is impossible. Yet does it not seem unfair that the privilege of being able to borrow a sum of money to improve their means of earning a livelihood or to improve their homes is denied them? It seems to me a sound proposition that a fisherman should be treated in such a manner as to enable him to obtain a loan of that kind. I know plenty of fishermen who, if they were given seven years to repay, would be very glad to get loans and improve their homes and their means of earning a livelihood.
Then there is the question of storm damage which was brought up in the house the other day, on which occasion the minister replied to a question by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter). This fall I was a witness of the after-effects of a storm. I stood on the cliff at the little village of St. Michaels, Ferryland. I looked out at the rough seas and saw pieces of boats, pieces of stages and wharves floating around and the fishermen on the beach trying to salvage what

The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne they could. Only a village or two were affected at that time. The other day there was another storm of greater proportions which caused greater damage. As the result the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, whose district was more affected than that of anybody else, asked his question.
I understand the matter is under consideration by the government. The previous minister told us that he was considering a method of two-way insurance involving the federal and provincial governments, and perhaps the fishermen concerned as well, so that when damage of that kind was suffered the fishermen would be insured and would be able to rehabilitate themselves without delay. I do not know what is going to happen now, but I do know that whether a storm is nationwide or only affects one or two villages it is most disastrous for the fishermen concerned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


William Joseph Browne: I only have one more point to make.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With unanimous consent the hon. member may proceed, but I must tell him that his time expired three minutes ago.


William Joseph Browne: It is only one point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will understand it is not up to me to give him permission. He only has to stand up and ask for it.


William Joseph Browne: I only wanted to compliment the minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West has obtained unanimous consent to carry on.


William Joseph Browne: I wanted to make reference to a statement which I saw in a newspaper recently regarding bait depots. I did not hear any statement made in the house about the matter, but perhaps the minister intends to make one later. I brought the matter up on several occasions before and recommended to the previous minister that he should try to make bait depots available to as many fishermen as possible. It is not much good having a bait depot ten miles away if you have to go there by boat. The fishermen want to be able to obtain fresh bait at three o'clock in the morning so they can go out early and fish. I am glad the minister is giving consideration to the matter, and I


hope he will be able to make a statement soon as to when the policy will come into effect and the conditions that are to be attached to it.


James Sinclair: I am very grateful to the hon. member for St. John's West for his helpful speech, to which I will reply some time later. However, I think in fairness to my deputy minister I should correct one remark he made. The deputy minister did consult the Newfoundland government when he made his recent visit to Newfoundland, and in return the Newfoundland minister of fisheries came up here last week. I am very grateful to the hon. member for the speech he has made.


William Joseph Browne: Might I make one observation?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Joseph Browne: It was after Mr. Bates had made his statement that he saw the government.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, coming from British Columbia, as I do, I think I may say that all agree that two better appointments could not have been made than the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and the present Solicitor General (Mr. Campney). British Columbia is a young province and deserves the type of representation these two young men will give it. With the present growth of the province and the influx of new people from Saskatchewan and Alberta, I look forward to the day before too long when our growth will require another minister from that province.
I wish to discuss first the amendment to the amendment in the name of the leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Coldwell) which reads in part as follows:
We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed: (a) to recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program.
It seems to me that no one is more qualified to speak about health and hospitalization than a member from British Columbia. We have seen confusion over the years not only under the present government but under the former government which was made up in part of representatives of the Liberal party. I do not think anything was the matter with hospitalization in British Columbia in the first place. The idea was good. The trouble with the administration was that the plan was introduced a year or two too soon. Because of the insistence of certain gentlemen in authority, the law was introduced and the hospitalization plan came into being in British Columbia before we were ready for it.

In the first instance the premiums were set at a rather low level, and my recollection is that they were increased two or three times. We found that the hospitals of British Columbia were not built to take care of the influx arising from the increased number of patients. We found that our nursing schools could not take care of the necessary nursing staffs required for a hospitalization scheme of the type instituted in British Columbia. We found that the cost of construction of new hospitals was, as the Social Credit minister of health and welfare said the other day in the provincial capital, "beyond the power of the people of British Columbia to support." Nowhere at any time will there be as good an example as the hospitalization scheme in British Columbia of something being done long before the proper time and without proper investigation.
As I say, the idea was good. I do not think anyone in British Columbia would argue that the hospitalization plan as we now know it in that province does not benefit the type of people who should receive benefit, people who cannot afford to pay their hospital bills in the first place. However, it is an outstanding example of a government doing something before the people first of all were prepared to accept the extra load on their tax bills and second, before the government knew how to give proper administration covering a matter of that kind. We have confusion in British Columbia so far as hospitalization is concerned. The present government went into office not only because of the things the coalition did not do but because they said that immediately upon taking office the hospitalization plan would become a voluntary scheme. Gone would be the premiums, gone would be the extra taxes, but anyone who wanted to belong to the hospitalization scheme could do so on a contributory basis. If you didn't want to belong to it and wanted to pay your hospital bills in the regular way, why then they would be in agreement with that idea. I do not say this because my hon. friends of the Social Credit party are sitting across the house from me now. Except for one man, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), they did not have anything to do with the provincial set-up. He must accept responsibility for any statements made by Social Credit candidates before the last election in British Columbia. Against the wishes of their own convention, that hon. gentleman from Macleod was brought into British Columbia. There is no doubt that he, of all people, laid down the law as far as Social Credit and the provincial party are concerned. I am not surprised that my hon. friends on the other
The Address-Mr. Goode side in the Social Credit party have said they do not agree with some of the views expressed in that election.
Nevertheless we have had a government in office for not too long which said it would give hospitalization to the people of that province if they wanted it, and for free. However, I find in the Vancouver Province of December 1 that notwithstanding the extra cost of construction of hospitals, notwithstanding the fact that the government there knows that under agreements made quite recently extra costs are going to be taken by hospital boards-and in my own locality in connection with our new Burnaby hospital wage costs will go up many thousands of dollars though it is only a 100 bed hospital- notwithstanding the fact that the deficit of the Vancouver general hospital next year will be something like $1 million, this temporary government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Tom Goode: -have seen fit to freeze their payments to hospitals throughout the province. Not only did they tell the people of British Columbia that we were going to have voluntary hospitalization, but they intimated that there would be larger grants to hospitals. I heard them say that. I also heard the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) say the other night that, in his experience, this .psychology would, result in placing more expense upon the municipalities in every province in Canada.


Mr. Wylie:: Do you believe him?


Tom Goode: I only believe what I read and what I study and there is the evidence in the paper. If my hon. friend wishes to get up and deny this, and say he does not agree with his party's freeze on hospitalization payments, I would willingly resume my seat now.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: That is not what you are talking about.


Tom Goode: The minister said the onus was going to be put on the municipalities. How true! If the government in Victoria freezes payments to hospitals, considering the extra costs that are going to take place in 1953, then the municipalities must pay the difference. I think that confirms the words of the minister when he said that with a Social Credit government in power in any province the municipalities would have to carry the load.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Shaw:: That is not the case.

The Address-Mr. Goode


Tom Goode: It is in Alberta.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You will hear more about that.


Tom Goode: When my hon. friends finish arguing from their side of the house they will please remember that when they speak in this house I take it that their opinions are being expressed and that those are sincere opinions. I listen to them on that basis and all I ask is the same respect.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: With a few interruptions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: It is hard to take.


Tom Goode: Having said what I wanted to say about hospitalization in British Columbia, I want to come back again to a statement I made at home before I left. I made it because I had an idea that this subamendment would be proposed by the C.C.F. party. I believe the idea is good, but I think they are a little before their time. Anyone coming from British Columbia can prove that a national health scheme now is years before its time. The people are not ready for it. If you took a vote on it throughout the country, beyond some misguided people who vote for the C.C.F., I do not think that too many would support it at this time.
I have much respect for the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). He did say in his speech that he brought it to the attention of the house for their consideration. I think that was a fair statement and I do not think he took the subamendment too seriously himself. It will be a move toward the idea presented by my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) when he said the other day that he thought the best way to approach this was through a committee. I think he said a joint committee of the House and Senate, but at least he said a committee. That committee would fully investigate the matter and avoid the serious problem which we in British Columbia now face.
If the federal government takes on this national health program we will have not only the difficulties which exist in British Columbia, small as they may be nationally, but we will have to multiply those difficulties a hundredfold. I think nothing would be as tragic as for the government to embark on a national health program at this time, ill prepared as it is in regard to facilities, and with the people ill prepared to accept the cost that must result from the subamendment. I am going to vote against the subamendment not merely because it is a matter of nonconfidence in the government, which to my

mind is not too important, though I will say that if the subamendment had been worded a little differently I might have risen in my place and voted for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us the wording you would have voted for.


Tom Goode: If my hon. friend wishes me to suggest the policy of the C.C.F. party I will be glad to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just tell us the wording you would have voted for.


Mr. Cruickshank:: We will bring it in at the right time.


Tom Goode: When the time comes for national health insurance in Canada, I will tell my hon. friends that a Liberal government will bring it in and it will be brought in properly.


Mr. Johnston:: How many years will that take?


George Alexander Cruickshank: You won't be here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that mean it will be
another 33 years before the Liberals take action?


Tom Goode: My hon. friend will not be here.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is not an answer to the question.


Tom Goode: If my hon. friend will come to see me in my office I will tell him. Now I come to another matter on which my hon. friends will not argue too much.


An hon. Member:: Having disposed of that one.


Tom Goode: If the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) is quoted correctly in the Ottawa Citizen of December 6, he proposes to bring to the attention of the house this week a certain matter that happened in Korea during the visit of the next president of the United States. I was very surprised that the hon. member did not bring the matter to the attention of the government today, and if he had I would most likely not be making the remarks I am going to make.
In the Citizen of December 6 there is an article written by Bill Boss, Canadian Press staff reporter in Korea. I think I can say that he is a man with whom I have not always agreed when he reports on Korean incidents. Nevertheless he brought to the attention of the Canadian public, I think, the fact that a guard of honour in Korea, in which was included a number of Canadian troops, was held on a parade ground for seven hours. Perhaps this question and the discussion of it would have come better from

the opposition, but some of us in this house know exactly what this means. The article says this:
For Elsenhower's parade, scheduled at 3 p.m. the troops marched on to the airstrip at 1.15 p.m. They kept warm by beating their hands together, kicking their feet and pounding one another's backs.
The Canadians didn't complain, considering it an honour to be able to pay their respects to General Eisenhower. But there was much criticism by newspapermen over the lack of consideration shown the troops . . .
The Canadians evoked all-round admiration the hard way Wednesday. On the wind-swept airstrip in five above zero weather they discarded comfortable parkas to parade more efficiently in their beautifully pressed battledress.
The men decided on it themselves, suggesting to Hanson before the morning rehearsals: "You can't do arms drill properly wearing a parka!"
In consequence of that story, if the newspapers are correct, the next president of the United States has had to apologize to certain people in Korea for keeping our troops and other troops on a parade ground for seven hours. The hon. member for Nanaimo said that he was going to bring this matter before the House of Commons, and I quite agree that he should do so. But before he does it, may 1 say that I remember standing on a parade ground, with some hundreds of men, for five and a half hours one day waiting for the hon. member for Nanaimo; and I must say that when he arrived on that parade ground he was on time. I happened to be the sergeant major on the parade at that time. I checked the parade and found that he was a minute and a half late. I took issue with certain senior officers at that time, just as I take issue now. I do not expect for a moment that a Canadian officer was in charge of that Korean guard of honour, but I suggest that there was a Canadian officer in charge of the Canadian men in that composite guard.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, officers are funny people. You may have a man who works at a desk and who, when he gets home at night, walks the dog around the block, is run by his wife and children, and has Milquetoast tastes in his daily habits; but when, all of a sudden, you put a pip on his shoulder he becomes a roaring lion. I have known officers of this type. Thank goodness they are few in number. I am quite sure that they do not include any former army officer in this House of Commons, but there are some of this type in the Canadian army. I do not say that this man Hanson, who cannot defend himself-and I am certainly not going to attack him here-is that type or is responsible, but somebody is responsible for keeping those Canadian troops on the parade ground for seven hours; and then to have the audacity to tell me, one who has had a little bit to do with troops, that Canadian troops said: "We want to do small arms drill
The Address-Mr. Goode without parkas at five below zero" is something I cannot understand, having regard to the stupidity of it. I think this is the worst type of reporting possible.
I have complained about this gentleman before. You will remember that I said something about casualties being mentioned in the paper, or units being mentioned in the paper, before the people at home knew about it, so that we could save some of our mothers and our wives in Canada unnecessary trouble and worry. This is the same gentleman. He tells us now that Canadians, in newly pressed serge, wanted to do parade ground drill in battledress rather than use parkas. Most of us know that is not true. Nevertheless, this is true: Canadian troops along with others were held on the parade ground for several hours at practically zero temperatures.
I do not say this is a responsibility of government. Goodness knows the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) does not know everything that goes on with regard to these minor matters, although he does in most major matters; but I think an investigation should be started immediately, when the next president of the United States is practically forced to make an apology; when he himself arrives at the parade ground immediately upon the proper time that is appointed; and we have taken seven hours to put a few men on a guard of honour.
I was a member of the Canadian forces and did not do nearly as much as did most of the veterans in this House of Commons. But I will guarantee now that I can take a thousand men on a guard of honour and put them in their proper positions in half an hour; and I know of no sergeant major in the Canadian army-especially in the regular Canadian army-who could not do it in 15 minutes. I think there were perhaps some thirty or forty men on this guard of honour, although I do not know; but there is not a sergeant major in the Canadian army who could not have done it in a quarter of an hour. Yet this article says we kept our troops rehearsing for seven hours. A Canadian infantryman, after he has been in the army for six months, knows more about small arms drill than do most soldiers in other armies. I think it has been recognized that the Canadian soldier is a specialist in small arms. Yet we have to take seven hours before a guard of honour is held, so these boys can learn basic training that they most likely knew two years previously.
I would suggest to the Acting Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) that this occurrence be fully investigated. I am going to ask more questions about it in the house. I want to know why Canadian troops were

The Address-Mr. Goode held there for seven hours, on whose orders they were held there, and who was the senior Canadian officer on that parade.
Having said something that perhaps might be construed as against the Department of National Defence-although it is not so intended-I think this also should be said, because in regard to the same department we have heard many things this session as to the shortcomings of certain officials. I have here quite a long article which was printed in the New York Times of Monday, November 10, 1952, and I propose to put it on the record. It will take about ten minutes, but I think it should be put on the record now. This is an article written in France by a staff reporter of the New York Times. It reads as follows:
Quietly and efficiently the Canadians have developed a jet fighter base here in the last four months that will compare-in speed of construction, operational efficiency and living conditions for officers and men-with any of the twenty-one other North Atlantic Treaty Organization air bases already built in France.
This is the home of the alliance's first F-86E Sabre jet fighter wing on the European continent, and all sixty of the Sabres here are Canadian-built. Manned entirely by regulars of the second Canadian Air Force fighter wing, the Canadian group is the first of four such wings scheduled to be flown to the continent during the next eighteen months to join the allied air forces, central Europe, under Lieut.-General Lauris Norstad of the United States air forces.
This 1,000-acre Canadian base is more than just a technical installation; it is an example in co-operation between Canada and France that can be held up to the United States in its heavy task of building a chain of air bases in foreign lands for the defence of the free world.
The progress being made here would be outstanding by any test. On July 3, for instance, there was nothing to see here but a French-built 8,000-foot concrete fighter runway, a parallel taxiway, other hard-surface areas and a few hangars.
Now, four months later, French civil engineers, working with Canadian plans, have built sixty new aluminum-sheathed prefabricated buildings that already house nearly 1,000 Canadian officers and men plus operational equipment and supplies. Another 1,000 Canadians are due to arrive in the coming year.
As autumn rains and cold sweep over this bare tableland in the Moselle valley the Canadian personnel are comfortably installed in steam heated, insulated French-built prefabs, each of which can house 104 officers or men or can be used as recreational halls, administration buildings, chapels, mess halls or supply quarters. Each building, shaped like a giant H, costs approximately $88,000.
"We are very pleased with French materials and construction work," Group Capt. C. F. Johns, Canadian construction supervisor, said yesterday, "These buildings compare well with our own air stations in Canada."
Under the Atlantic pact organization's rules, France selects the sites and builds the runways and some hangars for the organization's air bases in France, but then the country whose air unit uses the fields must build its own barracks, warehouses, recreation halls, etc. It now appears that the Canadians have avoided some of the pitfalls that have delayed the United States' base building here.

The Canadians' progress seems to be due to three factors: Close preparation and co-operation with the French before the earth was turned; a delegation of real authority from Ottawa to Canadian officials sent to France to supervise the work; and diplomacy in dealing with the French from the government down to the local contractor. The combination of the three has paid dividends.
The Canadian air force made a close study of French building techniques long before it sent its first Sabre wing to Grostenquin on Oct. 11. It knew back in Ottawa a year ago what the French could build well and what they should not be expected to build.
When the Canadian air force started drawing up detailed plans and specifications for barracks and other semi-permanent buildings last winter it checked these with engineers in the French embassy in Ottawa. It then completed plans in both English and French and in both the inch-scale and the metric scale used on the continent. When the plans were finally laid before the French government and its engineers and civil contractors in the spring, all knew just what the Canadians wanted. The French reacted sympathetically from the start.
Some of the most experienced construction engineers in the United States have been hired by the United States air force to come to Europe and spend at least one year until October, 1953, supervising building work on three American Atlantic pact bases in France.
Some of this group of technicians have flown up to the Canadian base to look for new ideas. It is too early for their full recommendations, but they have already noted by comparison two major weaknesses in the present American way of base building in France.
That is an example to the rest of the world. Therefore in saying something about some Canadian officers who are in a very small minority, I also wish to congratulate those permanent force officers who are doing such a wonderful job, and who are in a large majority in our forces in Canada.
I have two matters concerning my own riding that I wish to speak on for a moment. One has to do with the fishing industry on the Fraser river. This also concerns the hon. members for New Westminster (Mr. Mott) and Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). Most likely in their turn they will speak on the same matter, and perhaps do a much better job than I. I wish to take a few minutes to bring to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) the marketing conditions in Canada as far as canned salmon is concerned. The hon. member who spoke before me referred to the condition of fisheries on the east coast. A like condition prevails now in British Columbia. We are starting an overlay of warehouse stocks of canned salmon of high grade, and before the next fishing season something must be done for the Canadian salmon industry, at least in some way to help them to finance through the next year.	[DOT]
I am not going to suggest to the Minister of Fisheries what should be done, but I do say to him that conditions, especially among

some of the packers in regard to their debts to the bank, are getting to the point where I am sure the federal government will have to step in. I have said during my time at home between sessions that perhaps a subsidy to the fishing industry might be the final solution. I am not too sure of that now. It could be, but a man in this position, representing 6,000 or 7,000 fishermen, as the members from British Columbia do, must go very carefully in making statements that could be wrong. I do not say that my subsidy idea is wrong, but I want to leave it open to the Minister of Fisheries to make up his own mind, perhaps after conversations with the rest of us, as to what should be done for the canned salmon industry in British Columbia. I am sure some veterans with fishing boats are going to be in dire circumstances by the end of next year unless in some way we step in to finance the surplus warehouse stocks of canned salmon we now have throughout Canada.
I do not think the government should step in at this moment to make a large loan, or anything of that kind. Perhaps they could purchase some stocks on condition that the fishing industry find extra markets. But, as I say, these small suggestions from me are not in any way meant to influence, and certainly will not in any way influence the Minister of Fisheries in his final analysis of the situation. I do hope, however, that our fishermen in British Columbia will be assured of at least a reasonable resale market for their fish in 1953.
In conclusion I should like to touch on one other matter. As we all know the Canadian Legion has asked each of us, both at home and here, either to support or go against their brief. We all know what that brief is. Some of us are prepared to support it; some of us are not. I have always found the Legion, especially in my own riding, to be pretty reasonable men. There is no doubt in my mind that the recipients of war veterans' allowance, in some instances, are having a pretty tough time. I would suggest to the minister that until another session comes on and another veterans affairs committee is set up, this $10 from the assistance fund that we give to some under a means test-and some we do not give it to at all- should be added to the war veterans' allowance without the means test; that is, without that second means test. Let us add that $10 to the basic rate. It may not be very much, but I know of cases where that $10 would just mean the difference this year between a decent Christmas for some of our older veterans and a Christmas that might mean going somewhere other than their own home for a meal.
The Address-Mr. Quelch
I want to say this to the Minister of Public Works. The Fraser river concerns British Columbia members. I wish only to speak about my own part that borders the municipality of Richmond. Rightly or wrongly the engineers of the department at New Westminster decided on a scheme which will narrow the Fraser river so as to allow the current to carry the silt out into the Pacific and, so far as I can see, their plan is a good one. Across from Richmond at the moment, on the south side of the river, they have put in many hundreds of thousands of tons of rock, and have fortified that southern bank. In doing this they have pushed the strong part of the current over to the north side of the river, bordering on the municipality of Richmond.
All there is at that point at the moment to hold the water is an old dike built many years before my time. I suggest to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) that that dike will not hold at the time of the next Fraser river freshet, should we have normal snow at the headwaters of the Fraser. I would ask him to co-operate with the reeve and council of the municipality of Richmond to do something to strengthen the north side of the river; because if the freshet ever breaks through that dike we are going to have a crisis on our hands that will cost many millions of dollars. If the Fraser river breaks through the dike, and if the water is sufficiently high, as it usually is at the time of a freshet, the water could proceed almost to the locality of Brighouse, and many thousands of people would be affected. I suggest investigation of the matter should be made now because, as most of us from British Columbia know, it will not be too long before the Fraser river will go on its yearly rampage.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation of the loudspeaker system installed in the house. For the first time in the seventeen years I have been here I find I am able to hear what is being said in all comers of the chamber. That is indeed a pleasant change, because there used to be many occasions when we could not possibly hear what was said. It certainly does add to the interest one takes in debate when he can hear clearly and distinctly what is being said.
I notice that many members on the opposite side of the house are showing an increased interest in the Social Credit movement. That is especially true of those members coming from our sister province of British Columbia, a number of whom have been most vociferous in their interjections.
440	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Quelch I have in mind particularly the hon. members for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) and Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). At least they should have the satisfaction of realizing that their constituents are becoming more progressive. If those hon. members are not able to give leadership, at least they should try to keep up with those whom they represent. It is quite evident that the people in British Columbia, including those in Fraser Valley, are no longer willing to sit back and let George do it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They will send us back here again; don't worry about that.


Victor Quelch: I wonder if, before I proceed to the next portion of my speech, we might call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) spoke on December 4 he adopted a somewhat critical attitude toward the policies of the provincial government of Alberta and implied that they had placed a somewhat undue burden upon the municipalities. When the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) spoke this afternoon he adopted the same argument and made the same charge. I think the record of the provincial government of Alberta in regard to the municipalities is fine, and will compare most favourably with that of any other provincial government. The assistance given to the municipalities by the provincial government has been considerable. I should like to place on the record a summary of the assistance given as recorded in an official publication issued by the department of economic affairs, legislative buildings, Edmonton, Alberta. It is entitled, "Summary of Assistance to Municipalities" and is as follows:
Education:
School grants	 $9,870,000
Teachers' retirement fund	 565,000
School building assistance act	 2,000,000
Public health:
Per diem hospital grants	 1,102,000
Special hospitalization grants	 1,504,000
Hospital construction grants	 500,000
Grants for health services	 58,000
Public works:
Grants for road in municipal and
improvement districts	  3,880,000
Grants for bridges	 800,000
tMr. Quelch.]

Treasury department:
Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxation on certain government
buildings	 30,000
Grants under the municipal assistance
act	  5,991,000
Lands and forests department:
Increased payments to municipalities from grazing leases	 200,000
Total direct financial assistance	 $26,500,000
That is for the year 1952-53. Then there are some additional amounts as follows: Increased Share of Welfare Paid by Province
60 per cent of indigent relief and child
welfare	$	585,000
The 10 per cent of basic old age and blind pensions formerly paid by municipal authorities	 500,00
Reduction of municipality's share of the cost of mothers' allowance from 25 per
cent to 20 per cent	   50,000
Cost of hospitalization for pensioners formerly paid by municipal authorities	 1,450,000

That represents approximately 40 per cent of the estimated provincial expenditures on income account for 1952-53. The minister was also critical of the fact that municipal debt in Alberta has been increasing. The same would be true of the municipalities in any other province. There is a definite reason why the debts of the municipalities in Alberta have been increasing. It is largely due to the fact that municipalities throughout the province are taking advantage of the credit that is made available by the Alberta government at the rate of only 2 per cent under the self-liquidating projects legislation. These loans are granted at 2 per cent with repayment spread over a period of 20 years.
Many municipalities throughout Alberta, and I am glad it is so, are taking advantage of this legislation in order to put in water systems, sewage disposal plants and other services. I think we will all agree that this is definitely to the advantage of the people because it makes it easier for them to carry on in their homes, and makes conditions far more healthy than is the case in small towns where there is no water available in the homes. I was interested in an article which appeared in the Edmonton Journal of November 1, 1951 dealing with this matter, which reads:
Twenty-seven Alberta municipal governments have been granted 2 per cent loans totalling $4,770,950 from the Alberta self-liquidating projects fund since March 31, it was stated by Kenneth Hawkins, deputy provincial treasurer.
A total of $7,000,000 was voted for the fund by the legislature this year, and more than $2,500,000

remains to be lent to local governments to finance self-liquida ting projects such as installation of water and sewer systems.
The Alberta self-liquidating projects act was passed two years ago, and during the first year almost $5,000,000 was lent to the local governments, so the total amount lent by the fund is approaching $10,000,000. In the initial year, loans numbered 34 and totalled $4,978,353.
That was as at November 1, 1951, and I understand that since that time additional loans amounting to $6 million have been granted, making a total of $16 million at 2 per cent. I am quite sure that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will not criticize such a policy because it is to the advantage of Alberta. Mind you, this is not something imposed upon the people; it is done at their own request. A plebiscite is held to determine whether or not the debt will be incurred in order to instal water systems or other services. It is only after it has been voted upon that a loan can be made.
I suggest that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys would be doing a service to his province and to the people of Canada if he would put pressure upon the federal government to adopt a similar policy in regard to loans in connection with federal projects.
1	believe there is still legislation on the statute books to provide for the granting of municipal improvement assistance with loans at the rate of 2 per cent. That legislation was suspended during the war and no loans have been made under it since that time. I think the minister should put pressure upon the federal government to once more make these loans available.
It is true that municipalities in Alberta can get money from the provincial government at
2	per cent, but that is not the case in the majority of the other provinces. If a municipality wants to finance a project of this kind it has to pay 4J or 5 per cent or even a higher interest rate. I think the minister would be doing a great service if instead of criticizing Alberta he would have the government make money available to municipalities at these low rates of interest.
Let me go a step further. I think the minister would be making a real contribution if he would urge upon the federal government the desirability of reducing the interest rate on loans for housing to 2 per cent. He would make a contribution if he would exert pressure upon the federal government to reduce the interest rate to veterans from 3| per cent to 2 per cent.


Mr. Prudham:: Can my hon. friend tell me what the Alberta government has ever done to help housing?
The Address-Mr. Quelch


Victor Quelch: By making loans at 2 per cent for the installation1 of water systems and sewage disposal plants they are making a direct contribution. I want to turn now-


Mr. Low:: I think the minister would do well if he kept quiet.


Victor Quelch: -to the question of agriculture.


Mr. Blackmore:: Let him inform himself a bit.


Victor Quelch: I think most hon. members will agree that the present situation in agriculture is a matter for grave concern. Certainly the farmers themselves are concerned about the situation. I say that because in spite of the fact that there have been two record crops in the west, farm income is down 5 per cent this year. That is largely due to the fact that the price received for farm products has dropped by 10 per cent while at the same time the cost of those things the farmer has to buy has gone up by approximately 5 per cent. My authority for that statement is to be found in the "Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada, November, 1952", where on page 9 there is the following:
Farm income.-Although farm cash income from the sale of farm products and from participation payments, including those on previous years' crops, may reach a new all-time high, it is estimated that a lower income in kind, reduced values of year-end inventory changes and higher operating costs will serve to provide a net farm income about 5 per cent below that of a year ago.
On the next page under the heading "Farm Prices of Agricultural Products" I read the following:
With the exception of the month of January, the index of farm prices of agricultural products was substantially lower during the first eight months of 1952 than for the corresponding period of 1951 . . . Even if the present level of the index can be maintained until the end of the year, it is estimated that the annual average for 1952 will be at least 10 per cent below that of a year ago.
Under the heading "Prices of Commodities and Services Used by Farmers" I read the following:
Prices paid by farmers for commodities and services used for production and for living continued to rise during 1952. The composite price index number of goods, service and cost of living in 1952 is nearly 5 per cent above that for 1951 with the greatest increase occurring in farm wages followed closely by family living costs, equipment and materials.
I should like to point out that if it had not been for the large crops that were harvested in the west the drop in income would have been considerably greater than 5 per cent. But we cannot always expect the kind of crops we have had out there for the

The Address-Mr. Quelch past two years. The present situation is causing a good deal of concern already. The moisture content in the soil today is about 70 per cent of normal and unless there is very heavy rainfall between now and next June we cannot hope for a crop next year anything like those we have had during the past two years.
I will admit frankly that the condition of the grain grower is far better than that of the livestock man. It is the livestock man who is really taking the beating in Canada today. I have in mind the hog producer, the poultry producer and the dairy producer. These men are really hard hit. The cost of their feed is high and the price of the things they have to sell is falling fast. The result is that today there is a good deal of talk among farm organizations about the need, and even the desirability, of reducing production of their commodities. In that connection I should like to refer to the issue of the Rural Co-operator under date of November 25, 1952. On the front page under the heading "Time to cut production?" there is the following:
Regulated production or government assistance are the two courses open to farmers, C. A. Milligan, Napanee, president of the Ontario federation of agriculture, said in an address at the recent annual meeting of the Ontario cream producers association in Toronto. The farmer cannot continue to produce on today's prices, Mr. Milligan said. He posed the question of whether it might not be the time to cut production to domestic requirements to insure a fair price.
If the government is not prepared to maintain agricultural prices at a level that will bear a fair relationship to the prices of other commodities, then it would seem that the only solution for farmers is to reduce their production. If farmers are going to be forced to operate under the so-called law of supply and demand, then of course the logical thing for them is to play the game according to the law of supply and demand and cut down their production, thus reducing supply so that demand will catch up with supply and prices will rise. That is what the manufacturers do. That is what they did during the depression years. They did not reduce their prices in order to try to increase sales. They reduced their production, and while the prices of agricultural products fell in those years by 65 per cent the prices of manufactured goods only fell by 25 per cent during the same period as a result of the manufacturers operating under the so-called law of supply and demand.
Let me make this point. If the farmers adopt a policy of that kind, if they do reduce their production, then the federal government will have to take the full responsibility for that action. If farmers today, in the face


of the world situation, reduce their production then that will be an extremely vicious policy and, as I say, the federal government will have to take the responsibility for it. I would say that if such action is taken it will be the result of a breach of faith on the part of the federal government.
In the first place I would point out that a reduction in production cannot possibly be justified in the face of the present world situation. We heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) speak this afternoon and the picture he painted was somewhat gloomy. He told us about the difficulties of the have-not nations and the difficulty of making supplies available to them. I was very much struck by an article written recently by Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, former deputy minister of mines and resources. I understand he is head of the United Nations technical assistance program. The article is published in the December 6 issue of Saturday Night. I am going to quote from it because, while I realize that some members will have read it, there are many others, no doubt, who have not read it. I think the article brings out some very important points which should be given careful consideration by hon. members and by the government. The heading of the article is, "Is Military Defence Enough?" I read from page 23 as follows:
There can be valid arguments as to the amount of effort and the precise allocation of our resources that should be devoted to each aspect of this basic problem. It is argued by some of our political leaders that, as far as Canada is concerned, the present division of approximately $100 for direct defence to $1 for technical and economic aid to the fermenting and revolutionary areas of the world is about right.
To many others such a distribution of our democratic resources seems dangerously unrealistic. This view is shared by the commission on foreign economic policy appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. Nelson Rockefeller by the president of the United States, and by a whole galaxy of equally distinguished and equally conservative statesmen and economists.
It can be and is argued that in the case of Canada our people are not prepared to make the additional financial sacrifices that would be necessary to provide both kinds of protection. At the moment that may be true. But that is not necessarily the final word of the Canadian people on this subject.
Our government has worked with great courage, skill and persistence to convince the Canadian people that guns are necessary. I am satisfied that a similar persistence, skill and courage would produce a similar response on our other defensive front. This is a time for leadership, not for simple compliance with existing opinion. If the public knew the facts, opinion might change. Popularity is not the final test of governmental greatness. What are some of these facts that the public should know? Well, let's look at the world around us.

I am going to cite two examples that he gives. He says:
Half the people in the world are ill, and expect to die before reaching the age of 35. But they know that they could and should be cured, and that if they were Canadians or New Zealanders or Swedes they would probably live to the age of 70.
Half the people in the world have an income of less than $100 a year; or, in other words, most of the people in the world are hungry most of the time. But they know that there could be enough food, and enough clothing and shelter, for all.
This article states that perhaps public opinion is not ready for this, but it points out that if people were educated with respect to what the situation is in the world they would no doubt support greater economic aid. Well, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) told the people in Edmonton that down in Ottawa they had a bunch of statesmen, not politicians. Surely if the cabinet is composed of a bunch of statesmen they would be prepared to risk their reputation on a policy of economic aid instead of just going along as far as they thought the people might support them. The people at this time need leaders and not merely men who will follow general public opinion.
Now the question is, in the light of that situation can reduced production of food be possibly justified? I am satisfied that the vast majority of people in Canada knowing of the situation would say that the answer is no. No doubt increased production of food and its distribution to hungry people would be one of the greatest weapons we could use to keep peace. Government policy should be to encourage an increase in the production of food, not a decrease. Unfortunately there might very well be a decrease unless the government gives some kind of a guarantee to agriculture that in the event of their increasing production they will not have to take a reduced price, which may mean they will have to take a lesser price for their increased production than they would receive for the decreased production.
The article by Dr. Keenleyside suggests that it might mean some sacrifices. I would suggest that by maintaining a high level of production, and furthermore by expanding production, in this country we would actually have an increase in prosperity. Certainly you would have greater prosperity than you would by allowing decreased production. No country can become prosperous by decreasing its' production.
Some people will say: Well, if we are going to give some of that production to other nations, does that not necessarily mean increased taxation? I would say, in the light of the situation in Canada today, that the
The Address-Mr. Quelcb total cost of aid given to foreign nations would not have to be met by taxation. I would say that for this reason. We have a situation today where inventories in the country are building up. There are surpluses in many industries; there are surpluses in agriculture; the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode) referred to a surplus of fish. You can go right down the line and find many surpluses. Unfortunately in many parts of Canada today we also find people with reduced purchasing power to buy the goods they require and hence we find buying on the instalment plan and credit buying has expanded very rapidly, for the simple reason that people have not the money and therefore they buy on time. That situation indicates a lack of effective demand.
We have a certain amount of unemployment and undeveloped resources. In order to bring about the distribution of surplus goods the government would be justified in going to the Bank of Canada for funds, and not depending upon the borrowing of the savings of the people or increased taxation. That would mean a saving in interest charges and would not increase our debt burden.
I would say that the government has forced the farmers into a position where, in order to secure a good price, they have to reduce their production; and if that is so they will be guilty of a breach of faith with the farmers. I say so for this reason. It will be recalled by members who were in the house during the latter years of the war that price ceilings were placed on agricultural production. It was announced that that was part of a stabilizing program. The government asked the farm organizations to support that program, giving them the definite assurance that it would be part and parcel of a stabilization program under which prices of agricultural production would be stabilized after the war. The government also established the agricultural prices support board which was to prevent prices falling below a certain level.
As years went by the farm organizations were not satisfied that prices were being maintained at a fair level, and asked the government to establish a formula. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), when speaking to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in annual convention two years ago at Niagara, announced what the formula would be. At the last session he also announced the formula in the house. He said then that the support prices would be maintained so that the price of agricultural products today would bear the same relationship to the prices of other commodities as they existed in the base years, 1943, 1944, and 1945.

The Address-Mr. Quelch
Would anybody say that today prices are being maintained in line with that formula?
I was satisfied that such was not the case, and I wrote to the dominion bureau of statistics and asked what the price of agricultural products would be on the basis of that formula. I put this information on the record at the last session, but just to remind members I want to place a few figures on the record now.
On the basis of that formula the price of hogs would be $29.72 per hundred pounds. The support price is only $26, and I understand that in January the price is to be reduced to $23. What possible justification can there be for reducing that price from $26 to $23 when it is already 3 cents per pound below the formula, and when the price of everything else is going up?
Then we can take the price of eggs. Under the formula they should be 73 cents a dozen, but the floor price is 38 cents. The price of butter should be 64 cents per pound, but the floor price as of January of this year was 58 cents; it may have changed since then. On the basis of the formula farmers are perfectly justified in asking that the government maintain support prices at a higher level in order to assure them that the prices of farm produce today will bear a fair relationship to the prices of other commodities on the basis of the base years, 1943-45. I say that no stone should be left unturned by the government in order to expand production of food in order to help meet the tremendous need that exists in the world today and to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) referred this afternoon.
Now for a few minutes I wish to turn to the international wheat agreement, because the Agricultural Prices Support Act does not deal with wheat. As the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) said when he spoke in the house, we in this group would like to see a new international wheat agreement signed, but we insist on certain changes being made before it is signed. Certain weaknesses that exist in the agreement should be taken care of; and we were very glad to hear the minister state that he is going to strive for higher prices under the new agreement.
The main weaknesses I refer to under the international wheat agreement are these. It will be recalled that when the British wheat agreement was signed in 1945 most people were of the opinion that price levels were bound to go down. Everybody seemed to think that, and certainly the government thought it. So the British wheat agreement was signed; but instead of the price of everything going down the price of everything else went up and, as a result, the farmers took a
TMr. Quelch.j

beating. When the 1948 agreement came up, everybody again seemed to take it for granted that the price of everything was bound to go down and when the international wheat agreement was signed there was the provision in it that the floor price would drop 10 cents every year without regard to what happened to the price level.
At that time, speaking for this group, I warned of the danger of that provision. I pointed out that there was no assurance that price levels would go down, that it was quite possible prices would go up, and that if the price levels went up there was no reason why the floor price should go down. At that time I wanted the price of wheat under the international wheat agreement to be tied to the price levels of importing nations so that if the price of everything else went down the price of wheat would go down, but if the price of everything else went up then the price of wheat would go up too. The result of that would be that our exports of wheat to a particular country would bring back the same amount of imports to this country.
At that time there was no support from farm organizations for the suggestion we made in the house. I am glad to say, however, that today farm organizations are asking for that very thing, an escalator clause. I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) must agree with that proposition, because I remember a speech by him some years ago in which he said he did not like to have to sell wheat in advance, without knowing what the price should be. He did not like to set the price ahead four years. When you set the price, as it is set under the international wheat agreement, you are merely guessing what the price should be. But if you set a price in the first year on a basis that seems fair in relation to the prices of other commodities, and then tie that price to the price level of other commodities, you are not guessing. You know that in the next few years the price of that wheat will still continue to bear a fair relation to the price of other commodities. Therefore in any wheat agreement that is signed I think there should be some provision-and I am not trying to be dogmatic about it-that would take care of that situation so that if in future instead of going down the price level went up, the farmer would not suffer as a consequence, as he has suffered under the international wheat agreement and under the British wheat agreement. I am hoping that some action will be taken along that line.
The price of wheat today is, of course, low as compared with the actual price of wheat

in 1948. In addition to that, the prices of the things the farmer has to buy have gone up considerably, putting the wheat grower in an unfavourable position. Although wheat does not come under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, it is nevertheless interesting to note that if the formula announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), using the basis of 1943-44-45 were used in connection with wheat, the price today would be $2.53 a bushel, according to the bureau of statistics. I am not suggesting that we should try to get $2.53 a bushel. I merely mention that fact in order to show that the price of wheat today is low in comparison with the prices of other commodities. I am suggesting that, first of all, we should try to get a higher price-and the minister has assured us that he is going to try to get that-and have a higher floor. Then there should be a clause in the agreement which would make it possible to adjust those prices in relation to changing conditions. In other words, there should be some form of escalator clause.
I should also like to join with the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) in what he said about the wheat board. I think the wheat board have done a magnificent job under extremely difficult conditions. I know I speak for the people back in my constituency when I say that they have no desire to see the wheat board done away with. They want the wheat board to continue as a 100 per cent marketing agency. They do not want to be thrown back to the mercy of the vagaries of the grain exchange under which every time they try to expand production, they are penalized by reduced prices. The world today needs expansion of production and we must have a policy that will make it possible to have that expansion without penalizing the producers by reducing their prices.
I believe my time is rapidly being exhausted, but before concluding I should like to say a few words with regard to income tax. I see that the minister is in his seat. I am not going to say a great deal at this time because I know that the proper time to discuss this matter is in the budget debate, but I want to make a protest on behalf of the people I represent about a policy that was instituted this fall, and that caused a great deal of hard feeling.
About October a number of the farmers of my district received letters telling them to appear before a federal investigator at either Drumheller or Stettler, and to bring with them a full statement showing all expenditures and receipts, as well as their bank
The Address-Mr. Quelch books, the titles to any property they possessed, their bonds and everything else, dating back to the year 1946. You can understand just what the reaction of these farmers was. This is 1952. The department were going back to 1946. The situation caused a great deal of hard feeling, and they ran into all kinds of trouble. The first thing they ran into was this. When they went to the bank and wanted to get documents of title, the banks in many instances said no, we are not going to give you the titles; we are holding them as security; and you could not expect them to do so. The farmers arrived with only about half what the investigators wanted. In some cases I have heard from farmers that they were treated decently by the investigators. On the other hand some farmers have told me the opposite. I guess it depended on the position the farmer was in.
I suggest to the minister that, whether it was good policy or not, it was poor politics, just before an election, to pull off a stunt like that. Of course I am not a Liberal, so I am not worrying any; but I do not think it is good politics. If the letter written had just contained a line or two saying: "We want to help you with your income tax return; we do not think your statements are quite correct and if you will come down to the office, we will help you formulate it" there would not have been anything like the amount of hard feeling. But the content of the letter was to the effect: You have been doing something that is wrong, and we are going to find out what it is. There was a kind of dictatorial attitude that people do not like. As I say, it is poor politics.
There is one other case that I have had brought to my attention; it is the case of the housekeeper on the farm. The farmers feel that they should be allowed a deduction for the wages of a housekeeper. I know that matter was discussed in this house two or three years ago and it was not allowed; but this is one thing I wish the minister would take into consideration. A farmer is allowed a deduction for farm help; yet in many cases the person employed as a housekeeper is actually doing quite a large percentage of farm work, such as milking the cows, maybe, or looking after the poultry, feeding the pigs and so on. I suggested to one or two of the people who wrote to me that it had not been allowed in the past, but I would bring it to the attention of the minister again. I suggested in the meantime that if there was anybody employed on the farm in that way, instead of saying that the wages were $50, if she was working partly as housekeeper and partly as hired help, to put it in as $25 for
448	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith hired help and $25 for housekeeper. I do not know whether or not I was giving them advice that might get them into trouble. I told them that I did not have anything official to go on, but it looked to me like common sense. I hope the minister will give the matter consideration.
I believe that my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker, but before I sit down I should like to say this. I have made a plea asking that greater economic aid be given to certain foreign countries, to what are considered the "have-not" nations. That can be done without any sacrifice on the part of the people because it can be done out of an increase in production. But before we start to give greater aid to people in foreign countries we should first of all make sure that we are doing everything we can to look after our own people.
There is one class of people that I believe should have attention, and I think that attention is long overdue; I refer to that class of people who are physically incapacitated. Many resolutions have been introduced by private members, and I think by some on the other side of the house, with regard to this matter; and every hon. member of this house who has spoken on it has spoken sympathetically. If a free vote were taken tomorrow as to whether or not pensions should be granted to people who are physically incapacitated, I am satisfied that it would pass unanimously in this house. I hope the government will give consideration to the matter, because I am satisfied that a country such as Canada should be in a position to guarantee a fairly decent standard of living to all people provided they are willing to work and, if they are not able to work, through physical incapacity, then that aid should be granted to them as a pension.


Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, one must realize in taking part in this debate, which is going into its third week, that it is going to be rather difficult to make an address without repeating what has already been said but I will try to avoid that. This evening, I do not intend to make a political speech; I think it is too early to start the election campaign. I prefer to conduct that campaign later on. I have not had much experience in election campaigns but, when they start, I like to make them hot and juicy; and I will save my ammunition for that time.
There are a few subjects on which I should like to speak, and the one that I will deal


with mainly is the amendment to the amendment, with regard to national health insurance or a national health scheme. However, there are a few other subjects I wish to touch on briefly. To begin with I want to say a little bit about trade.
We in western Canada are naturally interested in trade because we produce much more than our country can consume. Hence we are definitely interested in trade. Perhaps I might mention what has been directed as a criticism toward the government. It has to do with our loss of foreign trade, particularly with Great Britain. It may be true in part that we have lost our trade with Great Britain, but we should examine why. It is said that Great Britain finds herself short of dollars, and therefore she cannot buy our products. I do not think that is the whole story. I find that Great Britain bought more in Canada during last year than she did in 1939. It is true that during the war our trade increased considerably with Great Britain, but after the war and since 1946 and 1947 it has been dropping off. The fact remains that Great Britain spent roughly over $600 million in Canada last year as compared with $300 million in 1939. If they are spending twice as many dollars in Canada as they did before the war, I do not think it is telling the whole story to say that there is a shortage of dollars.
If they are spending twice as much money in Canada as they did before the war one might ask, and rightly so, what are they buying? Britain finds herself in a position where she believes that she needs our raw products much worse than our food, though it is true that she can use our food. But she can buy some of the products which we grow much cheaper in other countries. The Englishman has always been quite a statesman. He is the same today as he always has been, and he buys where he gets what he wants cheaper.
Take beef, cheese and butter. In western Canada we are mostly interested in beef; to some extent butter, but we do not produce cheese. What is the position? I am sure it was put on the record before by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), but I should like to cite again what the position is. In June the Canadian floor price for beef was 25 cents in Toronto or Montreal. On that same date Great Britain had a contract with New Zealand which called for beef at $14.20, f.o.b. New Zealand. Therefore it is easy to understand why we are not selling beef to Great Britain at the present time. There is only one reason, only one sensible and logical

reason, namely that we have a better market somewhere else and can receive much more for it. That is in the United States.
At the same time butter was selling in Canada at 58 cents, or at least the guaranteed floor price was 58 cents, and 35 cents in New Zealand. Last spring the guaranteed initial price of cheese was 24 cents in Ontario and 19 cents in New Zealand. Judging by these figures, if the Canadian government or the Minister of Trade and Commerce has lost these markets-and we all agree that there is a mighty good reason why we are not in them-I do not think the people in western Canada, particularly the beef growers, would look very favourably toward the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the government doing anything to force us to sell our beef and compete with New Zealand when we have a much better and higher market to the south.
We hear of trade and quite a bit about protection. I never did agree with protection. I always thought that those tariffs and subsidies were something that somebody was getting for something they did not really have. In western Canada we have to grow products and we have to compete on the markets of the world, and naturally we think that others should do the same thing.
That is all I am going to say on trade, but for a few minutes I am going to say something about freight rates. I confess immediately that I know very little about freight rates. Perhaps there are other hon. gentlemen in this house who know just as little as I do, or possibly less. My reason for mentioning freight rates is that I noticed that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) has been quoted in the Regina Leader-Post of July 17 as having spoken to a C.C.F. provincial convention in Saskatoon. The Leader-Post says:
Argue says federal vote June 29, 1953
I do not know whether or not he was trying to convince that convention that he knew just when the election was going to be held.
Under the heading we find the following:
He scored the federal government on freight rates, handling of foot-and-mouth disease outbreak and floor prices.
"The railway had asked for rate increases which would permit them to operate at a surplus. Considering the government we have at Ottawa and the mentality of that government I say that they will get all they ask for," he said.
I said that I did not know much about freight rates, Mr. Speaker, but I think the statement I have quoted is far from being the fact. It is my understanding-and I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong, or at least I hope I shall be-that the federal
The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith government has little or nothing to do with freight rates. The board of transport commissioners deals with that subject wholly. It is my understanding that in 1938 the act was amended to give the board of transport commissioners full control and full jurisdiction to decide whether or not freight rates would be increased. The provincial governments, those representing agriculture and any other bodies, may go before that board and put their case, and the board's duty is to decide whether there shall be any increase in freight rates or not.
I was speaking to a friend from my constituency who attended the convention I have just referred to; naturally he was not a supporter of mine. He asked me whether the statement made by the hon. member for Assiniboia was correct; whether the federal government was going to give the railways all the increases they asked for. I asked him who told him that. He said: "Mr. Hazen Argue told us that at the C.C.F. convention." Well, the only thing I could say to him, and what I did say to him, was this: "Don't take Mr. Argue too seriously on the platform. If you get him off to the side and speak to him privately he is not a bad fellow. That has been my personal experience." That is why I mention freight rates. I am sure the hon. member will not be able to say now that I have ignored him this evening.
I have been following the hon. member since I came to this house, and I must say that generally he makes a speech that is pretty well covered up, a good defence. But in the one he made the other night he was boxing wide open, with no defence at all. I am not going to deal with that speech, but I do wish to refer to what he described as a private deal in the city of Estevan, which is in my constituency, and which he said at that time was common knowledge. Well, I have to say that I did not know anything about it. I have inquired since. I noticed that a few days later the weekly Free Press carried the story of the hon. member for Assiniboia under the heading: "Barter deal in Estevan". The Leader-Post had an article some time later, but the figures are somewhat different. The Free Press quoted the figures of the hon. member for Assiniboia, which were 100,000 bushels, as he stated in this chamber. The Leader-Post had it down to 10,000 bushels. The information I have received privately out there is to the effect that it was 8,500 bushels. Anyway, we shall take the Leader-Post and the Free Press. That is 10,000 bushels as against 100,000 bushels. Well, if my arithmetic is correct-and it is only simple arithmetic-the hon. member was 10 per cent

The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith right and 90 per cent wrong. I must admit that he is improving. I have made inquiries on the deal and I am told by the motor people that they have taken in some grain, or that at least they have agreed to take in some grain against the sale of vehicles. But in most cases the grain has remained on the farm, and must be sold through the farmer's quota book.
I am now going to turn to the amendment to the amendment, and speak for a few moments on the subject of national health insurance. I think all are agreed that a national health insurance plan is desirable. I believe we have agreed in the House of Commons that it is going to have to be paid for. I think, too, we are pretty well agreed where the money will come from, that it will be from the taxpayer.
It may be recalled that when the old age pension legislation making provision for our citizens 70 years of age and over, without a means test, was before the house, I was not 100 per cent in favour of it. I declared at that time that I had some concern in respect of the taxpayer. I pointed out that those who were receiving family allowances were riding on one end of the stick, the old age pensioner was on the other, and the man in the middle was carrying the load. I believe the people in my constituency expect me to give some consideration to the man in the middle, because he is important. If he breaks down, the other two ends of the stick will have no support and those who are riding on them will have to get off and walk.
The amendment to the amendment asks that the government bring in immediately a national health scheme. According to the figures offered by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who proposed the amendment to the amendment, it will cost somewhere between $500 million and $600 million, something more than half a billion dollars. I do not think I could justify that expenditure to the people of my constituency at this time.
Furthermore, if we accepted a scheme of this kind, it has been pointed out that we would likely find, as they did in Great Britain when they instituted their health scheme, that it would cost considerably more than was originally expected. Over there we are told it cost about $300 million more than they had anticipated. It is my opinion that if such a scheme is to be made work properly, it will be essential that those whose responsibility it is to make it work must be in favour of it. This would refer, of course, both to the people in general and to the medical men. As time goes on it would seem that professional men engaged in the practice of


medicine are beginning to agree at least to some extent that a national health scheme is necessary.
When the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar spoke in the debate he made reference to what had been said at Laval university by Dr. Jobin, chairman of the Canadian association of French-speaking physicians. He pointed out that this doctor had suggested it was time we had such a program, and that he was in favour of it. Those of us who are interested in such a program are glad to note that a medical man holds that view; but I think we will have to have more of them stating a similar view because, whether we like it or not, it is the medical men who will have to put over such a scheme, or at least who will have to help put it over if it is to be a success.
Mention has been made of our hospitalization plan in Saskatchewan, and I shall refer to it briefly. We have in our province free hospitalization available at a fee of $30 per family, as a maximum, or $10 per individual, plus a sales tax, and plus $6 million a year out of the provincial treasury. I give full credit to the part the government in Saskatchewan has played in bringing about this hospitalization scheme. I also give full credit to the premier of that province for what he did when he was minister of health to help put such a scheme across.
It has been said that one in public life in Saskatchewan dare not criticize the hospitalization scheme of that province. I take no heed of that warning. As a representative of my constituency I believe I can stand in my place in this House of Commons and point out both the good and the bad in that scheme, without suffering in any way politically.
I believe I am free to speak in that way because it is well known in my constituency where I stood in this matter before I became interested in politics. I spent a considerable amount of time and effort in putting across the hospitalization scheme in health region No. 3 of my province. That was the Weyburn-Estevan area, taking in to a large degree the constituency I now represent in the House of Commons.
On that occasion we took the municipal plans to which reference has been made in the debate, and incorporated them into an over-all plan in order to give the hospitalization service to all people in that health region. We were watched closely by the health department in Saskatchewan. The municipal representatives on the board were given assistance by the health department in Saskatchewan to make the effort a success. I

believe what was done was a success, and that other provinces throughout Canada would do well to institute a similar scheme.
Although it worked well when divided into health units, the provincial government decided to take it over and operate it on a provincial level. I have no criticism to offer on that score because I thought at that time, and I still think, that was a good idea. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that instituting a hospitalization scheme is much easier than would be a medical scheme. We had only to make deals with the various hospitals, after we had drawn a rate, and this was not too difficult. But then the medical end might be more difficult.
It has been said in the house, and I think properly so, that we in Saskatchewan are more health conscious than are the people in some of the other provinces. When the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was speaking the other evening he said that if there was an issue in the last provincial election in Saskatchewan it was not the hospitalization plan, and indicated that all parties, including the Liberal party, were in favour of it. It is nothing new for Liberals to be in favour of social services in Saskatchewan. Indeed, any examination of the record will prove that this was the case long before we ever heard about the C.C.F.
I said a moment ago that in Saskatchewan we are health conscious, but I believe I should not leave that only as a general statement. I recall a provincial election not long ago when a hospitalization plan was an issue. I recall listening over the radio to the recent election campaign in Ontario when the Liberals promised that if they were elected they would provide free hospitalization. I heard the leader of the Liberal party, Mr. Thomson, say over the radio that that would be done, and he referred to what was being done in Saskatchewan. Seemingly the people of Ontario were not ready for such a scheme, and I do not need to tell you what happened to that party.
I think if other provinces had a hospitalization scheme such as we have in our province it would be easier to put this across. I understand that the federal government have asked the provincial governments to give their opinions of such a scheme and so far only three have reported favourably. I hope I will be excused for talking so much about my own province, but I should like to quote 68108-29
The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith what Dr. Taylor, director of the Saskatchewan health planning commission, had to say about an over-all hospitalization plan. An article which appeared in the Toronto Star reads:
Dr. Taylor has suggested that this would depend on the answers to the following, among other questions:
1.	Should it be a national scheme, on the British model, or should there be ten different schemes, evolved by the provinces?
2.	Should professional associations have administrative authority? Should government funds be turned over to a profession or an association for distribution to its own members?
3.	How shall health insurance be paid for? Should it be entirely or partly financed by the state? Should it be compulsory or voluntary? Which of the three levels of government should participate and in what proportion? Should individuals pay according to a flat rate or by graded income tax levy? Should employers contribute?
4.	Should all services be provided from the start? If not, what should be included and what left out?
Dr. Taylor asked how health insurance would be paid for. I suggested how it should be paid for, and in my opinion that is the only way. I think his last question is possibly the best of all. I do not think even the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment could answer very many of those questions, and a great deal of consideration will have to be given to the matter. When the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was speaking on this subject the other night he pleaded with the federal government to enact legislation to provide an over-all health plan, and I quote from page 153 of Hansard of November 27 where he is reported as follows:
As a matter of fact, our people are so interested in the matter of health that even if this government should continue to delay the provision of health insurance, they are not going to stand still. It will be much more difficult, but, step by step, we shall add various health measures to our present hospitalization plan until finally, with or without the help of the federal government, we shall have a health insurance program established in that province.
I do not think the hon. member for Assiniboia will suggest that we in Saskatchewan have been getting no help from the federal government to put over our plan. Surely he knows that millions of dollars have been paid in the way of grants to assist in the building of hospitals and to provide other health services. The hon. member continued:
But if we can obtain from the federal treasury, from the federal government, even so much as a hospitalization program in which we can participate, then the moneys which would be released from our own hospitalization program would indeed help us in the province of Saskatchewan to provide medical care, dental care and other health measures in a very short time.
I agree with the hon. member for Assiniboia that we can do lots of things; we can do many more things in the province of Saskatchewan,
450	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. J. Smith if the federal government will collect the taxes and pay for them. The hon. member continued:
I hear one of the Social Credit members say, "Go easy, now". That is exactly what his leader said to the government: "Go easy on health insurance". The Conservative party says, "let us have another conference with the provinces." Rather, in my opinion the people of Canada want action. If action is not forthcoming I believe the people of Canada will to a larger extent turn to the C.C.F., a party which when given the opportunity will provide a health insurance program for the people of all Canada.


Mr. Fair:: Tell them the truth.
I think possibly that is a good remark by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) and perhaps it should be given more consideration. When the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) was speaking the other night on this subject he told us a very sentimental story about what was going on in our province. I take it that he was speaking of homestead days. He told us of people taking a chance to go out west, and he described how people had had to go to a grave on the side of a hill by lantern light in order to bury a mother and her unborn child who had died because of a lack of medical care. Touching as that story was, I think we will have to dry up our tears and advance toward our medical set-up for hospitalization in a very mannerly way.
I could tell a very short story, although not so sad, about what has happened in our part of the province. This will illustrate the difference between conditions in pioneer days and those that exist today. My parents went west some 45 years ago and I am told that 40 years ago last May my father rode horseback for some 27 miles during the night to get a doctor. I was not there when he left, but I was there when he returned. They tell me that I got here before the doctor got there. But that was 40 years ago. Today we have hospitals and doctors in our district and people are taken care of in a medical way. If we can advance in our medical set-up during the next 40 or 50 years as we have during the last 40 years we will be doing very well.
I have had something to do with doctors, as I was a member of the municipal council during the depression. When people have the money with which to pay their doctor bills everything goes along fine, but at times those who have not the necessary finances must be looked after. We sometimes hear that when such and such a doctor was called to such and such a place he would not operate or do anything until he found out whether the people had the necessary money. I cannot subscribe to that sort of talk at all. There may be one doctor in a million who would
[Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain).!


An hon. Member:: Before the next election.


John James Smith: Yes. We also hear about state medicine. I do not know that there is very much difference between state medicine and what is called for in the amendment to the amendment. I noticed that when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) was speaking the other day he tapped his desk and said that one thing we do not want in this country is state medicine. I also notice that some of the Liberals tapped their desks too but I did not do so, because whether it is state medicine or national health insurance to me they are the same. You may water one down or dress up the other but they are the same thing. I do not think in a country like ours we will go on for many years before we head toward one or the other. No question about it; it is in the cards.
If I were asked-and I likely will be-when in my opinion further steps will be taken toward an over-all national health scheme the only way I could answer would be to say-and I think it would be an honest answer-that it will take place when our expenditures for defence become less. Today we are spending 50 cents of the tax dollar on national defence. When I am talking to my people about the budget I tell them that we break it into four parts. I refer to it as $4 billion although it is slightly more than that. I tell them there is a quarter of the budget for social services, a quarter for Doug

Abbott to run the country and the other half for national defence. It is my opinion that when the defence program drops off it might be well to undertake a national health scheme, but I am sorry to say that I cannot in any way support the amendment to the amendment at this time.
Although I am in sympathy with it I cannot support it because I think the taxpayer is carrying a big enough load at the present time. If I should happen to be a candidate in the next election I do not think I could convince the people of my constituency that I should come down here and vote for anything that would add another half billion dollars to their taxes. I could not do that.
I want to refer to the speech made the other afternoon by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Crol'l). I thought he made a very good address to the house. The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) also placed many facts on the record, and I suggest that if anyone did not hear these addresses they should read them. If one does any thinking at all one will naturally do some thinking after reading them. The hon. member for Spadina suggested we should have a committee. I can support the idea of a committee because I believe there are many things we must consider including the questions of Dr. Taylor found in the quotation I read from the Toronto Star. These things must be considered.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested a dominion-provincial conference. I do not think that would be a bad idea either, because a lot of work is going to have to be done. I do not think we can dive headlong into any such scheme without giving it a great deal of consideration. I like the way -the hon. member for Spadina summed up the whole question, and I should like to quote what he said when he gave the positions of the various parties, as found at page 339 of Hansard for December 4:
The position of the official opposition is found at page 29 of Hansard for November 24:
"For that reason there should be general agreement that the first and necessary step in dealing with this subject is to institute an inquiry which would be conducted by representatives of the medical profession, the hospital boards, the dominion, provincial and municipal governments."
The position of the Social Credit party is found at page 56 of Hansard for November 24:
"The Social Credit kind of national health program would ensure that sufficient doctors, dentists, nurses, technicians, clinics and hospital beds would be made available first to take on the work as the scheme is extended".
The leader of the Social Credit party made that statement and you can criticize 68108-29i
The Address-Mr. Ferguson it if you like, but I think it is worth considering. The hon. member for Spadina went on to say:
In so far as the C.C.F. position is concerned, they say: "Health insurance here and now; we have had enough committees and surveys. What we want now is action".
The hon. member for Spadina goes on to say:
It is obvious from the statements on the record, and we who are parliamentarians know exactly what all the parties mean. We can reach only one conclusion. The Liberal party is the only party that can bring health insurance to the Canadian people because the Tories won't and the C.C.F. can't.
We have had the positions of the various parties, but we have not had a spokesman for the government yet. I am hopeful that when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) returns he will tell us what the government has in mind with respect to this matter. I think we should move onward so far as the health plan is concerned. We may be going slowly, but I think we should go slowly so that when we build our national health plan we will build it on a foundation that will last. There is no sense in building it on stilts because it will fall over. I think the government should not pay too much attention to the amendment to the amendment, because if they increased the taxes of the people at this time by half a billion dollars then I believe the people of Canada should do the same thing to them as I suggested the people of my constituency would do to me if I helped load more taxes on them.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr.. Speaker-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Go right to town.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: -there are two very famous magazines which are internationally known. One is Life and the other is Punch. Punch is noted all over the world for its satire and wit. Life is known as a great magazine for depicting world news, in a very authentic manner as a rule. On November 17 I wondered whether Life was changing in an attempt to steal the position Punch has always held in the world as a witty magazine and a depicter of funny happenings. In that magazine I saw pictures of the great development of the Dominion of Canada in oil and iron, and I also saw a picture that was as nearly an old-fashioned tintype as anything I have seen in years. It was taken by a very famous photographer by the name of Karsh. There he showed the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and the Minister of

The Address-Mr. Ferguson Finance (Mr. Abbott), the five-man government of the Liberal party. He was giving them credit for all the great development of resources that has been taken place in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Let me tell you gentlemen that you had better go back to Punch and get something authentic as far as wit is concerned, because there is no wit in that one.


John Horace Dickey: You are doing all right.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It reminded me of what the old Kaiser used to say: Me und Gott, at least giving credit to somebody else, though putting him in second place. This magazine, however, does not give nature or the great Creator any praise at all. You would think that these five men of the government had put the oil and iron ore there and developed it. No credit is given to the provinces or to the millions and millions of dollars that have come into this country from our great neighbours to the south, the United States. These are the five men who have punched it through. One of the group in the tintype, the Minister of Agriculture, was in such a hurry to get in the picture that he could not even find a chair; he had to stand up.
What about the other cabinet ministers? Mind you, there is not so much humour in this as may appear. A lot of people in Canada read that magazine and I believe they will realize that this is a five-man government. There are other cabinet ministers-


George Alexander Cruickshank: They will be in the next issue.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: They will be in the next issue, to prove conclusively that the Liberal party is well divided.


Mr. Gibson:: You are just thinking of the Social Crediters.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: They have been pretty well split and, as far as I am concerned, I believe it has been a five-man government and it is the greatest example of planning in reverse that I have ever seen. We have the gifts of God in Canada, resources unlimited; and the Liberal government has been in power long enough to have planned and set the path for great development in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You said it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I said they have been in power long enough to have planned and set the course, but they have not done so. There has been absolutely no concrete, positive
IMr. Ferguson.]

planning by this government. This government has grown in spite of itself, in spite of the people. This country has grown in spite of this government-


John Horace Dickey: The humour is improving.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The men who developed this oil and these iron ore bodies went to the provincial authorities and, with their wisdom and knowledge of iron and oil, planned and conceived schemes to develop these resources of Canada. That was before they came here to ask this government for a charter. All the spade work and ground work had been done.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We gave them a charter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: After a struggle.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We, as Canadians, must realize that this country today should have a population of at least 20 or 25 million.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: What have we got? Well, just look over the history of some of the junior planners on the second shelf of the cabinet, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) and all others except the five. What have they got to be proud about so far as planning is concerned? Today we are short of skilled labour in Canada. If the government had planned the development of the great resources of Canada, which was absolutely in their power, they could have had all the immigrants they could have brought here in five times the number of ships that have been used to bring immigrants to this country. There is even talk today of curtailment of immigration because of lack of planning. These people from foreign countries come out here and make great Canadians, but what happens? The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration says: We have to watch this carefully; there are no homes and no jobs, and there is no development.
That is the kind of planning that is done by this government. I certainly compliment the mover and seconder of the throne speech for making a good job out of nothing. The throne speech divulged nothing to Canadians at all. It gave us no encouragement about what this government proposes as far as this great country is concerned. As a Canadian, I am sick and tired of watching this great country creep along.


An hon. Member:: Mostly tired.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I will say that I have seen the country creep under Conservative governments in the past, but this is the government in power today and this is the

government which makes this country creep along still. We are not here listening to our grandfathers in the House of Commons; we are listening to men who came here in 1949, and the people of Canada want them to carry out their promises for the development of this country. They do not want them depicted in Life magazine, the five of them, taking all the credit for the development of this country when it should go to private enterprise.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Turn over the page.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I have three or four pages here. Do you know that this country is in such a state that there is a shortage of mortgage money for the building of houses?


John Lambert Gibson: They have not asked you.


George Alexander Cruickshank: A mortgage is the easiest thing I can get.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: During the war, and after the war too, mortgage companies were told to invest their money in government bonds at 3 per cent. There was no demand for the development of houses and business structures at that time, so they bought the bonds, being promised by this government that they would be able to sell the bonds at par whenever they needed the money to develop the country and build the much needed homes. Now, what, has happened? The bonds are selling at around $92 as against a par value of $100.


John Lambert Gibson: Not at $92.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If they sell them they lose 8 per cent. You go to the mortgage companies today and you will find they are short of mortgage money for the development of Canada. That is an awfully sorry plight for Canadians to find themselves in. Young men come to me and say: I have saved $3,000. I have really performed a miracle. I have been able, in the last ten years, after I have paid these exorbitant taxes and boosted Abbott's surplus, to eke out $3,000 and I want to build a house for myself and family.


John Lambert Gibson: Dig him a hole.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: He says: I want to borrow $4,000-and just let me say this to you, British Columbia, you try to get that amount of money. That man has been thrifty, wise, hard-working, a good Canadian citizen; yet it is hard to get that man $4,000 to go with his own $3,000 or $4,000 in order that he may build a home in Canada today.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) conceived the taxation of tobacco. He boosted the tax 3 cents. He is one of the five gentlemen depicted in the tintype in Life, one of the great geniuses and developers of Canada. What are the actual results of that brain
The Address-Mr. Ferguson wave? Here they are: Mr. Abbott predicted an increase in national revenue of $26 million, but instead he has lost money for the treasury. He has caused unemployment in the processing plants in southwestern Ontario and the factories in Quebec. He has decreased income by thousands of dollars all across the country.


An hon. Member:: Bingo.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I have shown conclusively what has happened. I wanted to prove it to the interrupters who do not want to learn. They never get on their feet and tell you about anything they have observed that is wrong. I do not know whether they have had time to observe the progress of this country and its lack of guidance under this government; yet they are elected and come here to make inane remarks when somebody else is on his feet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: To prove that the Minister of Finance took a stab in the dark, here is what happened. Though tremendous pressure was placed upon him he made up his mind that he would do what he liked. "I will do it when I see fit, not because I do not believe it is wrong but just when I see fit. I am Minister of Finance; I advise my government." He took the tax off. Just what occurred when he took the tax off? Here it is. The chart definitely showed this. The present Canadian cigarette tax was approximately 22 cents per package of 20 as against 8 cents in the United States. When the minister took that added tax off, here is what occurred. This chart shows a spectacular increase in the consumption of cigarettes following the removal of the 3 cent tax in April, 1952. It covers the six months from May to October inclusive. The minister predicted a revenue loss to the treasury of $10 million. What happened? When the tax was cut by 3 cents, he gained $10 million in the period from May until October. Talk about stabbing in the dark.
Not long ago in this house the Prime Minister said that a cabinet minister cannot be held responsible for this or that any more than can a member of the Boyd gang. He even brought Kingston inmates and murderers into if, and said, "Do not compare us with them". But he wants to take the credit, from Life magazine, from the thing which provides that profit. He wants to take all the credit from the premiers of the provinces for their work for the five-man cabinet. So let him take credit for this one, for one of his associates in that cabinet whose predictions were out $10 million one way, on reverse planning; and then when he took this tax off
454	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Ferguson and said he was going to lose $26 million, he was out again. But not only is he out; the people are out. I do not mind what he is out, but I certainly object to what the people of Canada are out. It is the people I am thinking of. Those are the people I am sent here to represent. Some of these men do not realize that they are sent here to represent the people, but I do. I represent a large group of tobacco growers. I have seen these women walk out of those tobacco fields in their bare feet after working from sun-up until six o'clock. One woman said to me, "A horse wouldn't do it" and she broke down and cried. That effort-these are realistic figures-is worth $215 million to Mr. Abbott's coffers. Just let us get down to earth. There will be an election. There is no doubt about that.


An hon. Member:: When will it be?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I hope it will be in the fall of 1953. I hope the people of Canada read Punch and realize that their puns and their jokes are well thought out. But when Life tried to step into the same field, it certainly made a mess of wit and humour, and sincerity. Either that or there is more behind the article and the tintype picture than I can see. But I believe it was a sincere effort to try to misguide the people of Canada into thinking that these smart geniuses had been responsible for all the oil development and the great iron ore development across our country. In the fall of 1953 I am sure that the people of Canada will show that they do not believe the article in Life, that they realize the way in which they have been burdened with taxes, and will see to it that the newly decorated opposition caucus room will be occupied by a few gentlemen only who are now sitting on the government benches.


Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be of congratulations to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was amazed at the facility with which the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi moved from English into French and back into English again. I would certainly be pleased to be able to speak in the manner in which he spoke in his first address in the House of Commons.
I was indeed proud of the hon. member for Waterloo North, who is a worthy successor to a man who was one of the most popular members of the House of Commons and who is now acquitting himself in a most distinguished manner in another sphere of public service in this country. I was particularly impressed with the remarks by the hon. member for Waterloo North with regard to
[Mr. Ferguson.)

pensions for the blind. I agree with the opinion he expressed in his speech in this house, and believe that the means test which is imposed on the $40 per month pensions for the blind should be abolished.
Blind people bear a heavy burden. They assume that burden and bear it admirably. They are less able to supplement their incomes than are those pensioners who are senior citizens over the age of 70, and who are not subject to the means test. Those blind people have acquired the initiative and the courage to develop their talents and skill, thus providing themselves with congenial occupations. It seems to me that an act which stipulates that a single person may not earn more than $840 a year and a married person not more than $1,320 a year discourages initiative and employment. I might say that I am in accord with the sentiment expressed in this regard by the hon. member for Waterloo North.
Most Canadians are pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) have gone to London to attend the conference of commonwealth ministers. We wish them well. We hope they will devise a scheme for the conversion of pounds sterling into Canadian dollars in order that our trade relations with the United Kingdom may be restored. In this country we have the products that are required in Great Britain, and I am sure we all hope they will return to this house later this week with a satisfactory arrangement that will bring prosperity and a flow of trade from Canada to the United Kingdom.
News that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will lead a good-will trade tour to South and Central American countries has been met with great enthusiasm by businessmen in this country. I am informed that this trade mission will visit nine countries. The principal purpose of the mission is to aid in the development of trade between Canada and the countries visited, and to strengthen our general relations with those countries.
Canada has benefited from previous trade missions to South America, Mr. Speaker. In 1941 Hon. James MacKinnon headed a delegation to South American countries. Again in 1946 he returned to eight countries in South and Central America. In 1939, before the trade mission went to South American countries, our aggregate trade with those countries was $27 million. After the two visits by the trade mission, in 1951 our aggregate trade had reached $404 million. I know that the mission headed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is in good hands, and he will take with him leading

businessmen who will strengthen our position in those South American countries.
My fellow citizens in the county of Lincoln will be gratified to hear that the St. Lawrence-great lakes scheme and power development will commence immediately. We need power in our area to keep the great industrial machine moving, and we can only make the most of the great Welland ship canal, with its 27-foot channel, by eliminating all the bottlenecks and providing for a great waterway leading from the Atlantic seaboard to Port Arthur and Fort William. I see a great growth in industry in the completion of this plan.
This fall I had the honour of assisting, with the present Secretary of Defence of the United States, in the opening of the new McKinnon foundry along the banks of the Welland ship canal, and this is only the forerunner of many more industries to be located in that area. It is the establishment of plants such as these that are providing full employment for the people of our district. I should like to refer for a moment to a speech delivered by the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) on November 25, 1952, as reported at page 89 of Hansard. He is reported to have said:
People do not mind paying for aeroplanes, guns and other supplies for our troops, but I think the people of Canada are getting sick and tired of this arm chair army for which we are buying supplies.
I assume that the hon. member was not referring to the troops who are now serving in Korea; for we are all aware of the great difficulties, the serious weather conditions and the hardships they are enduring there. I am sure he would not be referring to the three destroyers that have been carrying out their battle duties at sea on a rotation basis in Korean waters, or to the Royal Canadian Air Force which has carried on in a fine manner in taking troops to Korea. The 27th brigade in Germany have established a fine record for themselves there, and I refer only to two or three quotations in newspapers to show what the editorialists feel about our Canadian troops. I refer first to the Globe and Mail and an editorial on October 18, 1952, headed:	"R.C.N. destroyer leads raid on
Korean coast".
Censorship has just permitted disclosure of the fact that the Iroquois directed a four-nation amphibious assault in September that killed and wounded 200 enemy troops and knocked a hole in the communist defences along the western shores of Korea.
I refer also to the Sudbury Star of October 15, 1952, headed: "Boosting Canadians".
No greater praise can be given to Canadian airmen than that expressed by Britain's vice-chief of the air staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Ralph Cochrane, following the Canadian participation in a nine-day test of that country's air defences.
The Address-Mr. Cavers
"The Canadians are excellent airmen. They have done very well indeed in this exercise", commented Sir Ralph.
Young Canadian airmen are "making their mark" on international air fronts and when praise comes from Britain's air chiefs, it is praise not to be lightly regarded.
Lastly I would like to refer to the Montreal Daily Star of September 3, 1952, which says:
In Germany, Canada's 27th infantry brigade, commanded by Brigadier Geoffrey Walsh of St. Catharines, Ontario, has just completed its first full-scale manoeuvres in which the training of the past ten months was put to rigorous test.
Military observers said the manoeuvres were an unqualified success and showed that the Canadian NATO brigade now formed one of the main defence posts opposite the iron curtain. New, roomier quarters are under construction for the brigade at Soest near the Rhine, but for the present the troops will remain at Hannover, where they are extremely popular.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to three men who were raised in the county which I represent. One: Brigadier Geoffrey Walsh, C.B.E., Canada's commander of the 27th brigade in Germany. Brigadier Walsh was an outstanding recruit at the Royal Military College at Kingston, and on graduation joined Canada's active army, went overseas and served in a theatre of war during the whole of the second world war. After returning from overseas service he continued as a member of Canada's permanent force, and now has assumed command of the 27th brigade in Germany. Two: Captain Herbert S. Rayner, who occupies a high place in the Royal Canadian Navy. Captain Rayner originally graduated from the Royal naval school of gunnery at Whale island. He returned to Canada as a member of the Royal Canadian Navy, and served on fighting ships during world war II. He is now commanding officer of H.M.C.S. Magnificent. Three: Group Captain Leonard J. Birchall is another prominent member of Canada's armed forces, and is now director of planning of the R.C.A.F. at Ottawa. He was known during the war as the saviour of Ceylon, having warned of enemy troops about to attack that point. He was confined as a prisoner of war in Japan. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe we have not an arm chair army, and that these men are not arm chair generals. I salute each of the three.
I should now like to refer for a few moments to the words of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) which were spoken in this house on November 26 last, as reported at page 114 of Hansard. Speaking of defence expenditures he said this:
There is no possible way of explaining or justifying expenditures on this scale except that they are being made now with a conscious view toward making friends for this government.
456	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cavers
I live in an industrial community. It is true that many orders from the Department of Defence Production have come to this area. They have been awarded on a competitive basis; they have been awarded to people who are able to do the job. We have a well-geared industrial capacity, aided by conscientious, experienced workers, ready, able and willing to do the job required of them. That is why they have received contracts in our area.
Contracts for over $50,000 have been awarded to such firms as Metal Craft Company of Grimsby; Canada Hair Cloth; ETF Tools Limited-; Gtenaire Limited; Grout's Limited; Guaranty Silk Dyeing and Finishing; Thompson Products; Conroy Manufacturing Company Limited; Foster Wheeler Limited; English Electric Company Limited and Newman Brothers, Limited. Other smaller transactions to local firms have been to subcontractors such as Hayes Steel Products; Court Radiator Plant Limited; McKinnon Industries Limited; Anthes-Imperial Company.
I would ask the hon. member for Eglinton who are the friends or favourites of the government in that list? Will he tell us? I would like to know, because so far as I know these people have been awarded their contracts on grounds of merit and because of their ability to do the job.
Yes, it is a fact that the county of Lincoln, which I represent, has received defence work worth approximately $11 million in the last 18 months, and much of this money remains in that county. But those contracts were awarded in a fair and businesslike manner.
I know they have provided employment for the people of that area, and I think that in fairness to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) and the officials of his department it should be made known, and made

clearly known, that one hundred cents in value has been received for every dollar spent.
I should like to associate myself with those who have spoken in the debate in favour of the appointment of a joint parliamentary committee to investigate all phases of a national system of health insurance. I do not say I am in favour of an immediate plan to provide for such a system. Many citizens are now protected by various plans such as Blue Cross, and physicians' and surgeons' services but there are others who have not been able to bring themselves within this classification.
I do not favour state medicine. It is my view that patients are entitled to have the doctor of their choice. This may not be the time to carry out such a program. As a matter of fact it is my belief that, in the light of the many heavy and necessary expenditures that must be made, such a scheme could not be embarked upon at this time. This is a problem requiring great study, one that demands the attention of members in all parts of the house. It is with that in mind I state my belief that the appointment of a committee to investigate and study the problem thoroughly would be in the interests of the country. I am sure it would be the desire of all that no one among the sick, injured or infirm should suffer through lack of medical attention or hospital treatment. I feel therefore that we should put forth our best endeavours to see that the problem is studied, and studied carefully, so that a serious and detailed report may be brought before the house.
On motion of Mr. Maclnnis the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Howe the house adjourned at 9.55 p.m.

Tuesday, December 9, 1952