1952-11-27

TELECOMMUNICATION


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement concerning telecommunications between Newfoundland and the mainland.
An agreement has been reached by the six companies providing long distance telephone services between these points reducing the rates effective Monday, December 1, between Newfoundland and the mainland.
The companies involved are the two crown companies, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, which operate the over-water link for the network, and the Canadian National Telegraphs, which provide land line services in Newfoundland, and the radio communication between Port aux Basques and North Sydney. The four private companies are the Avalon Telephone Company of St. John's, Newfoundland, the Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, and the New Brunswick Telephone Company. The toll reductions will be borne proportionally by each of the companies concerned, according to the amount of service rendered.
The new rates for three-minute calls between Newfoundland and the maritime provinces are based on mileage instead of the present flat charge of $7.20. For example, the new rate between St. John's and Halifax will be $3.20, a reduction of $4; between Corner Brook and Moncton, $2.65 or a reduction of $4.55. The rate for calls between anywhere in Quebec and Newfoundland will be reduced to $4.50 from $7.20; from Ontario the new rate will be $6 instead of $7.50; from Manitoba, $6 instead of $9; comparable reductions will go into effect for calls to and from Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
In June of this year, I indicated to the house that there was a contemplated reduction in long distance telephone charges between Newfoundland and the mainland, and I am gratified at the results of the discussions which have taken place between the various companies involved.
I think that the results achieved are very satisfactory, and I am sure that hon. members, representing Newfoundland in this house, will join with me in extending our appreciation to the officers of the companies involved and, more particularly, to those of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation for the manner in which the problem of the long distance telephone rates has been solved.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the people of Newfoundland will be pleased to learn that these reductions are coming into effect on December 1. There is one question I should like to ask the minister and it is this. Are there to be any other reductions in rates for calls after hours-that is after six p.m.-and on Sundays as are in effect in the rest of Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: The agreement that I have referred to in this instance covers over-all long distance calls. I know of no other coverage by this agreement. It may be that another matter is being considered by the Canadian National Telegraphs for posts and other communities outside of their land lines. I shall be glad to inquire.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT OF DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct an inquiry to the Minister of Transport and to ask him whether he is aware of the news dispatch which appeared in the press this morning stating that there was a likelihood of something like an 18-months delay in the construction of the St. Lawrence power and seaway channel arising out of a possible reference from the federal power commission of the United States to the federal court and then to the supreme court of that country. I wish to ask the minister first of all whether that speculation or comment has good grounds; second, whether or not there are likely to be any other obstacles of a legal or technical nature raised against the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway at an early date.


Lionel Chevrier: The questions that the hon. member for Peel asks are of a broad character. I saw the report in the morning press.

Inquiries of the Ministry All I should like to say at the present time is, first of all, that this is a matter that has to do with an application that is before a body in another country, and I would hesitate to make any comment on a matter of that kind. But I think I should at least say this: As I understand the matter, it is not a legal or a constitutional point that is involved. What is involved is an application of the New York State power authority before the federal power commission for a licence to join with Ontario hydro in the development of power in the international section. The matter has not yet been heard. There is no legal matter before any court at this time.
In so far as the legal point is concerned, it has always been a contentious matter in the United States. By "it" I mean the power and navigational project, and it is not surprising that there may be some litigation. But I should like to say that the co-operation we have received from our United States friends is such that I have confidence it will continue in the present application. Given that kind of co-operation, I am not at all disturbed by the statement that has been made. I am still confident that we shall proceed with this development in the not too distant future.



CIGARETTES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Anderson (Norfolk):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the attention of the minister been called to recent press reports stating that cigarettes of United States manufacture are being sold in chain stores in Canada, at prices which are lower than those charged for cigarettes of domestic manufacture, and, if so, what action does the minister propose to take?
A further question: Will the minister also indicate what are the rates of duty and taxes on cigarettes imported from the United States, and whether any dumping duty applies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The second question is one which I am sure should appear on the order paper. Perhaps the minister would like to answer the first question. It could also of course appear on the order paper, but if the minister would like to answer it now and the house has no objection to make, he may do so.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The hon. member was good enough to give me advance notice of his question, and in reply I would like to say that I am aware of the press reports stating that cigarettes of
[Mr. Chevrier.l

United States manufacture are being sold in some Canadian chain stores at prices lower than domestic cigarettes. The department is now looking into this matter and is carrying on investigations to establish whether the proper duties and taxes have been paid.
The customs duty on cigarettes imported from the United States is $2 per pound and 15 per cent ad valorem plus $2 per thousand cigarettes.
The sales tax of 10 per cent is payable on the duty paid value. There is also an excise tax of two cents per unit of 5 or any fraction thereof. Dumping duty would not apply in the case of these imports for the reason that under the provisions of subsection 2 (i) of section 6 of the Customs Tariff goods which, like cigarettes, are of a class subject to excise duties under the Excise Act, are exempt from special or dumping duty.



THE CABINET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I regret to state I have not given him previous notice of the question that I am going to ask but I am quite sure that with the alacrity of his brain he can answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Lorne MacDougall: If not, he can take it as notice. I should like to know what members of the cabinet are considered officers of the crown. If there are any members of the cabinet who are not in that category, who are those specific ministers of the crown who are not so considered?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I am afraid that even the alacrity of the Minister of Justice is not equal to that question, without notice. I shall be glad to take my hon. friend's question as a notice and bring down an answer.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direci a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister received a copy of the resolution of the Silver Cross Women of Canada, as I believe have all members, asking for certain changes in section 33 of

the Pension Act with respect to pensions paid to dependent parents of deceased servicemen? Will consideration be given to this request?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I have received such a resolution,
and I have made arrangements to meet with the officers of that association in the very near future to discuss the matter with them.



ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the continuing expansion of the armed forces, does the government intend to make use of the welfare facilities offered by the voluntary organizations which served so effectively during world war II?


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: The hon. member for Brandon
was good enough to give me notice of his question. At present we have a brigade group in Korea, a reinforcement group and other units in Japan, an air force wing and. a depot in England, a brigade in Germany and an air force wing in France. The heads of the three services consider that it would be unwise, uneconomical and unnecessary to establish at all these places the five welfare agencies that we used during the second world war and I agree with them. Whatever welfare services are required will continue to be supplied by one means or another, depending on the circumstances.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 26, 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.
(Translation):
Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker,
I came to Ottawa to attend the present session firmly determined not to take* part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. However, after listening to the various speeches made during the last few days I changed my mind. Many will undoubtedly say that that is where I erred. As a solace, I might tell them that my remarks will be brief.
The Address-Mr. Poulin
Like the previous speakers, I wish to offer my sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address for their magnificent and successful effort to uphold, according to the tradition of the house, the quality and dignity of those speeches.
I also associate myself with the wishes expressed by the previous speakers for the complete success of the celebrations marking the coronation of the Queen of Canada.
I say without hesitation that, in my humble opinion, our present political system is not the one I prefer. For instance, I have often asked myself what is the necessity or even the usefulness of a governor general, even a Canadian governor general, and of lieutenant governors in the various provinces. However, as long as we are governed by a constitutional monarchy, the person vested with supreme authority, whether man or woman, will find no more respectful subject than I. Consequently, I sincerely trust, without any reservation, that our new queen will enjoy a reign both happy for herself and her family, and beneficial to the loyal subjects that we are.
At this stage of the debate on the address, we are considering the amendment to the amendment moved by the member for Rose-town-Biggar on behalf of the socialist party of which he is the leader.
The said motion reads as follows:
We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(a) to recommend legislation, establishing a a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial administration.
I wish to state right now that I am decidedly opposed-not because I am a doctor myself but as a Canadian citizen-to any state-controlled health insurance scheme.
Health, treatment of ailments, relations between the patient and his doctor or nurse, hygiene, medical education, hospitalization, all these are hallowed fields in which moral and psychological factors are just as important as therapeutic or hygienic considerations. It therefore appears to me to be absolutely unseemly-if not altogether impossible-to let the state look after medical matters in a country such as ours.
Though it may be argued that freedom of choice would be safeguarded, as regards both the doctor and the patient, it is nevertheless a fact that the physician would become a civil servant; he would be forced to abandon all kinds of personal undertakings which are just as necessary in the medical field as in other scientific fields. He would be obliged to put down in writing any number of declarations directly opposed to his professional oath of secrecy and entailing an unnecessary loss of often precious time. Even were

The Address-Mr. Poulin the family doctor or the consulting specialist to retain all those privileges which they now enjoy, and which give to his relationships with his patients an almost sacred quality of friendliness and confidence, the fact would nevertheless remain that state-controlled medicine would bring about a type of officialdom whose doings would be prejudicial to the best interests of the patients.
In a country such as ours, in particular, where there is duality of culture and religion, can you imagine, for instance, an atheistic high official-and it is not the first time that persons of that category have sat on Canadian government bodies-in charge of health control with the education which that involves? Can you imagine this official being required to pass upon the advisability of allowing or prohibiting therapeutic abortion, or to give advice concerning sexual intercourse or chastity in marriage, or else on the gynaecological care to be given in maternity cases? Can you imagine this same person expounding doctrines of birth-control or sexual education to be given to adolescents? It would indeed be interesting to see a Dr. Chisholm -the less said about him the better- approaching these problems! It is not therefore surprising to note that, in Catholic Ireland, in 1951, that is, last year, the bishops forced the Costello government to dispense with the services of Dr. Browne who was in charge of the health department, because he favoured a government plan for medical care to mother and child.
On the other hand, I am bound to admit that a great number of our people are not getting adequate medical care yet, in spite of the fact that great progress has been accomplished during the last decade in the field of preventive medicine. Such an improvement has been possible thanks to an acceptable co-operation between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the provincial governments.
I acknowledge, and I am pleased to do so, that the federal government has done much in this field in lending genuine support to the constant efforts of the provinces. I would like to add that, on the whole, provincial autonomy as well as the sacred field of medicine has been respected by Ottawa. In co-operation with the provinces, the federal government has been concerned mainly with hygiene and preventive medicine. In this field we have by now reached a reasonable level, which compares favourably with the level attained in several other countries. .Could the federal government go further than that? Could it do more than it has done :so far?

As I just said, preventive medicine is making considerable progress. The most serious deficiencies are now felt in another sector, that of curative medicine, and this is the field which the federal government will have to invade, if it wants to make further progress. A great many people of limited means are surely deprived of medical care because they are unable, with their small income, to pay the very high cost of such services. Nevertheless, I contend that this sector of medicine is a field which the central government should not invade, for the reasons I gave a few moments ago.
I now contend that even the provincial governments should abstain from interfering. That field is too intimate, too personal; it is a temple too sacred to be violated by civil servants, to whichever party or group they may belong.
In his speech of the 24th instant, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) said, after having discussed state-controlled health schemes-and I quote his very words:
We discover more and more that prominent physicians can be brought to see the necessity of such a program.
He quoted but one authority in support of his statement. One must admit that the list of prominent doctors referred to by the hon. m'ember is not very impressive, being limited to one person. Proceeding with his speech, the hon. member named the president of the association of Frenchspeaking physicians of America, Dr. Jean-Baptiste Jobin, as one of those doctors who could be persuaded that a national health insurance scheme was a necessity. As proof of this, he quoted a few words that Dr. Jobin is reported to have said at Laval university on September 23, 1952. I am referring to page 53 of Hansard of November 24, 1952:
Social medicine is a must if modern medical services are to be accessible to everyone.
From these few words, the hon. member hastens to conclude that the prominent physician referred to has allowed himself to be convinced of the need for state-controlled medicine.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this statement go unchallenged. Following the speech delivered by the hon. member, I contacted Dr. Jobin and here is the letter I received from him yesterday.
Quebec, November 25, 1952.
Dr. Raoul Poulin,
Member for Beauce,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Doctor,
I am glad to send you, in reply to your telegram about Mr Cold well's project, the whole text of my statement. You will see that I was misquoted by newspapermen who garbled my text.

Ever since I was played that mean trick by a newspaper whose name I will not mention, that paper's article has been reproduced everywhere by people who, ignoring my original text, have quoted me right and left as having said something I do not believe in the least.
At the closing banquet of the convention held at the Chateau Frontenac, in Quebec city, I made it quite clear that I was personally and categorically against state medicine, that I had been the victim of misinterpretation and that I favoured on the contrary private medical practice, in so far as is possible. You will see that such is the statement I made last September at Convocation hall.
I beg you to accept, my dear Doctor Poulin, the expression of my best wishes.
Yours truly,
J. B. Jobin
In my opinion, the only way of solving this problem would be to encourage the population to enrol in independent insurance plans with prepaid premiums, through various companies entirely independent from the different governments. It is well known, in that respect, that such insurance plans are becoming increasingly popular. In 1950, half the population of the United States was protected by plans of that type, while in Canada some three and a half million people were covered by private insurance plans. In the case of low-income people, the government of each province would pay the premium. That would increase the expenditures of the provinces, which, I know, would make the plan quite unwelcome to a few people who will hold that certain provinces are financially incapable of paying the cost of such an insurance plan. That brings us to another current topic which was debated at some length in the house by the Leader of the Opposition: the division between the federal government and the provinces, of the different fields of taxation, and the matter of provincial autonomy.
My point of view would be accepted in the province of Quebec, I think, since the premier is a determined partisan of autonomy, even if, on some occasions, he has let slip by some opportunities to consolidate its foundations. However, he made quite recently in this connection a statement which has made me very happy. He is reported as having said last week at a press conference that he will no longer accept the federal government's aid to universities and classical colleges. Being one of the very few members in this house who have challenged that recommendation of the Massey commission, I cannot help but be delighted at this new stand taken by the premier of Quebec, and I offer him my most sincere congratulations.
The provinces should be able to find the revenues they need to give the poor of the country the medical care to which they are
The Address-Mr. Claxton entitled, pursuant to the principles of Christian charity, and without having to resort to state medicine.
To this end, should the federal government return to some of these provinces the sources of revenue with which they parted more or less willingly I do not hesitate to answer that the interests at stake are certainly worth while.
Mr. Speaker, the problem of the medical care that should be given to the needy is too utterly human to make a mess of it by exaggerated partisanship.
I am convinced that there is not a single member of this house who is not ready to do his best so that the unfortunate may receive not only the assistance necessary to relieve their misfortune and their sufferings, but that they may receive that assistance fully in the most human and most comforting way possible. I believe, speaking in all sincerity, that governments can strive to attain this goal without intruding into the field of medicine.
(Text):


Brooke Claxton: I should like first of all, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate most warmly the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Deslieres) and the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) discharged their difficult tasks in a way which brought honour to their constituencies, and they deserve every congratulation. I am sure that the members of the armed forces, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force would be most appreciative of what those members, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) have said about them in their speeches in this debate.
Ordinarily on taking part in a debate of this kind I would have felt it my duty to survey the international situation, particularly as regards Korea and the work of the United Nations to stop aggression there, and the development of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its work to prevent aggression in Europe. Then, I would have endeavoured to give an account to the house of some of the main developments in our armed forces since we last met. There will be other opportunities to do that, either during this debate or later in the session, and I shall be glad to take advantage of those opportunities as they occur. Today I propose to deal with boots, forks and rugs.


An hon. Member:: And neckties, too?

The Address-Mr. Claxton


Brooke Claxton: I am not omitting neckties. My reason for taking this course is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) made these articles and our extravagant expenditure on them, as he put it, the main basis of his attack against the Department of National Defence. These have been the subject also of some newspaper articles.
Now, the purchase of clothing and barrack stores for the armed forces is a matter of the most serious concern to this house and to the country. It involves very large expenditures of money, and must be done with all possible economy. If anyone can point to any way in which greater economies can be effected, the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), myself and the officers of the armed forces will be the most pleased persons in the world, because we want to get the most value we can and have the biggest defence forces possible for the tax dollar.
This matter, therefore, is of grave concern. As it happens, it is a matter on which the special committee on defence expenditures set up by this house spent most of its time. Hon. members have available to them, even though they may not have looked at them, the proceedings of that committee as they are in the papers and official records of this house. They will see there spread out information bearing on most of these subjects. I suggest it would be useful if, before making sweeping assertions about these subjects, an hon. member would at least look at the published records of the house to see what the facts are that have been brought out.
Clothing and barracks stores are required for four purposes. First, there is the original issue to a man or an establishment, to the man when he joins the armed forces or to the establishment when it is set up. Second, there is the replacement of articles worn out through use, that is, maintenance. Third, there is the establishment of sufficient stocks in depots and other stores to meet normal demands as well as sudden requirements that cannot be anticipated, and also to provide for the varying sizes of the people who have to be outfitted. Anyone familiar with retail practices will know what I mean by this. It is usual to provide something in the nature of 25 per cent extra for size, that figure depending on the article concerned. Fourth, and finally, we want stores and clothing for mobilization.
I announced in the house on February 5, 1951, the expanded defence program and I said that it would make provision forthe administrative staff, training establishments, depots, stores, clothing and equipment to provide for rapid mobilization in a total effort.
(Mr. Claxton.]

Let me deal with each one of these four purposes for having clothing and barracks stores, in the order I have given.
First, initial outfitting. Every man entering the forces is provided with an outfit of clothing which is personal to him. The average cost for a man in the active forces is $369. In other words, for each man joining the active forces the clothing issued to him costs $369, not an excessive sum. At considerably less cost a much less elaborate kit of clothing is issued to men joining the reserve forces, the university training plans or the cadet services.
In the period from April 1, 1949, to October 31, 1952, we have enlisted in these various categories a total of 227,000 personnel each of whom had to be initially outfitted. Here I begin to mention figures that I am sure will strike the house with their magnitude. There have been 227,000 new outfits for officers and men of the active and reserve forces and the cadet services since April 1, 1949. Provided a man serves a minimum of 90 days in the active forces, and a correspondingly longer period for the reserve forces and cadets, he is entitled to retain part or all of his clothing on discharge. It will be seen therefore that initial outfitting alone calls for a very substantial number of garments.
Second, we have maintenance in respect of the replacement of articles consumed by use and by wear. Every effort is made to assure that we get the utmost possible wear out of each article. Many hon. members have visited No. 26 ordnance depot at Plouffe park and have seen there the workshops where this work is carried on. They have seen the thoroughness with which boots and shoes and other articles of clothing are completely rehabilitated by expert service and civilian workmen.
As of October 31, 1952, the strength of the active forces, reserve forces and the cadet services was 248,000. Rates of wear of military clothing for these various categories will obviously vary considerably between the extremes of the soldier engaged in active combat and one engaged in more sedentary work such as the signal system. But even so 248,000 men and women wear out a considerable number of garments in the course of a single year.
Third, we have the necessity of establishing stocks. Oyer and above those out on initial issue or those required for maintenance, we must have stocks to meet needs that can be anticipated and also to provide for sizing and distribution. When you consider that there are 1,402 units of the active and reserve forces, quite apart from cadets, at most of which issues are made of clothing, you can

appreciate that we need quite a considerable quantity of articles of each type in stock so as to provide for distribution and sizing.
There has been a very considerable increase in the size of the forces since the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. The total number has increased in the active forces from some
47,000	to over 100,000, that figure having been reached on the 6th of November last. To meet that increase we have had to add to our stocks, but that having been done we do not need to do it again. Once you establish stocks for distribution and sizing you do not need to do that operation again.
Finally, we need clothing and equipment for mobilization. Some hon. members will recall the situation that faced us in 1914 and all hon. members will recall the situation that faced us in 1939 when large numbers of men had to be mobilized, and the resultant difficulties in having men proceed with realistic training or even with guard duties through lack of proper military clothing. The next mobilization, if it comes, will in all probability be far more urgent and far more serious because we now face for the first time the possibility of a direct attack upon the land of Canada. Accordingly I announced the policy of acquiring mobilization stores when I announced the expanded defence program in the speech of February 5, 1951, from which I have just quoted.
At that time no member of the opposition and, as far as I know, no newspaper in Canada took any exception wnatever to the policy then declared. So far as I know, no member of the opposition and no newspaper has yet taken a position of opposition to the policy then declared. All countries acquire stocks for mobilization, stores for mobilization, stores with which to equip the men they have to take on strength to meet the challenge after it occurs. I came across a very interesting and helpful observation by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness). Speaking in the house on November 11, 1949, he said, as recorded at page 1691 of Hansard:
I remember that when we were mobilized in 1939 the men of my unit went around without uniforms for a considerable length of time. There were no uniforms for them at all; and this condition was not corrected until the first issue of battledress came along in November, I believe it was, 1939.
The hon. member for Calgary East goes on to say-and this is the policy we are pursuing:
There should not be any repetition of that; there is no need for it, particularly with the large amounts spent for defence purposes at the present time.


Mr. Harkness:: There is no need to go to extremes either.


An hon. Member:: Oh, quiet.
The Address-Mr. Claxton


Brooke Claxton: I am glad to see that the hon. member is here and he will no doubt support what he said in 1949.
The next note I have is: how far you go is a matter of opinion and a matter of judgment. In arriving at that judgment you take into account your experience in previous wars and your experience since the second world war. The officers responsible for drawing up the schedules-and we have complete schedules for every one of the 15,000 items of clothing and barracks stores required in the event of mobilization-have drawn them on the basis of that experience. From time to time we get different experience, as is the case with Korea. Manufacturers may deliver things faster than we expect and therefore we do not need so long a lead time-the time it takes to begin production on a considerable scale after we have an approved design, new machinery for production, and an order to go.
As I say, with the increased or changed experience then we modify our ideas. I will tell the house quite frankly that we have made some quite important modifications during the last year and no doubt will make others.
In the department we use a term-and I do not know whether it is in general commercial use or not-to differentiate between things that are easy to make and which are generally similar to those in civilian use, and those which are usually of metal and consist of weapons, ammunition and the like. The first category we call "soft" goods as opposed to weapons, equipment and ammunition, etc., which are "hard" goods. The time taken to produce goods from beginning to end will vary with the article but, by and large, our experience in peacetime has been that in the case of soft goods it takes from nine months up to secure a flow of production from the time when we make the requisitions on the Department of Defence Production; and in the case of hard goods it may take as long as five years for a new aircraft or eighteen months for a gun. Generally speaking the time for hard goods is of the magnitude of eighteen months up-that is the lead time for weapons, equipment, motor vehicles and ammunition. In placing orders for anything we have to take into account the fact that deliveries of most of these soft goods will begin about nine months after requisition, and of the hard goods about eighteen months.
You can see that orders placed in the spring and summer of 1951 for soft goods have been largely delivered and those for hard goods are still in process of being delivered. Consequently, of our total defence program, as announced on February 5, 1951, we have completed a very much larger proportion of the category of goods falling under the heading
136	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Claxton of clothing and barracks stores and so on, and a smaller proportion of weapons, equipment and ammunition.
Now, sir, had a war occurred during this period I can just hear the ringing tones in which the Leader of the Opposition, and members of the opposition opposite, would have criticized the government, criticized the department and criticized the armed forces for not doing just about what we have done.
The question then arises: Have we been right in ordering the things in the quantities and at the times when we have? Here again there is room for difference of opinion and the decision must vary with the article. There is no point, to my mind, in stockpiling anything that can be bought off the shelves from civilian sources of supply or produced by ordinary suppliers by the time that it is needed for use. The general idea was that we should stockpile those things with which it was necessary to equip the forces that would be available. No neckties whatever have been stockpiled-only those items that would be necessary to equip the forces that would be mobilized within the first three months or so of a general war. Now, mark that.
It is important that we should see this. The general object in stockpiling clothing and barracks stores was to get those things which we could not get from civilian sources and which were necessary to equip the troops that we expect to have to mobilize during the first three months of an emergency, and that is all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is a necktie necessary for mobilization?


Brooke Claxton: I have Just said that we are not stockpiling any neckties.


An hon. Member:: They are good for hanging.


An hon. Member:: What about Sam Hughes?


Brooke Claxton: That all brings me to the way in which the Globe and Mail and some other newspapers have used the figures which they have obtained from the published reports of the Department of Defence Production. They have taken orders generally placed with the intention of rebuilding stocks for the four purposes I have mentioned; they have related them to a single issue to 100,000 men; and they then arrive at the result that each man is to have fifteen pairs of boots. They have left out of account every trace of recognition that to a large extent the stocks of clothing we are acquiring are for both active and reserve force purposes of supply next year, partly the following year, and then for mobilization should it occur.
In 1939, three months after we started to mobilize to meet the needs of the second world 

war, the strength of the armed forces had increased from their peacetime level by over 60,000. I mention that figure to show something of the magnitude of the job that is faced when you begin to talk about mobilization stores. I am not in a position to give the figure of men we would expect to take on in the unfortunate event that there is a third world war, but the figure is likely to be considerably larger than in 1939.
Before going into the figures I want to emphasize again the fact, made so abundantly plain by the Prime Minister, that this defence operation is big business. Ten per cent of the national income is taken for purposes of national defence; and 10 per cent of the population, if you take members of the active force working full time, members of the reserve force working part time and those engaged directly or indirectly in defence projects, together with those in servicing industries, and their dependents, are involved.
My colleague, the Minister of Defence Production, and I have not been able to scrutinize personally in detail, as we would have liked to, all the requisitions made or contracts placed. Since March 31, 1947, 527,000 contracts have been placed. We have seen the larger ones and have also overseen the general policy. I repeat that the contracts placed, the requirements we work out and the estimates we make are subject to constant review; and I add that what is surprising is that in this huge volume of business, done under great pressure and with staffs inadequate in size, without any previous experience of so rapid a peacetime build-up, or in maintaining the very considerable forces we have had in the Far East and in Europe at the same time, the errors discovered so far have proved so small relative to the total operation.
I want to make one other point and it is this. If there have been errors or if errors are discovered in the future, either in our estimate of our current requirements or in the estimate of requirements for stockpiling, we can consume the excess of articles to meet recurring needs. I do not think that in many fields we will have stockpiled more than we would have required in about a year or a year and a quarter of ordinary current needs. In other words, not a single article has been or will be wasted; everything will be used.
Against this background, let us see what the charges are that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and others. It is not necessary for us to search far in order to see what the bases of his charges were. There used to be an old rule against reading newspaper articles, and it was a fairly good one. The Leader of the Opposition referred

to this subject himself in a speech in Toronto quoted in the Globe and Mail for November 5, 1952, with the headline "No Ghost Writers for P.C.'s, Drew Tells Ontario Rally". The article reads in part:
Commenting on an article by a U.S. columnist in which the writer stated he "knew" every man in public life employs ghost writers, Mr. Drew said it was a sad commentary on public life. He did not suggest that either presidential candidate had reached that point, but in Ottawa it has reached such a state that some cabinet ministers had not read over their speeches before they delivered them.
"It is a remarkable departure from the idea that democracy was based on the free interchange of ideas by which individuals express their convictions," he said.
With that foundation, Mr. Speaker, let us see what the Leader of the Opposition said on these various heads and from where he obtained his material. In his speech in the house, as reported at page 22 of Hansard, he said:
In the last few weeks articles have been appearing throughout Canada in some of the most responsible of Canadian newspapers, analysing facts and figures in regard to defence purchases, which are a challenge to every member of the house.
I agree that they are a challenge to every member of the house. They are a challenge to every member of the house to look at the records of the house before he uses such statements. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition would have been better briefed had he taken the trouble to consult the minutes of proceedings of the special committee on defence expenditures set up in answer to his request.
On the subject of clothing in general, as reported at page 23 of Hansard, the Leader of the Opposition said:
Since November 20, 1950, it is stated that clothing orders alone have amounted to some $142,150,000. The total strength of the three armed services just exceeds 100,000 which works out to approximately $1,400 for every member of the three services. That is not, of course, the amount which has been spent to provide uniforms for each of the members, because the department did estimate that the average cost of the kit of a soldier, sailor or airman is about $390. That seems high enough in itself, but the figures also show that orders are out of all relation to the number of those now in the services, or for the target figure of 115,000 which has been set for 1954.
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the Leader of the Opposition's authority for those statements. I wish that the rules relative to printing Hansard permitted the statement of the Leader of the Opposition and the source from which he quoted to be printed in parallel columns, but we will do that later.
The authority for this is George Bain, in the Globe and Mail of November 18, 1952, who said:
Since November 20, 1950, the first date covered by the contract information clothing orders alone have amounted to some $142,150,000.
137
The Address-Mr. Claxton
The total strength of the three armed services has only recently edged past the hundred thousand mark; the target is 115,000 by 1954.
According to figures contained in "Canada's Defence Program 1952-53" published by the Defence Department, the average cost of a sailor's, soldier's or airman's kit is about $390.
As will be seen, Mr. Speaker, there is a fairly close resemblance between the two statements.
As I mentioned earlier, since April 1, 1949, and up to October 31, 1952, we have enrolled approximately 227,000 men and women in the active and reserve forces and in the cadet services. We have outfitted them with clothing at an average cost of $224.43 each or $50,955,000 in total.
During the same period all the forces, active, reserve and cadets, have put in a total of 701,182 man years-that is the service of a man for a year, an actual figure-and it has cost an average of $77.06 to maintain their clothing and to establish depot stocks, or a total of $54,035,000.
I should explain that takes into account the fact that during the first year the man has had his original issue and needs very little maintenance. If we were dealing with maintenance alone, after the first year the cost of maintaining a member of the regular forces would be $156.34; of the reserve force, $57.72; a cadet, $27.86; or an average of $77.06.
In the same period we acquired special clothing such as Arctic clothing, winter clothing, aircrew clothing, protective clothing and similar clothing that is not ordinarily issued as part of a man's outfit, at a cost of $16,721,000.
Finally, $37,786,000 has been expended on the provision of mobilization stocks of clothing. Those stocks are in store ready to be issued should there be a mobilization. But if there is no mobilization, or if the international climate changes, or if we decide that it is no longer necessary to have mobilization stores of that character, then all these articles can be issued to meet current requirements and would be used up in about a year after that operation started.
I think hon. members will agree that the figure of $156 as the figure of maintaining a soldier's, sailor's or airman's clothing for a year is not an excessive figure. It is about 4J per cent to 5 per cent of the average personnel costs per man per year. The dominion bureau of statistics informs me that they estimate that the average cost of a male's clothing per year is about 7 per cent of his wages. The Toronto social welfare council estimates that last year there should have been spent on a manual worker's clothing a total of $152.50. On our service personnel it was $156, and he required a good

The Address-Mr. Claxton deal more and better clothing. Now, on the average, our soldiers, sailors and airmen receive each year in cash or kind $3,022. That is for all other ranks, from the newest recruit to the most senior warrant officer first class tradesman, an average of $3,022 for pay, allowances, pension, clothing, food, medical, dental and hospital services. That is the equivalent of a civilian wage. In the United States it is far more of course. Therefore you will see that the figure of $156, the cost of maintaining his clothing, is about 5 per cent of that amount, and less than the dominion bureau of statistics estimate.
I should now like to pass on to the subject of boots and shoes. On this the Leader of the Opposition said on November 24, 1952, as reported at page 22 of Hansard:
Since these have appeared throughout the whole of Canada, they are the kind of examples which it would seem necessary for us to examine. During a single ten-month period orders for boots and shoes for the armed forces totalled $15,292,241. Even at the very high estimate of $15 a pair, which would indeed be a high cost for service footwear, this would mean more than one million pair of shoes for 100,000 members of the armed forces. The suggestion that orders of this kind are necessary for the reserves simply does not hold water, because plenty of shoes have been available for the reserve army for some years. Orders are still being placed.
The authority for this is Arthur Blakely of the Montreal Gazette of October 30, 1952:
During a single ten-month period, orders for boots and shoes in the armed forces had totalled about $15,292,241. Even at $15 a pair-high for service footwear-this works out to better than a million pairs. Yet there were fewer than 100,000 personnel in the armed forces to wear them . . . the explanation didn't satisfy anyone. Meanwhile, boot and shoe orders are still being placed.
It seems to bear some similarity. Now, sir, the story about boots and shoes was spread on the record of the defence expenditures committee by the deputy minister of national defence on June 10, 1952, and it appears at pages 385 and 392 of the proceedings of that committee. I am not going to go into that again, but I should like to describe to you in summary what the situation is.
From April 1, 1950, to September 30 of this year the services received 1,563,539 pairs of leather footwear, with further deliveries due of 52,059 pairs. In addition there have been substantial purchases of other articles of footwear such as rubbers, gym shoes, overshoes, mukluks, and so forth. The total amount is based on requirements which, if examined objectively, will, I believe, be found to be sensible and prudent. Everything I have said about the increased personnel, about distribution, about stock levels, about lead time and about stockpiling applies with particular force to boots, ankle. It will be appreciated that requirements for footwear,

particularly boots, ankle, will be different for the different categories of footwear and for each of the services, and often according to the area where a man is serving. For example, our experience is that a man wears out four pairs of boots a year in Korea, two a year in Germany, and generally speaking less than one and a half per year in Canada. We vary the issue for the navy and air force because they use less footwear than does the army.
Trade figures on footwear give an estimate that the average male in Canada buys 2-38 pairs of shoes or boots each year. The amount we provide for the armed forces of boots, ankle, is less than that.
As boots represent the largest item, perhaps I might give some figures with regard to them. At September 30, 1952, depot stocks were 479,643, and stocks held against possible mobilization amounted to 361,971. Further deliveries will be 6,928. The annual consumption in 1952-53, both initial issues and replacements, is estimated at 263,000. Maintenance stocks are therefore the equivalent of less than two years expected consumption. Having regard to the lead time for manufacture and the necessity for having at all times a minimum stock for distribution and sizing, this seems to be about right for this time of the fiscal year.
Now, may I take up neckties? Speaking in the House of Commons on November 24, 1952, at page 22 of Hansard, the Leader of the Opposition said:
During the last session it was found that orders have been placed for $1,150,000 neckties. Not satisfied with this incredible accumulation of neckwear, orders are still being placed for more neckties. One might well wonder what particular military service these additional ties are supposed to perform.
The authority for this seems to have been Arthur Blakely of the Montreal Gazette of October 30, 1952:
By early last session, arms orders had been placed for a total of 1,150,000 neckties. A prejudiced and sceptical Conservative M.P. gibed that there were plenty to, 'bound hand and foot any number of aggressors who might attempt to land on our shores'. But the defence department isn't taking any chances. Orders are still being placed.
It will be noted that the Leader of the Opposition's speech, as reported in Hansard, has the dollar sign before the number of neckties. I have checked up with the text of the speech from which he read on Monday, and I find that the dollar sign is not there, so that this is a typographical error in Hansard.


Mr. Fleming:: How does the minister know that the Leader of the Opposition did not use the word "dollar" in his speech delivered in the house?


Brooke Claxton: 140	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Claxton provided for officers' messes and for recreation rooms on a very limited scale which in no case is extravagant at all.
It should be remembered that during this year we have built or have had under construction over 100 new barracks blocks and places where men are quartered or fed. Consequently this is in the nature of capital outlay which will not be repeated on anything like that scale in future years.
The Leader of the Opposition also referred to teapots. I see that my time is going and I shall not dwell upon it at length. However, I will say that the answer to the question raised in connection with teapots is much similar to that in connection with forks. But the scale of issue can be gathered from the fact that on June 10,	1952, when we
checked on the question when it came up before the committee on defence expenditures, we found that at Camp Borden where they have 5,526 men they had a total of 1,962 teapots. That seems a large proportion, possibly; but additional ones were needed there to take care of peak loads of reserve forces when they come in for summer training. But it indicates that, with forces of the size that we have, you need very considerable numbers of articles.
Raincoats were mentioned and almost all these are acquired for mobilization. The number actually needed for issue to members of the C.W.A.C., nursing sisters and so on is estimated at 3,950 for the current year.
Reference was made to the packaging of plumbing fixtures; this is for packaging of stores of certain plumbing fixtures that would be necessary in the prefabricated houses we are acquiring in connection with needs for mobilization.
I think I have mentioned all the articles to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, or that have been mentioned by other hon. members since the session began. There have been a number of others referred to by the press, for example paper napkins. We are accused of having spent extravagantly the sum of $11,000 on paper napkins. The newspapers said that this was a pretty large number of paper napkins. No doubt it is; but we provide a large number of meals. About
40,000	out of the 100,000 men on strength eat in, and they get three meals a day. That makes 120,000 meals per day, or 840,000 per week, or 43,680,000 per year.


Mr. Brooks:: Do they get fresh napkins at every meal?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, paper napkins-and so do most everybody else who use them. Would you think that they would wrap them up and carry them home, or does the hon. mem-
IMr. Claxton.]
ber for Royal (Mr. Brooks) suggest that they should share them? The number of napkins covered by this order amounted to 18,400,000, so that the order, costing $11,000 for paper napkins, will meet the needs of the armed forces for about seven months, at which time we will have another order.
Now, I have spent a good deal of time discussing these articles. I did not think it would be necessary, because what we have been doing is in accordance with the policy declared and, so far as I know, acquiesced in by the house. For some five or six years members of the opposition have spent a good deal of their time saying that we are not doing enough. Now they seem to be saying that we are doing too much. But once again I ask hon. members where we would be, and where I would be in my position of responsibility in the preparation of this country to meet an emergency, should one arise, if we were not doing just about what we are doing with regard to these matters.
Once again, the matter is under continuous review. If in respect of any of these articles we have one too many, we can take it into stock, issue it, and we can get rid of the whole lot within the period of about a year of current use. This is,_ therefore, part of the cost of insurance for peace. That is all that our defence expenditures are, whether they be on personnel, on ships, on aircraft or guns or food or barrack stores and clothing. The people of this country must appreciate that with 100,000 in the active forces engaged in a war to stop aggression in Korea, and engaged as part of the integrated forces in western Europe standing there to prevent aggression, we are having to incur some rather heavy expenditures over a considerable length of time. We are doing that in cooperation with our neighbours, in co-operation with the United Nations and in co-operation with the North Atlantic alliance. We are doing this because we believe it is the one way in which we can preserve peace, have security and have that kind of country in which we want our children to live.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit a question which arises out of a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). In fairness to the minister, I think I should bring it to his attention. At page 39 of Hansard for November 24 after he had been speaking about the purchase of neckties, the Prime Minister said:
It may well be that the officers in the requisitioning departments, having that in mind, did order more than the minister would have sanctioned, had it come to his attention, or that the deputy minister would have sanctioned had it come to his attention.

May I ask the minister if those orders came to his attention before they were placed?


Brooke Claxton: That is the kind of question we can go into very satisfactorily and at length before the committee on defence expenditures. Since the member has put it, I want to answer it. The practice with regard to these big programs is that we discuss them within the department, at cabinet defence committee and in cabinet. As a general principle, it was decided that we should acquire a certain amount of mobilization stores. I signed a requisition on my colleague the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) for certain mobilization stores. The individual orders for individual items were subsequently sent to him and reviewed by the deputy minister or by myself, either at the time or later, but they have all been reviewed at one time or another.


An hon. Member:: Who is right?


Brooke Claxton: The Prime Minister said "it may well be-"


Gordon Graydon: He said it may well be that it was a mistake.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Oh, no, he did not.


Gordon Graydon: I have it right here.


Mr. Howe:: My flippant friend.


Mr. Dickey:: Read about it in the defence expenditures committee.


Gordon Graydon: I am reading what the Prime Minister said.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: May I first offer my congratulations, Mr. Speaker, to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I feel that they performed their duties ably, although there will be a great difference of opinion as to some of the observations made by both of those speakers. I should like also to concur in what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and others about that part of His Excellency's address concerning the coronation which is to take place in the old country next June. I should like, too, to concur in what the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and others have been saying about our pride in our fighting forces both within and from this nation of Canada. I do not think there is any issue within this house about that. We are all extremely proud of those fighting forces of ours.


John Horace Dickey: How about the arm chair army?


James Arthur Ross: They are well outfitted, but there has been great waste and extravagant expenditure taking place.
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross


An hon. Member:: That is a matter of opinion.


James Arthur Ross: I was going to say that that is a matter of opinion, and I am one of those who have some criticism about the wasteful expenditures in procuring equipment.


John Horace Dickey: What are they?


James Arthur Ross: You will have a chance to get up and tell your story.


John Horace Dickey: I have been up during this debate.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, and it was not so convincing, either.


Gordon Graydon: You want to convince the Prime Minister; he is the one you want to convince.


John Horace Dickey: Go on, what are they?


James Arthur Ross: In comparison with some of the Prime Minister's speeches to which I have listened and which I have read in the newspapers in the past few months, I believe the first paragraph in the speech from the throne is rather creating a new pattern. I presume he is now undertaking to make it easier for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to bring in his new budget during this session. On several occasions I had heard the Prime Minister point out to the people of Canada that, with the great threat of war and the cost of national defence, we could not expect any cuts in taxation. Now, in the-first paragraph of the speech from the throne it is stated that there are signs of a lessening of the danger of an outbreak of war on a global scale. I think he is preparing the picture for a reduction that we may expect in the next budget. I am not objecting to a reduction, but it is too late.
During past sessions we have listened to the Minister of Finance tell us about his theories on cyclical budgeting. We have come to learn that he did have a plan which meant excessive taxation for three, four or perhaps five years, and then a very fine reduction on the eve of an election. I believe that the people can count on that during this session of parliament. I am one of those who believe that there has been excessive taxation in this country. Economists have pointed out how much that has cost the heads of families and individuals in this country, but I do not intend to repeat those figures.
Just before I rose I listened to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) reply to certain statements which had been made during this debate. I think there is still a misunderstanding or a difference of opinion

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross between the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, because the other day I followed the Prime Minister rather closely. He dealt with the subject of overtaxation at some length. During the discussion of the estimates in this house I recall that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) pointed out to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) that we might save a million dollars; but during these times what is a million dollars? Well, the Prime Minister goes a long way beyond that, because in his speech about overtaxation he referred to a request for a commission somewhat like the Hoover commission. He pointed out that by such means you could not save $500 million or $600 million. He doubted if it would reach $100 million. We have had inflation in this country, but I did not know it had reached the extent that we could jump from one million to one hundred million, as the Prime Minister did the other day. Speaking in this debate he mentioned the possible saving that might result from a commission such as the Hoover commission being set up in Canada and pointed out that the whole amount to which such a commission of inquiry would apply is something of the order of $621 million. The Prime Minister went on to say, as found at page 43 of Hansard:
It would be rather difficult, therefore, to squeeze $500 million out of that. I submit it would be difficult to squeeze $100 million out of it, unless some of these services were going to be eliminated.
But the Prime Minister certainly does say by inference that there is $100 million being wasted that might well be saved for the taxpayers.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


James Arthur Ross: I have put his exact words on the record-


An hon. Member:: Brilliant.


James Arthur Ross: -and he has given the figure of $100 million as the amount that might be saved. That is his guess. It could be that it is wishful thinking on the part of the Prime Minister.


John Horace Dickey: Your wishful thinking.


James Arthur Ross: With respect to the figures given this afternoon, we have had a set of figures placed on the record, and without repeating them all may I say that I have been told on very good authority that it is costing the taxpayers of Canada $17,000 per man in the armed services of this country per year. That is approximately one-third higher
(Mr. Ross (Souris).]

than the figure for the United States. It is the highest figure for the armed services of any nation in the world today. I think it is recognized that the civilian citizens of that great nation to the south of us enjoy a higher standard of living than we do in Canada. Yet our cost per man in the armed services is one-third higher than the cost per man in the United States.


Mr. Campney:: What is your authority?


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


James Arthur Ross: Have you a question to
ask?


Gordon Graydon: Get a microphone before you start to ask questions. We cannot hear you.


James Arthur Ross: It was pointed out in the throne speech the other day that there is still a great threat of war and a national emergency. It is intimated in the speech from the throne that the Emergency Powers Act will be continued for another year. I think that gives us an idea of the serious state of affairs prevailing at the present time.
I wish to deal now with the agricultural situation in Canada at the present time. It is most unsatisfactory and there is great fear amongst agricultural producers from coast to coast with respect to their future. The speech from the throne refers to the fact that early in 1953 negotiations will be carried on in Washington for a new international wheat agreement to replace the existing agreement which expires on July 31 next. It continues with these words:
You will be asked to consider amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I think that is a very important item. It may seem rather strange that during the past year food production in Canada has been the highest in the history of this nation. According to government statistics, I believe that the total farm output is some 15 per cent higher than any previous record. That is a serious fact because the cost of production for farm operators has steadily increased while selling prices for their produce have decreased to a great extent. In fact the Department of Agriculture has issued a statement pointing out that food production is 15 per cent greater than any previous year, the next highest year being 1942.
It is true that we were very unfortunate in having an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Canada and we are most fortunate that it was cleared up as rapidly as it was; but

nevertheless our beef producers in particular have suffered greatly as a result of the embargo imposed. So far as farm costs are concerned, I should like to refer to an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of October 20 headed "Farm Costs". The article reads in part as follows:
Our correspondent points out that in the past fifteen months the price index of all goods, the machinery, gasoline, oil and other items the farmers must buy, has risen sharply. At the same time the price index of all that the farmer has to sell-wheat, livestock, feeds, etc.,-has gone down. The difference is quite marked. The price index for what the farmer has to sell has fallen from 295 T in August, 1951 to 259-7 in August, 1952. Against this the price index for what the farmer must buy has gone up from 237-8 in August, 1951, to 243-4 in August, 1952.
Further, and this is of major importance, the drop in farm prices is chiefly right here in the west. The farmers of the east have not felt the pinch to anything like the same degree. Herein is food for thought. As the prairie farmer sells his products and buys his supplies, he will do well to ask himself why his dollars are shrinking.
The article goes on to deal with the international exchange situation and the fact that the farmers have been subsidizing the consumers of Canada and of other nations so far as the price of their wheat is concerned. It points out that under the international wheat agreement western wheat farmers have suffered a loss of 44 cents a bushel and are doing so today under that agreement. It is a rather lengthy article and I shall not quote from it further, but I wish to point out at this time, in view of past arguments in the house, that as a new international wheat agreement is to be arranged in the next few months the experience we had under the other agreement should be taken into consideration. The farmers of the west took a great loss of money and when organizations asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) if the deal could be renegotiated before the completion of the term of the agreement his advice was that it could not be done.
I think that in the new agreement there should be an escalator clause providing for renegotiation. Great inflation has taken place in Canada since the agreement was first put into effect and I think some provision against that should be made in the new international wheat agreement. With the great surplus of wheat in this country, probably the greatest we have ever had, I believe that the wheat producers of the prairies want a new agreement of some kind. I am not as optimistic
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross as the Minister of Trade and Commerce about getting rid of the great surplus in the near future, and I think we may have difficulties if we have another normal crop next year. Therefore I hope that in the negotiation of the new international wheat agreement these things will be taken into account and that its provisions will be more elastic so that if costs increase greatly, as they have in the past, that may be taken into account and not have a static agreement in force for a number of years.
I referred to the fact that under the international wheat agreement we were losing 44 cents a bushel compared with the recognized market price. On the day that the house opened I find, according to the Searle grain index report, that a farmer in Portal, North Dakota, on their side of the street, received $2.12J for a bushel of wheat while a Canadian farmer who sold his wheat in North Portal, Saskatchewan, on the same day received $1.23 a bushel. In all fairness, I should point out that that farmer hopes to receive a further payment as this was only the initial payment at that particular time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Don't strain yourself to be fair.


James Arthur Ross: I have always tried to be fair and I am happy to say that I have not strained myself yet.


An hon. Member:: You would have the farmer sell his own wheat.


James Arthur Ross: I am not advocating that the farmer should sell his own wheat although I am one person who thinks that he should have an alternative market. He should not be so hamstrung as he has been under the international wheat agreement. While you are talking about his selling his own wheat, may I say that I think he should also have the opportunity to sell his feed. That affects the eastern farmers very much because there is too great a disparity altogether at some point between what the western producer receives for his coarse grain and what the eastern livestock feeder has to pay for it. It is all handled through the Canadian wheat board and it is not all speculation either, because if it was there should not be these great differences between what the western producer does receive ultimately and what the feeder has to pay for feed. I cannot tell you just where the trouble is but I think there is real room for investigation of that very unhealthy situation.
144	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross
With respect to the matter of livestock prices, according to the dominion bureau of statistics the Canadian livestock prices have slumped in 1952 as compared with 1951 by 37-3 per cent. That is a drastic reduction in one year's time in this country. We have heard a great deal about floor prices on livestock in this country. I am one of those who believe that the floor prices as operated on beef in this country have been very, very unsatisfactory. In fact on a great deal of fat beef today they are just inoperative. I think probably they do attempt to operate them on choice steers but if you were to go into the St. Boniface market today you would see fat cows being sold for several cents under the schedule of floor prices. On fat beef, cows and young stock, the situation, is very chaotic. I wish to refer to a press article which appeared back in September when a number of people thought they should sell livestock to assist in meeting the cost of their harvest operation. This is an article by Mr. Trepel, president of the livestock commission at that time. He is neither a packer nor a producer and I think it makes a difference to your approach to the floor prices-depending on whether you are in the packing business or a livestock producer. It is a rather lengthy article but on down in the report it states:
Challenges Gardiner
Mr. Trepel took issue with a recent Regina statement by Mr. Gardiner regarding maintenance of beef floors.
Following last week's general price slump at the union stockyards here, Mr. Trepel said, good light steers are again selling at "or slightly above" the floor. But heavy steers, heifers and cows are still selling at $2 to $3 below floor levels, he added.
Mr. Trepel estimated that Winnipeg area marketings were 20 per cent greater than could be absorbed at "reasonable prices". The surplus of heavy beef animals was averaging about 1,200 head weekly, or about 18 cars of dressed beef, Mr. Trepel said.
During the summer months, the exchange president said, government allocations to packers for the purchase of this surplus beef at floor prices had been a major factor in keeping beef prices steady. But for the week ending August 29, Mr. Trepel revealed, government allocations among the five large packing houses in this area dropped to less than one car. The allocation was doubled for the week ending September 6, he added.
He goes on to deal with government purchases and he points out that you cannot even expect the packers to pay the steady prices unless the government is prepared to carry out its announced policy-which it was not doing at that time and which it is not doing today in those yards and, I am informed, in many other yards in this country-other than


on choice steers. As a result, there is a very great fear among the livestock producers in this country from coast to coast regarding their future operations. I agree that a great deal does depend on the lifting of the embargo in the U.S.A., but with respect to the operation of these floor prices, right from their announcement to the present time, they have not been satisfactory to the beef producers right across Canada who are very disturbed about the situation.
During the past few years we have lost our overseas markets for practically all our agricultural products except wheat. Our British market for bacon, cheese, apples, poultry, and coarse grains has disappeared. We have requested by resolution that the Canadian government take steps to arrange a British commonwealth conference on trade but we have been consistently voted down by the supporters of our Canadian government. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) are now away to Britain at the invitation of the British government, and I am sure every member of this house and every citizen of Canada sincerely hope that some good may accrue with respect to future markets, especially for the agricultural production of this country; because it is only a matter of time, if agriculture suffers a depression, until that affects all other businesses in this nation. It is of more or less importance to every citizen of the nation.
Added to these difficulties with the farmers we have repeated requests by the railways for increased freight rates. Farm organizations of all sorts, especially those in western Canada, have been sending resolutions to their members protesting against further increases in freight rates-and I think quite rightly so because every time there is an increase that adds to the cost of production on every farm in western Canada and it lessens the sale price for their produce. Every implement and other matter entering into farm production has freight added to its cost but in grain marketing they deduct the freight to the head of the lakes. Every western farmer gets the increase both ways. On behalf of those organizations I want to press as much as I can against the granting of any further increase in freight rates during these times.
In the throne speech there is reference to amendment of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and before that measure is prepared for introduction I want to suggest that the ceiling

of $3,000 which can be obtained as a farm improvement loan is not now high enough. When this matter was introduced some years ago inflation had not developed to the extent it has now. You could buy a self-propelled combine for about half the money it costs today, and I think that should be taken into consideration. Last year an amendment to the Canadian Farm Loan Act was passed which I think about doubled the ceiling on the loan to an individual. I think much the same thing should be done in dealing with the farm improvement loan in view of advancing costs in recent years. I hope those responsible will take this suggestion into account when they are dealing with the matter at this session of parliament.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer-the international peace garden. I am sorry that the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) is not present now. A great many of us have taken this matter up with him but he cannot see his way clear to leave the grant in his estimates for the present year as it has been in the past. A great many organizations are interested in the international peace garden and in the past our government has made a small grant of $15,000 towards its development and maintenance; and the United States has made a grant of $100,000. Many organizations have interested themselves in this very fine project which is on the international boundary just halfway across Canada and midway on the North American continent. Just yesterday in the newspapers there appeared an article:
I.O.D.E. Asks Government to Endow Peace Garden
A resolution asking the Canadian government to resume and increase its contribution to the international peace garden was approved at a recent meeting of the executive committee, Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire.
It will be forwarded to Prime Minister St. Laurent and to party leaders in House of Commons.
The federal government indicated it was unwilling to contribute during the present year.
The order said that it found any discontinuance of maintenance of the garden unfair to the United States which recently contributed $100,000.
The active promotion of the peace garden in the form of an international peace garden should be part of any defence program, the resolution concluded.
As the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is in his seat he might kindly point this out to his colleague and, I hope, use his influence so that the grant may be reinstituted for this coming year.
I attended the annual meeting of the directorate of the garden held in September last. The chairman, who puts a great deal of thought and energy into this work-that is Mr. D. G. McKenzie-pointed out that if the government withhold these grants they may have to forgo the extremely fine work that is taking place there. I quite seriously plead
The Address-Mr. McMillan with the minister and the government to reinstate this grant to the international peace garden.
There is also another item to which I wish to make reference. I have believed in past years that there should be a standing committee on veterans affairs in this House of Commons. I realize that a great deal has been accomplished over the years on behalf of our veterans of past wars, but the situation with respect to the war veterans allowance especially is still unsatisfactory. The permissible ceiling on veterans' income is altogether too meagre and is unsatisfactory. There are other items which are needing attention, such as the situation of the widow of a pensioner who dies with probably slightly under 50 per cent pension. There are many of these matters which yet need to be rectified, and I sincerely hope that they will be dealt with at this session of parliament. Again I plead that there should be a standing committee on veterans affairs in this House of Commons. I hope serious consideration will be given to that question.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, when I first entered the House of Commons in. January 1951, it was my honour to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne. By experience, therefore, I knew what a formidable task confronted the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address at this session. But they carried out their tasks in an admirable manner and with distinction, and I should like to congratulate them.
At that time I said I was in favour of national health insurance, and I still favour it. I am in agreement with all hon. members who say there should be the present free relationship between the doctor and his patient. I am opposed to state medicine as such, but I should like to see some such scheme as we have now, namely that on the fee for service basis. I resent many implications sometimes made that many people die because of the lack of hospitalization and medical attention. I have been in the practice of medicine and surgery for over 30 years in a highly industrialized community, and not once in that time have I known of one patient who has died because of lack of immediate hospitalization and immediate medical care when it was necessary.
It is argued that many people do not go to doctors because of financial reasons. I believe this to be true, but this is not the whole story. Many people who are fully insured consult their doctor late when they have some condition such as cancer, when the symptoms of this condition have been evident to them for a considerable length of time.

The Address-Mr. McMillan
I will refer to the medical services in the province of Ontario, because they are the only medical services in Canada with which I >am familiar. Most centres have had a great shortage of hospital beds, but this difficulty has been gradually overcome through the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments in helping local centres in hospital construction. In my province the hospitals have always cooperated in admitting serious surgical and medical cases and accident cases. The doctors have co-operated by delaying medical and surgical procedures of election, that is, in cases which could be safely postponed.
The province of Ontario, through successive governments, has developed a high standard of health. The Leader of the Opposition was premier of our province, and I want to pay tribute to his government as well as to other Ontario governments which have brought about this high standard.
As I stated before, the province with the help of the federal government has aided various communities to provide hospital beds. There are many trained personnel engaged in preventive medicine, and many thousands of dollars worth of preventives such as vaccines, serums and toxoids have been provided without direct cost to the individuals. The province also provides or helps to provide many diagnostic and curative services in pathology, mental diseases, tuberculosis, cancer and so on. I might say that the federal government also gives a good deal of help financially in these particular services.
When we discuss health insurance I realize that we are dealing with a matter which lies within the jurisdiction of the provinces themselves, and that to bring about health insurance on a national scale would involve consultation, and agreement with the provinces. I understand that this, government has consulted the provinces and has invited briefs and opinions on this subject. I also understand that the last brief or opinion has been submitted within the last few months, I think probably since the last session of parliament. I am told that only two provincial governments were in favour of its immediate adoption, while the rest of the provinces either were opposed to it or thought the time was not opportune, or had other reasons for not agreeing. Until such time as more of our provinces signify their intention of full co-operation with regard to national health insurance, and having in mind all the financial obligations now assumed by the three levels of government, namely federal, provincial and municipal, I feel that the passing of this subamendment would have little meaning as far as national health insurance itself is concerned.
(Mr. McMillan.]
By its national health plan our federal government has done a great deal to raise the health standards of our people by means of large grants to the provinces; they have helped to raise the standard of medicine in almost all its phases. I think national health insurance would be extremely popular with the people, but I do not see how we can be constitutional in passing legislation with respect to a matter which is outside our jurisdiction until we get some agreement with the provinces; and to me it does not seem evident that we can get this agreement at this time.
Earlier I referred to the fact that claims were made that many people had died because they did not get proper hospitalization. I want to refer to Hansard, page 78, where the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) is reported as follows, though I am sure he did not mean exactly what it says here:
You know the freedom we enjoy under our pres- ' ent medical system? Forty-one babies out of every thousand who were born in Canada in 1950 had the freedom to die because there was no national health insurance program to help save their lives.
He went further, but to me that statement rather implies that the whole forty-one died because we did not have national health insurance. It is true that he quoted statistics further on, stating that twenty in a thousand died in one country, while in England the mortality was thirty-one in a thousand. But I think he forgets that in our country, in the northern outposts, in the sparsely settled areas, medical attention is not always obtainable. When he says that forty-one in a thousand had their freedom to die, he forgets certain conditions, which occur quite often, such as malformation and so forth in the new-born which have baffled the medical profession, and which in my opinion will always baffle the medical profession.
We would like to save every one of those forty-one in a thousand who die, but unfortunately this cannot be done. Even in our very best equipped hospitals they have quite a mortality rate.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the subject that I wish particularly to bring to your attention this afternoon, I should like to say just a word or two about the remarks of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). I think this house and this opposition may congratulate themselves that they have produced at least some action, because it was only on Monday that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) told us that the ministers concerned, namely the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), did not have too much

The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell
time to reply to criticisms. I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say that. He did not seem to indicate there were not criticisms, but that there was no time to reply. At any rate the Minister of National Defence has given us a reply this afternoon.
I propose to make only one or two comments on it. I think he was quite right in outlining to us the general principles which govern, and he was certainly right in saying that the question was a matter of judgment. With the additional information which he has given the citizens of Canada will be able to arrive at a better conclusion, and that is all to the good. One is inclined, perhaps, to assess the judgment of those in authority by the things which happen to be most familiar to oneself.
I did make somewhat of a study of serving forks. I do not propose to weary the house with it at any length. My real feeling was that a great mistake had been made, and I should have been greatly reassured if instead of doing what seemed to me to be twisting and squirming and trying to avoid coming out and saying they were wrong, the department had said: Look, we made a mistake. Well, in effect, after all these months they are saying that now, and my only comment is that I would have been far more reassured if they had said it earlier. No doubt that will affect the judgment of other people also.
We have the various things that the minister defended this afternoon, and I am not going into them any further. There is one final comment I should like to make. He is a very extravagant man in the. matter of neckties, judging by my standards, having worn five neckties in an incredibly short time; but I am not suggesting that that unfits him to be Minister of National Defence.
I wish to pay my tribute to the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address. The making of one's first speech in this house is not an easy thing, and when to that is added the responsibility of being the mover and seconder of the address, I am sure it must be an additional burden. They may, perhaps, have this advantage over the rest of us. I suppose they can get more research assistance than the rest of us in order to make speeches of so much importance.
The Prime Minister said on Monday last- and f was surprised to hear him say it-"I do not think there has been any overtaxation." In saying that I think the Prime Minister is in a small minority, I would almost guess a minority of one in this house. Certainly I think if he set out to find citizens who do not object to the present taxation he would be in great difficulty. There was an ancient gentleman called Diogenes who went
around carrying a lantern, looking for an honest man. If the Prime Minister wants to find a satisfied taxpayer he would need a light very much stronger than the lantern which Diogenes had. If only I could have your authority, Mr. Speaker, to poll the Liberal members of this house and to ask them if they and their constituents are satisfied taxpayers, I would have no doubt whatever as to the result. I am sure none of them would be prepared to say publicly that their taxpayers were satisfied; and if one by some magic could only pass invisibly into the Liberal caucus and listen to what goes on I am sure one would learn a great many interesting things about their attitude in the matter of taxation. The truth of the matter is that the ordinary citizen is tax angry, inflation angry and waste angry. I do not for a minute think the members of the cabinet are so stupid that they are not tax conscious, tax fearful and perhaps at times a little tax panicky.
I think there are three main reasons why public feeling is aroused as it is. First of all there is the actual size of expenditures which the federal government is making. Second, tirere is the old question of the surplus; and third, there is the question of waste, or to use the word used by the Winnipeg Free Press, profligacy, when we take the actual amount, $4,800 million or thereabouts. I should like to suggest to the house one or two yardsticks which I think would be of interest, some of which I actually used in the spring. I then compared the public expenditure of $4,800 million with the manufacturing output of this country for 1950, which was close to the same amount, $4,378 million, and with the agricultural output of the same year, which was $1,792 million or only about one-third as much.
Next I should like to point out that the federal expenditure will be as much as the personal income of the citizens of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia; in other words, of all the provinces except Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. If you include provincial and municipal taxation, that would equal more than the amount of Saskatchewan's expenditure; so that if you actually took all the taxation it would equal all the income of all the provinces except Ontario and Quebec.
Now, personal income is not exactly the same as total income, net national income as it is called, but it is closer to it than I realized. Actually, in the year 1950, the personal income amounted to $13,004 million odd, and

The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell the net national income to $14,004 million odd. Therefore it is very close to being the net national income figure.
There is one further figure I should like to give, namely to make a comparison with the federal expenditures over the years that are past. Actually the expenditure this year will be the equivalent of federal government expenditure from the year 1868 till 1916; in other words, approximately 50 years. Now, I am not suggesting that those illustrations I have given prove anything exactly, but I think they are disturbing. I believe the public naturally feels uneasy when they see these huge figures. I think it was the Winnipeg Free Press that used the word "appalling" with regard to them-and they are appalling.
If you look at them from another point of view you find that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is now, in effect, a majority shareholder of every corporation in Canada, because he is actually getting the lion's share of the income. He himself deprecated that and said he regretted it, and that it was unsound. Nevertheless it was done. I do not suppose we can describe him exactly as a sleeping partner, but if he were a sleeping partner I think we ought to hope that he would not wake up, or he might take the whole thing.
Then a word about surpluses. This subject has been discussed at length and I will not go into it to any considerable extent, more than to say that I think the public has been very critical of surpluses, particularly at a time when they feel they are straining every effort to meet the huge defence bill. Therefore the argument we hear about the desirability of paying off the debt-an argument which I think we recognize as well as anybody else-has to be measured against the tremendous load we are carrying, the tremendous strain on the ordinary taxpayer, and his natural irritation at finding that sums which look to him vast-sums which not so long ago were considered vast-have been taken, over and above what was needed.
We are given, again, at the end of October a surplus figure of $287 million. The Minister of Finance comments on that by saying that he thinks it will change before the end of the year. Indeed, he said he would be glad if he reaches the end of the year without a deficit. Of course the trouble about that is that people have heard this so often that the old phrase "Once bitten, twice shy" would seem to apply. Indeed if you are bitten three or four times you become more than twice shy; you become very concerned. One naturally feels that these mistakes which have been made ought to have set up a standard by which people could calculate, and that


the department ought to be able to make a calculation from its old mistakes. I have mentioned before the old story of the Irishman who said, "When the clock strikes nine the hands are at seven, and then I know it's twenty minutes to eleven."
However that may be, the feeling is that these surpluses which pop up year after year are not things to be proud of, that they do not reflect accurate budgeting and that, in fact, they are bearing unnecessarily hard on the ordinary taxpayer.
I come now to waste and extravagance, and in this respect shall be brief. If we can judge as to the validity of the charge of waste and extravagance from the very inadequate answers that have been made, then it seems to me that those charges are more than fully justified. I am not referring now to what was said this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), but rather to other items brought to the attention of the house last spring, and again brought to its attention the other day.
There is the question of the huge amounts spent for publicity and removal expenses, the huge amounts spent for telegraph and telephone charges in the army, as well as other means of communication. Last spring I mentioned these items, and pointed out that they totalled somewhere about $70 million. They were mentioned of course- only as samples, to illustrate the kind of extravagance which many believe exist, and which I feel the public of Canada are coming to resent very strongly.
Actually I had a search made, and I think no answer of any kind has been made by any minister with respect to those three points. I do not think there was any answer made. It would not be fair, exactly, to say that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) answered the other day, although he did refer to one item. He referred to the item of travelling and removal expenses, but I could not understand what was going on in his mind; because when he discussed this item he suggested that if it were entirely stricken, out it would be a strange thing, something of which we would not approve. For example, he said that the item for removal and travelling included the money spent to cover the return of troops from Korea, of which we all approve. But the Prime Minister seemed to avoid or even to evade entirely the question which was raised, which was not that of deleting these items altogether, not the suggestion that there should be nothing for travelling expenses, but that a serious attempt should be considered to assess the amount.

As I say, this has not been done. Indeed, it was at that time that the Prime Minister, speaking in general, said that the ministers I have mentioned-the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Defence Production-"do not have too much time to reply to criticisms." It seemed to me that the Prime Minister was going over the situation with a feather duster when what we actually wanted was a housecleaning. We were left with only this trivial, this very superficial way of dealing with the situation. I think it would not be disrespectful to the Prime Minister to say that, in spite of his conciliatory manner and his delicate phrasing, in plain words he did not deal with the matter at all.
There are two possible explanations of this: One is that there is no answer, and that it is thought better to steer away from these things; the other-and those of us in the opposition have suggested this-that the government are really too pleased with themselves, too intent on their own ideas to pay any attention to what anyone else says, and are content to puff themselves up and say, "We are the government, and that is what we are doing; don't bother us."
That is an attitude which those of us on this side of the house frequently criticize. I suggest that that attitude may be present here again, as it has been in the past. There is of course another possibility, and that is that the government is repeating what it did some years ago. It may be that they feel they can spend our money much better than we can spend it ourselves, that they are regarding it as a good thing to have this heavy measure of taxation, this burden, so that we will not be foolish in using our money. That came up in March of 1949 when the Minister of Finance was making the somewhat difficult explanation he had to make at that time as to why in 1949 there would be a tax reduction when he had been at such great pains just a year earlier to explain that he could not give any tax reduction. At that time he gave a most interesting explanation upon which, I suggest, we might reflect. These are his words as they are reported at page 2183 of Hansard for 1949, upon which occasion I quoted the minister's words as they had been reported in Hansard for 1948. At that time he said that-
. . . large tax reductions last year would have come too early to be of real value-
And when the applause from that had subsided he went on to say:
-to the public as a whole, because the public's expenditure, even without tax reductions, was large enough to buy everything available.
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell
That explanation, interesting as it may be, and satisfying as it may be to the minister, will be profoundly unsatisfying to the ordinary citizen of Canada. He does not like to be told that, really, father knows best, that the taxpayer has too much money, and that the government is taking some of it away from him.
I should like to digress for a moment to speak briefly about taxation in general, and about one or two of the principles I think we should have in mind. In the first place I think we should remember, when we are discussing taxation, that we are not merely discussing personal difficulties, our own difficulties, the question as to whether A is taxed too high or B has received unfair relief that A does not have. We are dealing with something much broader than that. We are dealing with the happiness and welfare of citizens, with justice between man and man, and the whole question of freedom. It is this last about which I should like to say a word.
There is a great tendency, and we see it in connection with dominion-provincial relations, for rulers of states to conduct themselves in such a way as to concentrate the taxing power in their. own hands, and thus increase more and more the personal power which they have. It is interesting to go back some forty years to what I suppose may be called the rather earlier days of British socialism. Sidney Webb, a well-known socialist at that time, had this to say:
A large part of what we call taxation is merely the collective ownership of a portion of the income of the country.
He went on to indicate that he hoped for "a progressive transfer of more and more" of the income of individuals from their own control to government control. Indeed, he went beyond that and said it was perfectly obvious-this was in England in 1913-that people were spending their money foolishly and that hundreds of millions of pounds were being spent that might be better spent in other ways. He probably included the lighter side of life which as a serious student he did not regard in a favourable light. By a curious coincidence I met a man who, as a boy, knew Sidney Webb, and who said he would be very much surprised if he were sufficiently against the lighter side of life that he was not prepared to take a drink.
However, what I want to comment on is that I do not think socialists of that day such as Webb and his friends, who were high-minded people and had their thoughts concentrated upon the better world which they thought their socialist doctrine was going to

The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell bring, visualized what has become so clear to us in- the interval; that is, the tremendous concentration of power which is inevitable as government acquires more and more of the national income. In that connection there is a very interesting quotation from the same author the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) quoted yesterday, the distinguished French author Bertrand de Jouvenel, who was lecturing at Cambridge. This book is a reprint of a couple of lectures he gave. He said some things which I think are of interest and which go to the root of the problem which concerns so many of us in this house. He said:
Rulers of course tend to believe that the greater fraction of private income they can draw into the treasury, the better for the community as a whole.
Then he asks this ironical question:
Are they not the best judges of the common interest which the individual, sunk in his selfish pursuits, cannot perceive.
Then he goes on and adds this by way of answer:
Taxpayers have shown through the centuries little understanding of the superior capacity of their rulers to spend the citizens' earnings and have obdurately maintained their right to spend their income in their own manner.
Later again he says:
The taxpayers' front was then a bulwark of individual freedom and the cornerstone of political liberty. It is remarkable how this front has disintegrated in the last generation.
I think that is a warning, Mr. Speaker, upon which we might well reflect seriously. He said that it is remarkable how this front, the resistance of the individual taxpayer to the constant desire of the government to bring into the treasury as much as they can of the national income, has disintegrated. He says that front has disintegrated in. the last generation to a remarkable extent.
Of course we are very familiar here with the use of taxes as an instrument of policy which is constantly augmenting the central power. The central authority is constantly bringing more and more power into its hands, directly and indirectly. Let us take the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It does a great deal of good, and let me say that at once before anyone accuses me of not conceding it in advance. But it is a great potential instrument of power, and my experience is that when power is lying around loose there are plenty of people to pick it up and use it.
Along with that goes the question of rewards to various elements in the community for political support. We know what that means. I think most of us believe we are going to see evidence of that next spring. I shall have a little more to say about that before I take

my seat. Then, of course, inflation has been a great instrument of policy. The government has used the inflation of currency as an instrument of policy, as something to make it easier for them to pay their way. This leads me to comment on something which is taking place right now, and which I think is a very serious matter indeed.
We have been talking about the high cost of living. I believe we have accepted it as evidence of inflation. We have felt that it is an enemy to be tackled. We have had it constantly before us month after month. These figures have come out, and they have alarmed us. It has always been up to the government each month to say what they are going to do about them. Now all that is going to be changed. The old cost of living index is to disappear and we are to have a new consumer price index. I know how easy it is to argue that that is according to the best dictates of economics. It may be that these new figures are more scientific, although on a rough glance they look very much like the old ones. The great difference is going to be that we are starting now from scratch. Instead of people being reminded year by year or month by month that we are in a highly inflationary economy, month by month and year by year we are going to forget. We are going to start out, as I say, with this new index, this new yardstick, and the government will relieve themselves of this burden by the use of this device. Inflation is now going to be camouflaged and gradually, with the exception of students of economics and I hope members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, it will tend to be forgotten.
I have tried, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that the people are very annoyed with the tax situation. I believe they are desperately annoyed. I believe everybody in this house, and I might even be bold enough to include the Prime Minister if he were in the house, feels that the question is, what are we going to do about it? Here again I am going to ask you to take a short glance into the past. I would remind you of what happened in 1949, just three and a half years ago. Most of you will remember that in 1948 we had cogent arguments put forth that nothing could be done by way of reducing taxes. In 1949 the minister had quite a task on his hands. He had to distinguish the situation in 1949 from that in 1948, and he had to make a valid argument that after having left us with a lemon in 1948 he could now, in the year 1949, an election year, cut a melon. I will not take you through the minister's various gyrations. They were interesting. He did quite a job of hairsplitting and tightrope walking, but in the end he slipped right off the rope and fell into the real explanation

which appears at page 1795 of Hansard for March 22, 1949, and which reads as follows:
Finally, sir, I should say that I have been led to believe in recent months, as no doubt other hon. members have, that most of the Canadian people would support and even welcome an enlarged measure of tax reduction this year.
You have to admit that is clear. That makes it perfectly clear what the minister is doing. It says virtually in so many words that there is an election coming on and that that is the reason for giving a tax reduction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe we should have an election every year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That would be of course too wonderful. I should like to draw attention to what the ministers have been saying, and I must admit you cannot accuse our ministers of being idle. They have been going up and down the country talking about many things, and very seldom has one of them got up without mentioning the subject of tax reduction. I think that is very natural because they know as well as any of the rest of us that it is in the minds of everybody and that something must be done about it. I go back to July 5 and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). He was very moderate at that time. He did not get as far as they got later. He was restrained in what he said. The headline is, "Pearson Hopes Defence Taxation May Be Cut Within 'Year or Two'
That does not take you very far. That was not very good. On September 10 the Prime Minister was even chillier. He really chilled the people of the country by what he said in Portage la Prairie. He said that Canadians should not look for any big cut in defence bills or taxes as long as present dangers exist. The Prime Minister spoke to us the other day in that frank way of his, but I am always afraid of the Prime Minister when he is being too frank. When he tells you he is not very good at politics I say to myself, "Look out; be careful of that." At any rate in what the Prime Minister said in his speech on September 10 he does not seem, in the judgment of other members of the cabinet, to have been at his political best.
Of course one does not know the considerations which may have been in his mind, but at any rate it was felt that something should be done to improve the situation. A little later the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was speaking in Montreal, and he introduced a word which is very important. I think it was the first time the word "substantially" has been used. I looked up the word "substantially" in the dictionary and it really imports something very big and important. You can do quite a lot in the way of reducing taxes without coming within the four corners
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell of the word "substantially", so there was just a slight note of hope when the Minister of Finance used the word "substantially" on September 23. I find the following in the Montreal Star with respect to what he said at that time:
... we must not delude ourselves with the belief that we can substantially (Mr. Abbott stressed this word) alter the size of the budget or the weight of the tax burden . . .
Well, that was a little better but not much better. Then the genial Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) got into the act on September 29. He carried it one step further, not much but every little bit helps, and every little bit has carried it that much further. According to the report in the Montreal Star of September 29 he said:
The Canadian taxpayer can definitely hope-
Now the word "definitely" comes into it. That is useful too.
-for a tax cut "in a not too distant future" . . .
Well, there was the word "definitely", but on the other hand the "not too distant future" still left it remote. But there are good things to come and I now wish to refer to a dispatch from Ottawa dated October 11, to be found in the Hamilton Spectator of that date. This dispatch followed the visit which the Minister of Finance made to Prince Edward Island. That visit attracted a good deal of attention. I do not see why anyone should be surprised at people going to Prince Edward Island. It is a delightful place to go to, but apparently ministers of finance have not been in the habit of going there. They are strange people anyway, and they have not been in the habit of visiting the island. But the minister went, and his speech there gave a great deal of encouragement to the boys. The account begins like this:
Finance minister Douglas Abbott's speech in Prince Edward Island this week was seen today as the advance glow of a tax-slashing "sunshine budget" . . .
I must admit when you read what he actually said it may not be as clear as people would like, although later on in the article I read the following:
In principle the Abbott speech was regarded as pretty well reversing the Brandon speech of a month ago in which the Prime Minister specifically undertook to discourage any hopes at all of major tax cuts.
So you see there is a further step. Then the writer of the article warms to his work and says that there are two conditions now. A new condition is introduced, increased production. I give the Minister of Finance credit for that. I think that just begins to open the door very wide. How are you going to tie him down to anything there? You now have the door open to a cut provided it is

The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell not too substantial and provided there is increased production. That was in Prince Edward Island just before October 11, but by October 20 the Minister of Finance had got out as far as Vancouver. The air of the Pacific had evidently done him a lot of good, because the account in the Ottawa Citizen of October 20 begins as follows:
Finance Minister Abbott today forecast boosted production-
There you have it. We can have a tax reduction if there is increased production. The finance minister goes out to Vancouver and I find the following account of what he said with respect to increased production:
Finance Minister Abbott today forecast boosted production, virtually assuring Canadians of tax cuts in the next budget . . . Then, referring to the possibilities of a production boost, he added for the first time: "This, I believe, we can confidently expect."
That brings me very near the end, Mr. Speaker, but I think the end is most important because the Prime Minister, who had sounded a dirge-like note only a month before, when he was sounding the election rallying call to Liberals from coast to coast on October 29 also had something much more cheering to say about the matter of taxation. He said, as found in the Ottawa Citizen of October 29:
If we keep increasing our national production,-
There you have it, you see.
-keep strict control of all expenditures, save wherever we can, and do not make too many new demands on government, some relief should be possible . . .
So you see, Mr. Speaker, we are now at the point where the minister will not have nearly as much difficulty in the spring of 1953 as he had in the spring of 1949. He will not have to make all these excuses. He is getting ready now, and I think you have to give him credit for what you might call preparing the ground. The only thing is that I think he should go and tell the Prime Minister not to keep on saying that there has not been any overtaxation. As I say, it would be a very ungenerous man who would not admit that this build-up has been going on; but on the other hand if this is all merely saying that the Minister of Finance can mulct the taxpayers in 1952 in order that he may be generous to them in 1953, then I would say that if the minister comes with his budget speech and asks to be canonized next spring because of giving tax reductions it will be most proper for us to remind him of what has been going on in the last year or two and how he has persisted, despite all the warnings that have been given to him, in wringing unnecessary dollars out of the taxpayers.


In the spring of 1951, contrary to our usual practice and only because the situation was so obvious, we suggested to him that he might forgo the additional 2 per cent sales tax that he was putting on then. We suggested that it would raise the cost of living, as it did. We suggested to him then that the amount which he would forgo by giving it up would in all probability be covered by the amount of his surplus, as it was several times over. Therefore I think we should ask the people of Canada to bear all this in mind; and also to remember-and I think this is relevant too-the extent to which it is in the power of the minister to regulate the actual out-turn as he sees fit.
After all we have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts outstanding in the defence department and the Department of Defence Production. It only needs a little slowing of the tempo of work or the time of payment or both to provide large sums which might be available for the election purposes.
I think we may, consequently, expect and assure the voters that these taxes will be maintained until the political cycle, not the economic cycle and not the needs of the voters, gives the signal and suggests a change.
In other words we may expect a change at the time of the next budget, and if it does not come then we will know there will be no election until 1954. Little Jack Horner must pull out a plum before the voter is asked to give his vote.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I listened very carefully to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) this afternoon in the case he made for the government's contention that there is not any undue waste in the Department of National Defence. He said one thing, however, that causes me concern; that was that a great many of the contracts, particularly smaller contracts that are let by the government, do not pass over his desk and he does not himself give these contracts any scrutiny.
I have before me a Department of Defence Production publication of today showing that the number of contracts let between November 1 and November 15 total some $18 million. Of these only two can be taken as large contracts, totalling just over $5J million. In other words, two-thirds of the $18 million let out in these 120 contracts might be listed as smaller contracts. I think it is absolutely necessary in our system of responsible government that all of the contracts, both large and small, should be given the careful scrutiny of some cabinet minister. If one man only is given the responsibility of checking all these contracts then I think one can say that a great deal of waste is bound to creep in.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support along with other members of this group the amendment placed before the house by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) calling on the government to implement at this ses-si n a nation-wide scheme of health insurance. I hope a little later on to discuss some of the problems that are facing agriculture, but I think the whole of what I have to say might be entitled "security". It seems to me that no matter what some political parties believe, the people of Canada are anxious to have the greatest possible amount of security; security in their jobs, security in the prices of the products they produce, security in their old age, and security in time of ill health.
I think it should be the main responsibility of government at this stage of history to provide those measures of security that a country as wealthy as Canada can so well afford. We have asked the government to adopt a scheme of national health insurance. It has already been said in this debate a number of times that this is not a new idea. In fact we in the C.C.F. cannot claim that health insurance was originally our idea. Certainly the Liberal party had the idea of health insurance as long ago as their convention of 1919. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) last year questioned the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) as to why the Liberal party had not in 33 years implemented its promise of 1919, the Minister of National Health and Welfare replied that surely he could not be expected and the government could not be expected to inaugurate health insurance overnight. Thirty-three years in my opinion is a night that should be far too long even for a stagnant and immobile Liberal party. Surely after these 33 years of darkness it is about time the Liberal party saw the dawn and provided Canada with an adequate health insurance program.
The proposals which were placed before the provinces in 1945 were in my opinion sound. Those proposals, or proposals like them, should now be offered to any province that is willing to go forward and adopt a system of health insurance. We in the province of Saskatchewan are proud indeed of our hospitalization program. If anything was an issue in the Saskatchewan election this year it certainly was not the hospitalization program; because all parties, as they made certain to say-including the Liberal party -were supporting that program.
Our hospitalization program has not been brought about without a considerable cost both to the provincial treasury and to the
The Address-Mr. Argue individual who must pay, as an adult, a maximum of $10 per year for hospitalization. However, if the government of Canada, the Liberal party, were now prepared to implement its own promises of national health insurance, we in Saskatchewan would be prepared to accept that offer immediately and in the shortest possible time we would have a complete health insurance program in our province. 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. 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. No matter what advice the government may receive from the Conservative party, or from the Social Credit party-


Mr. Johnston:: Go easy, now.


Hazen Robert Argue: 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.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, oh; the leader of the Social Credit party said, "Go slow; we do not want to be catapulted into this thing". He said, "Do it gradually".


Charles Edward Johnston: But efficiently.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, efficiently. The C.C.F. say, "Let us do it now". That is the difference in our attitudes.
I also want to support the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that our old age pension legislation is today inadequate. Although we are all proud that our elderly citizens reaching the age of 70 can obtain a pension without a means test, nevertheless $40 a

The Address-Mr. Argue month for our elderly citizens is most inadequate. For a pensioner who has no other source of income, $40 a month today is, in my opinion, nothing less than slow starvation. It certainly is not a pension that is in keeping with the wealth and the production of our nation. A pension of $60 a month at 65, without a means test and adjusted to the cost of living index is, in my opinion, the very minimum that should be provided at this time.
I also want to support the case for the burnt-out pensioner, and urge that the pension should be increased to $60 a month for a single person and $120 a month for a married couple. I would also agree with the proposition put forward by the Canadian Legion that allowable income ceilings should be increased to $1,200 for a single person, and $2,000 for a married person. Certainly those veterans who sacrificed so much in protecting our freedom should be given better treatment than a pension of $50 for a single pensioner and $90 a month for a married pensioner, and they should be allowed to earn without penalty more than the present $10 a month by way of supplementary income.
I feel that there is another ever-increasing gap in our social security program. The Liberal party takes a great deal of credit- and I am not attempting and never have attempted to take away any of that credit- for providing family allowances. But while in 1945 they provided family allowances with one hand, they have been gradually taking them away with the other hand by allowing the cost of living continually to go up without providing corresponding increases in family allowances. If this government believes that their original Family Allowances Act was a good measure, then in my opinion the least they could do would be to protect the purchasing power of the family allowance as first provided by now increasing it by 60 per cent, from a minimum of $5 per month to $8 and from a maximum of $8 a month to $13. Such an increase would constitute a great improvement in our social security program. The money to provide such a program would have to be raised. Probably a good percentage of it could be taken out of the budget surplus if there were no tax reductions made. But I feel that the people of Canada are willing to pay a nominal amount per year, much like an insurance premium, if by so doing they can get adequate protection in time of ill health, in their old age, and if, by so doing, parents will receive some assistance toward providing better food, better clothing and a better education for our young Canadian citizens.


I turn now to a discussion of some aspects of the government's policy in relation to agriculture. I believe that the agricultural producer in Canada also wants security. He does not want an extremely high price for his products one year and an extremely low price another year. He desires stability. He wishes to receive for his products a price sufficient to cover his cost of production and to provide the farm family with a standard of living comparable to that of other Canadian citizens.
The other day the government announced the final payment for the 1951 wheat crop. That payment was greeted with a good deal of commendation from farm organizations; I think they were pleased to receive a payment of that size, particularly when they understood the difficulty the wheat board faced in marketing the lower grades of the previous crop. Their commendation, I believe, went mainly to the wheat board, because I do not think the government can take much satisfaction in the total price paid for wheat produced in the year 1951. The total payment for a bushel of wheat produced in 1951 is no more than the price paid for a bushel of wheat produced in 1945. The final payment for No. 1 wheat produced in 1945 was $1,833 a bushel at Fort William. The price for wheat produced in 1951 is exactly the same, right to the decimal point. Yet from 1945 to 1952 the farmer's cost of production went up some 60 per cent, according to the dominion bureau of statistics figures. In 1945 the cost of production index was 152-1; in 1952 it was 243-2. If the wheat producer today were to receive, in relation to the cost of production, an amount equivalent in purchasing power to the price for wheat produced in 1945, he would receive a price of $2.52 a bushel, or an increase of almost 70 cents.
Some factors in keeping the price of 1951 wheat low have been a direct result of the policy of this government. In the year 194849 the wheat board received, for wheat sold to the United Kingdom and wheat consumed in Canada, $2 a bushel. From September
1949	until October, 1950 the Canadian dollar was devalued 10 per cent. Therefore, all of the wheat sold under the international wheat agreement and the wheat that went into domestic consumption in the early part of
1950	was paid for at the rate of $1.98 a bushel. But exchange controls were lifted in October, 1950, and the value of the Canadian dollar has been increasing since then. We see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and other cabinet ministers going around the country patting themselves on the back and congratulating themselves that the Canadian dollar is worth so much, and is now worth

more than the United States dollar. It may-make some Canadians pleased with themselves, when they travel to the United States, to know that they can obtain a little additional United States currency by way of premium. But the increased value of the Canadian dollar has created a real hardship for the western wheat producer. Now with our dollar worth 4 per cent more than the United States dollar rather than 10 per cent less, as it was, it means a loss to the farmer of 25 cents a bushel on every bushel of wheat sold under the international wheat agreement, and every bushel of wheat sold in the domestic market.
The people of Canada should not now expect to obtain wheat at a price that is 25 cents less than the $2 price the Canadian consumer paid back in 1948. It is not right that, with the terrific increase in the cost of production, wheat alone should be sold at a reduced price.
I have never advocated, and I do not expect I ever shall, an increased price to the . Canadian people that would place a burden on the lower income groups. But if the government feel that $1.74 a bushel is all the Canadian people can afford to pay for the wheat, then the government, out of the national treasury, should make up that 25 cents a bushel loss to the wheat producers. This government does not need to say it is afraid of subsidies; it does not need to say that it has not considered the cost to certain industries of an appreciating Canadian dollar. On Monday, November 24, the Minister of Finance announced that the government was increasing the subsidy to certain gold mining companies. In part he had this to say, as reported at page 16 of Hansard:
During 1952 the industry's costs have continued to rise. At the same time the appreciation in the exchange rate for the Canadian dollar has meant that for most of the year the mines have received a steadily decreasing return from their sales.
He might well have substituted agriculture for the gold mining industry, because the grain producers of Canada, and of western Canada in particular, are in exactly the same position as the gold mining companies. The costs of production of gold mining companies have risen. The price of their product has not risen to the same extent, but indeed has fallen. The Canadian farmer's cost of production has risen. The price for most of the producers' wheat sold by the wheat board has gone down. If the government can afford to pay the gold mining industry a large subsidy to help them dig gold out of one hole in the ground in Canada merely to have it placed in another hole in the ground in the
The Address-Mr. Argue United States, surely equal assistance should be given for the production of food, which to my way of thinking is much more valuable to the world than is the production of gold.
A couple of days ago I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) whether the government would consider making an advance on farm-stored grain. In a nutshell the minister's reply was no. His reasons were that the western grain producer is receiving final payments on his grain, and has sold so far this year somewhat more grain than he sold a year ago.
That answer did not satisfy me, at any rate, Mr. Speaker. The time farmers need an advance on farm-stored grain is when they have grain on the farms. It is as simple as that. There is more grain on farms in western Canada today, that farmers are unable to market, than ever before in the history of Canada. The minister said: "Oh, well, the farmers can go to the banks." A year ago farmers had difficulty harvesting and selling their grain and the minister said the same thing. He then said "The farmers can go to the banks." But in order to persuade the banks to lend some money to the farmers he had to guarantee the banks 25 per cent of their aggregate loans. I have been told, and on good authority, that the wheat pool organization was prepared to advance money to farmers on farm-stored grain for an aggregate guarantee of 2J per cent of the loans made. Instead, the government said: "We will do it through the banks, and we shall make the guarantees to the banks ten times as great as the guarantee asked for by the wheat pool organization."
The average farmer in western Canada today, even though he has 2,000, 3,000 or
4,000	bushels of grain on his farm, cannot go to the bank and get a loan on that grain because the proceeds the farmers will receive when that grain is sold are already committed, already owing in many instances. The average farmer will owe a store bill; he will owe the local implement dealer, the local dealer in petroleum products. He may well have substantial payments coming due on new farm machinery that he has purchased, he will have to pay his taxes and buy his winter's supplies. If the average farmer sold all of his crop tomorrow morning, 24 hours later he would have very little cash on hand because he would have paid his bills in his local town, paid any moneys that were due on the farm, implements, paid his taxes and put a little aside for family supplies and other farm expenses.

The Address-Mr. Argue
The average farmer cannot go to the bank and get a loan because bankers seem to many a strange sort of people in doing business. If you go to a banker and prove to him that you do not need a loan at all, that you have some cash at home, that you have very few debts, he will say: "Fellow, I will give you just about anything you ask for." But if another farmer goes in and says to the banker: "Look, I owe the storekeeper $500 and the oil dealer $500; I owe $3,000 on my new self-propelled combine; I owe $500 taxes, and I have 4,000 bushels of grain on the farm." He will say: "You are not a very good risk; you already owe a great deal. I do not think you need the money." That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that farmers should be able to obtain an advance on farm-stored grain; such provision should be part of a permanent agricultural policy.
The farmer in the United States can obtain a loan on farm-stored grain. I do not think there is any great risk involved at all. Farmers, like other groups in Canada, are essentially honest. They will protect the quality of the grain they have in store. There is not one in a hundred who would make a false application. I can see no reason at all why a scheme could not and should not be set up to provide advance payments for grain stored on the farm. The farmer needs money today. Quite a lot of the business in western Canada is now being done not with money but with wheat as the medium of exchange. I am told that there is one large implement and automobile dealer in the city of Estevan, which is in the southeast part of Saskatchewan, who has already acquired in sales he has made more than 100,000 bushels of wheat. That is an inconvenient and often an expensive way for the farmer to purchase an automobile or a tractor. If the farmers had obtained advance payments at a nominal rate of interest I believe it would not only assist the farmer but would also assist our merchants in collecting their outstanding accounts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To whom does the implement dealer sell the wheat?


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know that, Mr. Minister, but I have this information on what I consider to be good authority. I could give the implement dealer's name, but I would rather do so off the record. However, if I am pressed I would name the dealer, as it was given to me. I believe my information is correct, and if the minister wants it I shall pass it on to him.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The wheat board is debarred from accepting grain from other than bona fide producers, and I should like to know his

name. Perhaps the hon. member would tell me later what the implement company does with this grain.


Mr. Bryce:: An implement dealer might be a farmer, too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: "Might" be.


Hazen Robert Argue: A lot of them are. I do not
want to use my time speculating as to what the implement dealer might do with the grain. He might wait until the quota is open. He might sell it on the quota books of the farmers from whom he accepted grain. But in the meantime, on the best and most reliable information I can get, 100,000 bushels is in store in the city of Estevan, which has been taken to provide payments for farm machinery and automobiles.


Mr. Ferrie:: Would the hon. member give us the name of that man?


Hazen Robert Argue: His name was not given to me in confidence; the practice is general knowledge in that area. I would prefer not to bring any names into the discussion, but will give the name to the hon. member at six o'clock in private, if he wants to have it.
I turn now to discuss another aspect of the government's agricultural policy. The Agricultural Prices Support Act was passed in 1944. In asking parliament to provide $200 million for the purposes of that act the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) pointed out that the farmers had had their prices held down by price ceilings during the war, and he felt there should be adequate floors placed under agricultural prices in the postwar period.
The government has had difficulty in finding markets for many agricultural products. Canada has lost the British market, largely because of this government's policies. Let us consider the government's action in regard to hogs this year. In the early part of the year the support price on hogs was $32.50 per hundredweight for Wiltshire sides at Halifax. In February the government dropped the floor to $26 per hundredweight, with the basis changed to Toronto.
As soon as the farmers of Canada needed a floor price under hogs, as soon as they were offering hogs to the government under that floor price, the minister said, "Well, I must change the floor price", and he reduced it. Hogs are now coming on the Canadian market in considerable numbers, but the export market is almost non-existent. Yet the best the Minister of Agriculture can do is announce another drop in the floor price of hogs to take place on January 1, when thus support price will drop from $26 to $23.

The Minister of Agriculture has been very successful in getting rid of the bulk of our hog-producing industry in Canada. No producer can raise hogs and have any return for his labour and his investment with a floor price of only $23 per hundredweight.
The government has placed a floor of 38 cents a dozen under grade A eggs, plus 5 cents for storage charges payable to the packers. When I was home this summer I noted that throughout the small towns in my province one could buy eggs at 15, 16 or 17 cents a dozen-good, sound fresh eggs. That is not a support price at all. The fact is that while legislation was on the .statute book something happened so that the producer did not receive the support price.
A neighbour of mine shipped twenty hens to market this fall and she received for them a cheque for only $6.20, or 31 cents each. Similar hens in downtown Ottawa stores today are selling for $2 each. Something has happened in between. I do not know who has made the profit, but it certainly has not been the producer.
Cattle prices have been going down, down. Sure; the Minister of Agriculture placed a floor under cattle. After he did that he made a speech at Melville in October in which he said that agricultural prices are being stabilized at the highest level in Canadian history. A couple of days later he went to Estevan, and speaking to the livestock producers there he said, as reported in the Leader-Post of October 24, that he was well aware the producers were not getting the floor price the federal government had anticipated.
That is real double talk. One day he says that prices are being stabilized at the highest level in Canadian history, and two days later he admits the farmers are not getting these support prices. Since the Agricultural Prices Support Act was passed in 1944, according to the latest annual report it has cost the federal treasury something less than $10 million. Yet in the same period the same government paid out $40 million in subsidies to the gold mining industry. Surely, the government should not think four times as much of the gold mining industry as it does of the
750,000	farm families who compose the agricultural industry in Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to go over what I feel is discrimination in the collection of income taxes from farmers in
The Address-Mr. Argue various parts of Canada. I was going to refer, as I have on previous occasions, to the fact that while approximately $6,725,000 was collected in 1949 from farmers in Saskatchewan, for example, in the same year only $51,000 was collected from all the farmers in Quebec. I had hoped to answer some of the statements made towards the end of the last session by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). I can remember him saying that it was difficult to collect farm income taxes in Quebec, but even so in that province the government had only 22 income tax inspectors, whereas in Saskatchewan, where according to the minister it was a simple matter to collect income tax from the farmers, he had 60 income tax inspectors. However, with my time rapidly running out I shall have to leave the discussion of this issue to another occasion.
I think it is well known now by most Canadians that we are going to get at this session a sunshine budget which will reduce income taxes, coming as it does just before the next election. The main reason, yes the only reason, the income tax will be reduced is that the government is going to the country. The Liberal government has a policy of high taxation in its first three years in office, then reducing income taxes just before an election. After the election, whenever they are successful, the taxes go back to their original level and the government starts accumulating for another three years another large surplus so they can introduce another reduction just before the next election.
Before sitting down I want to mention some matters in regard to Canada's position in international affairs. As a member of the United Nations, Canada has taken a strong stand, along with the other democratic nations, in the battle against communism. We have taken a particularly strong stand in the Korean situation. To my mind it is equally important that Canada should take a strong stand in regard to fascism or the concepts of fascism wherever they may rear their ugly head. To be quite frank I was disappointed with the stand taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), Canada's representative at the United Nations, in the vote that was taken on November 21 on setting up of a commission to inquire into race segregation policies in South Africa. I feel that when we have within the last ten years had to engage in a terrible war because of those fascist concepts of racial superiority, followed as they were by racial discrimination, it was a serious mistake for our delegate at the United Nations to abstain from voting, instead of taking his place with the other nations who
158	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Decore were asking for the establishment of a three-man commission to inquire into the race segregation policies of the Malan government in South Africa. I feel it is important that through the United Nations we should do everything possible to remove such racial discrimination policies wherever they may be found.
I have noticed, as I am sure other members have, that the President-elect Eisenhower is going to Korea to attempt to settle the war in that country. Along with other Canadians I am wishing him every success. We hope that the Korean war may be ended in the very near future. I for one hope that General Eisenhower will not embark on the same kind of military adventure as General Mac-Arthur did in taking the United Nations troops almost to the Manchurian border. I hope our government has already advised General Eisenhower that we do not wish to follow the United States or anyone else into that kind of adventure. Anything that is done to settle the war in Korea should be a truly United Nations undertaking, and should not be anything that is done by the United States or any other single nation.
The matter of our defence program, to my way of thinking, is not a political issue. When Canada decided to spend $5 billion over a three-year period to build up our defence program, that action was supported by every political party in parliament. But I feel that if that is all that Canada does in regard to defence against communism, we shall have failed humanity. Obviously I am thinking of our large agricultural surplus of grain and livestock products. It seems to me that one of the best ways to battle communism and win friends for democracy throughout the world is to help these underprivileged countries by supplying needed food. FAO reports have pointed out that two-thirds of the people of the world go to bed hungry every night. That being the case, surely the very least Canada could do would be to spend a sum equal to 10 per cent or even 20 per cent of the amount we spend on our defence program to move surplus food from Canada to help feed the hungry peoples of the world.
I think we could do that on the basis of selfinterest. I think we should do it on the basis of our Christian beliefs. If Canada would do its part, as we surely can in this year 1952, in helping to provide food for the needy peoples of the world, I think we would be playing our part in bringing about that day when there will be peace and good will among men.


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all join with other members of the house in complimenting the mover (Mr. [Mr. Argue.1

Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Although I am more or less a new member myself, I can say that the manner in which these two gentlemen acquitted themselves was certainly in the best traditions of the house. We can look forward to very valuable contributions that will be made by these two gentlemen in due course. I was particularly impressed with the reference made by the hon. member for Waterloo North to the composition of the people in his constituency. Apparently there are people there who came from various parts of Europe at one time but, as he put it, "whatever they may have been at one time they are now Canadians all." I am glad that this conception of Canadian citizenship, of Canadianism, has become deeply rooted in the minds of the Canadian people.
May I now refer, Mr. Speaker, to that sports classic which will take place the day after tomorrow at Toronto varsity stadium between two great football teams, the Toronto Argonauts and the Edmonton Eskimos. May the better team win.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will. Thank you very much.


John Decore: May I tell the hon. member who has interjected that the best team does not always win. I understand from the sports writers that the best team did not win not so long ago, when we thought the best team was the Hamilton Tigers.


Mr. Croll:: We heard the same rumour about the Bombers too.


John Decore: In any event I hope the hon. member will have the opportunity to see that game.


Mr. Murphy:: They are all professionals anyway, not like Sarnia.


An hon. Member:: What about tickets?


John Decore: Somebody is talking about tickets. I can only refer the hon. member to our minister from Alberta, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham).


Gordon Graydon: That is where they all are.


John Decore: I have my own opinion as to the two teams and I strongly believe our team from the west is the best one. My reason for drawing the attention of the house to this particular event is because I feel this is one occasion when the west has an opportunity to meet the east and the east to meet the west. I do not know of any other single event that brings about more good will between the east and the west. As a member who comes from western Canada, it

seems to me that probably the people of eastern Canada-and in referring to eastern Canada may I say that we in the west include the provinces of Ontario and Quebec as part of eastern Canada-do not quite understand us. They do not appreciate some of the many problems we have in the west. They may know something about our agriculture, about our scenic beauty as found at lake Louise and Jasper and on the other side of the mountains, about our oil and natural gas in Alberta, but I do not think they quite appreciate some of our problems-and we have many of them.
In my opinion one of the biggest problems we have in the west is that we lack a larger and more self-sustaining population. It is only some sixty years ago that Edward Blake lamented "an empty west, empty still." Only fifty years ago Sir Clifford Sifton, that outstanding minister of immigration in the Laurier government, made this statement with reference to the western plains when he was speaking at Winnipeg:
We look in the near future to see upon these western plains a great population; not depressed by poverty, but a population characterized in its social conditions by a high degree of comfort and prosperity.
Half a century has passed and the west is still empty. The west still lacks a large and self-sustaining population. If you look at the 1951 census you will find that after fifty years of growth the west has entered into a period of decline. What has happened in the three prairie provinces during the last ten years? If you compare the 1941 census with that of 1951 you will find in the province of Alberta, from which I come, that although there is an apparent gain in the population of some 140,000 it does not portray a true picture of what has actually happened in that province. It does not take into account a very important factor in considering population, the factor of natural increase. By "natural increase" I mean the number of births in excess of the number of deaths. Very accurate figures are available in that regard, and we find that in the last ten years we had a net loss in the population of the province of Alberta of some nine and a half thousand people.
That may not be a very large figure, but if you take the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan the figures are much more disastrous. In the province of Manitoba there has been a net loss of population of over
65,000	and in the province of Saskatchewan there has been a net loss of over 200,000.


John Lorne MacDougall: They all go to British
Columbia.
The Address-Mr. Decore


John Decore: If you take the three prairie provinces you will note that there was a net loss in population of over a quarter of a million people, and that is something I consider to be very serious. In other words,
I am trying to point out that we in the western provinces have not only failed to attract people to these provinces, but we have failed to keep the population that we already had.
Actually we have many resources in the west, but I believe the greatest resource of any province or any country is its population. The reason for the situation in the west is that westerners have migrated to industrial centres such as Toronto or Hamilton. Some have gone to British Columbia or across the border to the United States. All have done so because they were looking for better opportunities. Where there is a greater population there is an opportunity to give greater service and people therefore have better opportunities in industrial centres. That is the reason we have lost our population in the last ten years.
It is true that the period from 1941 to 1951 was a period of buoyant economy and expanding production throughout the nation, but during that period the prairie provinces became heir to the economically devastating depression which took place in the hungry thirties when wheat sold for 18 cents a bushel and cattle at $10 a head, when people were driving the so-called Bennett buggies. That was the situation, and we fell heir to the results of that devastating depression. There is no guarantee that something of that kind will not happen again. If it did it certainly would be most serious for us in the west. The people of Ontario did not feel the economic depression of the hungry thirties as much as we did in the west. In Ontario there are industries. Where you have industries you have a bigger population and farm produce, for example, was probably being sold there at somewhat better prices. In the west we have many resources but our economy is essentially agricultural in nature. As producers of agricultural products, we in the west have been handicapped by distances from markets and by export trade. We have to pay heavy and important levies on everything we ship out and everything we bring in. That explains why there has been such bitter resentment and struggling concerning freight rates in the west. We are fortunate that the Massey commission made certain recommendations and as a result we have certain legislation providing for equalization of freight rates in western Canada.

The Address-Mr. Decore
We have been struggling at all times against the high tariff policies that have existed, and we will continue to do so. The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) made a very important contribution the other day when he spoke on this matter, and especially when he pointed out, among other things, that to buy four new 6.40 x 15 tires in the United States costs $67.16 but in Toronto the price is $129.60. The tires apparently are the same tires made by the same company. There are numerous examples and one could go on almost indefinitely pointing out the differences that exist. We are, of course, fighting against high tariffs.
I agreed also with the hon. member for Charlotte when he said there had been too much criticism from people in eastern Canada regarding the so-called subsidization of farm products. I know that a lot of members of this house, especially those who come from the central provinces, may have difficulty explaining to their constituents the $65 million paid by this government under the five-year pool, but I feel there is no better example of subsidy than what has happened in some of these industries. Actually subsidization of industry is reflected in the difference between prices in the United States and the duty paid value in Canada. I point these things out because we are misunderstood; our problems at times are not quite appreciated the way they should be.
I arrived here in 1949, Mr. Speaker, and after listening to some of the members of the opposition I was impressed by statements they made; but, frankly, if one were to believe everything that was said he would have come to the inevitable conclusion that Canada was going to the dogs. You have heard about the high cost of living. Of course we have had a high cost of living, and the cost of living is still high; but let us not forget that the cost of living has dropped from 191 * 1 to 185-0 and is continuing to drop. You have heard from time to time, and still hear, that the farmer is going to be ruined. We heard complaints about the abolition of resale price maintenance, when it was said that would ruin the small businessman. I have met a lot of small businessmen and so far no one has complained that this legislation has ruined him. We have heard criticism pertaining to foot-and-mouth disease but actually this government should be given credit for having eradicated foot-and-mouth disease in the shortest period on record for any nation in the world.
We hear much about markets. We have all heard since 1947 that Canada is going to be ruined and that we have lost the markets of
the world. The fact remains that trade has expanded to new heights both in value and in volume. Canada has now become the greatest trading nation in the world on a per capita basis and fourth in terms of volume. The year 1952 promises to be the greatest year on record.
You have heard from certain people that we have hitched ourselves to the wrong markets. You heard that from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) who spoke the other day; here is what he said as reported on page 56 of Hansard:
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals are just now beginning to wake up to the fact that they have hitched themselves to the most uncertain market in the world, the most uncertain market for Canada-that is the market in the United States; and for all too long they have neglected to do what ought to have been done to restore Canada to the best market she ever had and the market which she ought to continue to hold if she can in the years to come.
He goes on to say;
I think the government should hang its head in shame over the fact that Britain has had to go behind the iron curtain, to Russia, to the enemy of the free world for a number of things she has had to get such as coarse grain, lumber, and things like that which Canada could very well have supplied.
Let me remind the hon. member for Peace River that since 1946 this government has lent to the United Kingdom the sum of $li billion for the purpose of stimulating trade between Canada and the commonwealth nations. Let me remind him that we are now participating in the Colombo plan, the primary purpose of which is to help those Asiatic countries, and at the same time we are endeavouring to encourage trade there. Let me remind the hon. member that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) are in London right now endeavouring to work out some trade agreement or better trade understanding between Britain and Canada. We also know that the Right Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is going on a trip to several South American countries for the purpose of stimulating trade between Canada and those countries.
What about farm prices? As I say, we have our problems in the west and I have pointed out some of them; but when we compare farm incomes we find that last year's figure was twice as great as that in 1944, and in 1944 production was 50 per cent higher although the returns were only half as great. What about cattle? It is true that we have had this foot-and-mouth disease, yet returns from cattle today are the highest in the history of Canada except for last year, 1951. As I say, we Canadians have had a lot of obstacles and a lot of difficulties. But whether it be inflation, the high cost of living,

foot-and-mouth disease or national emergency, I feel that we can overcome those difficulties, especially with this government.
There are two matters, Mr. Speaker, pertaining to my home constituency to which I should like to refer. I would like to have the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) take them into consideration. The first matter concerns the uncompleted Canadian National Railways line which runs east from Edmonton to Heinsburg. There is a gap from Heinsburg to Frenchman Butte of some 39 miles; that distance is not completed. I drew this matter to the attention of the minister in 1949 when I first came here. I should like just to quote what I said at that time and the reply the minister gave. As reported at page 1233 of Hansard for October 28, 1949, this is what I said:
I want to draw the minister's attention to the Canadian National Railway line which runs east from Edmonton to a point called Heinsburg. It so happens that this railway line runs through a thickly-populated farming area, but there is a gap of some 39 miles from Heinsburg to a point called Frenchman Butte in Saskatchewan. The result is that the farmers' cost of production is considerably higher than it would otherwise be. I understand that the reason this line was not completed was the coming of depression years and the war.
Conditions have now changed. Quite significant developments have taken place along that line which I think are of importance to our Canadian economy. It so happens that along this line the famous Redwater oil field has been discovered. This is the largest field not only in Alberta but in Canada. Farther along the line there is a salt mine which has been developed only within the last year. The result is that there is quite a considerable strain on rail transportation. As the people in my constituency are affected, is the minister in a position to give us any information on whether the Canadian National Railway Company has any intention of completing this gap some time in the near future?
The minister made this reply:
I thank the hon. member for Vegreville for his interest in the unfilled gap between Heinsburg, Alberta and Frenchman Butte, Saskatchewan. The Canadian National Railways have been giving some careful study to this line, not only in 1949 but in
1948	and 1947; and, I must tell my hon. friend, they have it fairly high up in their priority list.
Then he continues further and says:
But I can tell my hon. friend that the discovery of the oil wells and the salt mines are two features which should add considerably to the chances of construction. They certainly should add to the economic advantages. The best I can say at this time is that the Canadian National Railways have the matter under careful review and that they have it fairly high up in their priority list.
I realize that this statement was made in
1949	and that since that time we have been burdened with an extremely heavy national defence program. I also realize that there is a shortage of steel. But I believe things will come back to normal, and I only hope that
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale in the meantime the minister will continue to hold this matter in the same light as he held it at the time when he made that statement, so that when the proper time arrives the project will be proceeded with.
Another point I should like to draw attention to is in connection with an experimental farm in northeastern Alberta. This is a matter which concerns the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I have mentioned this matter before. I brought it to the attention of the house last session, and I felt that the minister was somewhat sympathetic. I pointed out some of the reasons why we feel there should be an experimental farm in northeastern Alberta. To begin with, the closest experimental farm is at Lacombe, which is some considerable distance away. I feel that you can get the best farming methods by taking advantage of the educational facilities afforded by these experimental farms. It may be that these experimental farms have been too greatly centralized, and have been too large. It may be that they should be on a smaller scale and be more numerous, in order to make them more easily accessible to the farmers so they can come in and see what is happening, not only as to experiments but in order to take advantage of the educational values that such farms afford.
As a matter of fact, exactly three weeks ago today the Minister of Agriculture visited the Vegreville constituency and the town of Vegreville. Incidentally I may say that he made many friends there, including a large number who previously voted Social Credit. The minister had occasion to hold meetings with some 40 municipal councillors representing 40 municipal divisions and representing a vast area in northeastern Alberta. He saw the enthusiasm that was displayed at that meeting. I only hope the minister will give this matter further consideration. I sincerely hope that this project may be proceeded with.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, rather than include in my congratulations only the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I want to include most of those who have thus far taken part in this traditional debate, because my personal feeling is that unusual enthusiasm has been brought to bear during the discussion up to the present moment. It might be, of course, that because of the fact that, as is generally agreed, we are in the last session before the election, more effort and more vigour is being employed with regard to the discussions at hand. The vehemence on the part of the supporters of

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale the government seems to lie in the typical direction of whitewashing the government program; and from the standpoint of those of us who are in the opposition, we are more vigorous in our criticisms of government policy. I suppose that is as it should be, or at least that it is inevitable under our party system.
It is, however, almost too much to expect members of the opposition to agree that the government record is without spot and without blemish entirely, as some of those who have spoken in support of the government would tend to suggest. In fact there are so many skeletons out of the cupboard at the present time that it is going to be extremely difficult indeed to bury them. This fact has become increasingly obvious as we have had recent expressions of public opinion from across Canada.
I was impressed by a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) during his remarks the other day. Since coming into the chamber I have found that the Prime Minister endeavours to be fair in most of his remarks, except perhaps sometimes when he finds himself in bad company; and that is inevitable under the circumstances. The observation he made with regard to the role of the official opposition in the chamber impressed me. As recorded at page 34 of Hansard, he said:
... I extend congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition for the very frank, and perhaps some of us may sometimes think severe, criticism of the actions of the government. It is a part of our democratic institutions that there should be someone recognized in our official organizations whose duty it is to watch and criticize what is being done by the advisers of the crown, and I think it is helpful that that should be so.
That is a fair and unbiased appraisal of the role of the opposition. Regardless of the discussion which took place the other day as to ghost writers, I am sure he was speaking from personal experience so far as that matter is concerned. While on the subject of ghost writers-and I notice that it was raised again this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton)- may I say that I think the final word arises from an incident that occurred some time ago in the United States when a politician who had grown accustomed to the habit of relying on the efforts of ghost writers on one occasion found himself placed in an extremely embarrassing position. He had neglected to read the speech before he began to give it. He progressed through pages 1, 2 and 3. Everything was going well until he got to page 4, which he found blank with the exception of one fine at the top. That line said: "You


are on your own, you old windbag; I quit." That is the last comment that should be made in regard to ghost-writing in this chamber.
In contrast to the Prime Minister's reference to the role of the opposition, I find sometimes that more eager and rash members of the government group have a different opinion. It has been expressed, mostly outside this chamber, to the effect that "an opposition member can be of little or no service to the people and can only be, like the leader of the official opposition, an obstructionist and a destructive critic". I am glad to see that the Prime Minister does not agree with that viewpoint. Actually, from what I have already observed in the chamber, I am glad that we do have an opposition group to keep a close check on government activities. I am sure the claim that has been made three times already during this debate by various members is true, namely that whatever can be said concerning the government, it cannot be accused of reckless dishonesty, graft and other similar activities such as sometimes occur south of the border. To back up that observation the Ottawa Journal has been referred to.
Apparently that paper is a journal of considerable reputation, if one is to judge from the emphasis and the confidence placed in it by government speakers. It is significant that that journal on various occasions has declared that the present opposition leadership in this house is the best that Canada has seen since confederation. I am sure if we rely upon the opinion of that paper in one instance, we must accept it as an unbiased opinion in the other.
The members of the government should be very grateful to the opposition in this regard. The reason things are more closely under control in our House of Commons, under our parliamentary system, is that the ministers are directly responsible to the elected representatives, and not as in the United States more or less operating outside of the framework of the elected bodies. In that country the ministers have to report to the electorate only at four-year intervals.
Furthermore, the impact of the opposition criticism can be seen in some of the legislation that is brought in. For example, in the speech from the throne reference was made to fair employment practices; to changes in attitude regarding television; to the abolition of the radio licence, and a rather more solicitous approach to the handling of commonwealth relations problems, all of which have been advocated by members

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale
of the official opposition for some considerable time. We can come to the conclusion, however, that there are still some things that have been left undone, judging from the remarks on this side in reference to taxation, inflation, extravagance, failure to ease means test restrictions on war veterans' allowances and also on pensions for the blind. These are subjects which have come up on several occasions already in this house in this debate on the speech from the throne. I am not going to deal with these matters because they are of general concern to all Canadians, and they have already been dealt with at some considerable length by other speakers. I shall rather, as did the speaker who preceded me in this debate, concentrate on problems that might be regarded as peculiar to the west.
I find myself in sympathy with a good many of the viewpoints expressed by the previous speaker. Because the voice of the west in this House of Commons is rather a weak one from the standpoint of numerical representation, I think that we might well concentrate on our particular difficulties. Not only is it a weak voice; it is growing weaker as a result of what has been referred to by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) as the fairest redistribution ever undertaken in the Dominion of Canada. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am afraid that depends on your own viewpoint. I am sure that my colleague the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) and myself do not agree that it is the fairest redistribution that has been carried out in the history of Canada. As I say, it depends on your own viewpoint.
I do feel, along with the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore), that there is some misunderstanding concerning our problems in the west, and this misunderstanding goes further than the realm of football. The west, along with Canada generally, has been feeling the effects of the industrial revolution, only our boom might be described as a quiet one, rather than one of the gigantic proportions that we see here in central Canada. The main reason for the relative slowness of development of the prairies of course arises from the effects of centralization. Centralization of population has been mentioned tonight, industrial development, and also more recently, since we became faced with the threat of aggression, the distribution of defence contracts. It is fairly generally understood that the bulk of the contracts are finding their way to the industries of the central provinces rather than to the industrial potential on the prairies. I surveyed the situation in my own constitu-68108-Hi
ency before I left, and found that there was very little change so far as defence contracts are concerned.
Then too, of course, we were a long time recovering from the effects of the depression. In the province of Manitoba we have had a government which has established quite a record for longevity. In fact it has broken the record established by this government by a considerable number of years. We have had a government in office continuously since 1922, and it has not been overly enthusiastic in promoting provincial welfare. In fact we might even go so far as to say it has been extremely cautious, but there is a gradual awakening in this regard, and this awakening comes from the civil service more than it does from direct government policy. The assistant deputy minister of the Manitoba department of industry and commerce, in speaking to a chamber of commerce gathering in Swan River, said that Manitobans must become as industrially minded as they are agriculturally minded if they wish to continue to progress. Or, to express it another way, agriculture must accept its new partners, oil and general industrial development. Actually that partnership is well under way in the province of Manitoba.
That is a statement that should be selfevident, particularly during these post-war years, but it does not seem to be so in certain responsible circles. For example, our Manitoba minister speaking recently in Preece-ville, Saskatchewan, criticized the trend toward industrialization on the prairies, claiming it to be a revival of what he termed Tory protectionism, whatever that may be. I think the charge actually arose from a speech made recently by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to Canada's golden future, suggesting that we might better benefit ourselves by processing our own raw material rather than by allowing ourselves to be despoiled. That hits directly at our problem of industrialization on the prairies.
The reasoning behind the minister's statement was to the effect that such local processing of our natural resources would disturb world trade, cutting off the world markets for our agricultural products. As I look at that statement objectively I think it is merely an attempt to revive the old technique of dividing and conquering through the process of arousing regional prejudices. That worked perhaps at one time during the twenties, when the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec were industrializing very rapidly, when certain protective measures were exercised in their favour, and the old cry of protectionism on the prairies had its effect. But so far as I can see from a study of the economics of the prairies, this is as dead as the

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale dodo bird at the present time because, above all else, the west must industrialize if a balanced economy right across Canada is to be developed. If we are going to increase our population so as to fill these vast and wide open spaces, we must have a diversified economy. In so doing we will not be so dependent upon external markets because we will have developed domestic markets, and we will achieve a level of social and cultural development worthy of a country occupying the strategic importance of Canada in the modern world.
I would say that lack of awareness of new trends on the prairies, particularly in respect to this matter of industrialization, is indicative of a lack of leadership in high government circles. I suppose this is inevitable after long years in office. I was quite amazed- perhaps I should not say "amazed", because it is something more or less universally understood-but I was quite impressed, shall I say, when reading that interesting book "The Incredible Canadian" to find that in 1921 the late Mr. Mackenzie King made the same complaint, that the government had been too long in office, had got out of touch with the people, had become arrogant, and that nothing could be done until public opinion spoke, until the people rose up and protested through their votes.
That is exactly what is happening right across this country at the present time. Incidentally that is why, under our British parliamentary institutions, we have the two-party system, so that as one group grows decrepit with age another has grown vigorous in opposition so that it can take its place and carry on the business of responsible government.
In Manitoba we find evidence of the revival of a vigorous community spirit. The movement is coming from the people in Manitoba and the government is being forced into action in spite of itself. For example, in the city of Brandon we have appointed an industrial commissioner. I believe we are the smallest city to become active in this regard. It has all been done on the local community level, with very little inspiration from higher levels of government.
We have traditions of community activity in this country which are interesting. A few weeks ago it was my experience to go down into that small but unique community of Steinbach and, although it is not in my constituency, I was impressed by what I saw there. Steinbach is the centre of a Mennon-ite community and has been referred to as Manitoba's moneyed mile, because of the weaith and prosperity located there. Right from the beginning the citizens of Steinbach have practised the diversified economy that

the rest of Manitoba is only now beginning to appreciate. They did it in face of the fact that they had no railway communications, and still have none, for that matter. Actually what I found in Steinbach was a way of life, because as you approach the city you see two signs, one of which says "Sign of progress" and, close by, the other saying "Believe on the Lord". I think it is the existence of that sort of spirit among the people-they are God-fearing, thrifty and hard-working-that has made that little community one of the most prosperous, on a proportionate basis, in the whole of Manitoba.
I might add, however, that the same spirit is being felt in other areas of our province. Along with this development, which must inevitably come if we are going to occupy our rightful place in the Canadian economy, we have the general story of oil. My desk-mate and colleague, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Nickle) has told the story of oil in a much more capable way than I could and, because of his background and knowledge, is better able to do so. However, those of us in western Manitoba, particularly in my constituency, have encouraging progress to report. In the Daly oil field west of Virden there are now 14 oil wells capable of producing a thousand barrels a day, so I am informed. It is oil of high quality which will produce gasoline and lubricating oil, as well as crude oil. I understand that oil is being delivered directly to the pipe line operating through the area. So we in Manitoba have the resources, we have the power and we now have the fuel. All we need is a bit of encouragement and inspiration from our senior governments. And perhaps, too, we need a boost in human resources, because no matter what we have in natural resources, nothing can be done until we have a population sufficiently large to carry out the developments to be made there in the near future.
This brings me to the problem of immigration, a subject that has been discussed frequently in recent days across Canada. We have various estimates of the potential Canadian population by the end of the century running all the way from 100 million down to 25 million. Judging from those figures we are due for a very rapid increase in population immediately. One of the chief sources, if not indeed the chief, will be through the process of immigration. In Manitoba we have had it drawn to our attention by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver) that he visualizes within the next decade a population of some 100,000 citizens north of 53, where now there are only some 10,000. Certainly there is every encouragement for an increase in population as we view the situation in Manitoba.

Looking at it from the other side of the picture, it would seem that the countries of Europe and the United Kingdom are quite anxious to send their surplus population to our shores. It is estimated, for example, that the United Kingdom alone has a surplus population of approximately 20 million who could be settled in Canada as well as other parts of the commonwealth. I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has spoken on this theme on several occasions and is very interested in the problem because he comes from the wide open spaces of the prairies.
Along with the vacillation and the changing moods in regard to prairie industrialization, we also see government vacillation in regard to immigration policy. This was referred to in an article in Saturday Night a few weeks ago, October 4, written by Mr. Michael Barkway, who referred to statements made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris). It reads in part as follows:
The contradiction between profession and performance has grown wider with each succeeding government statement. Prime Minister St. Laurent has been stumping the country proclaiming that Canada will have a population of 35 million by the end of the century. Walter Harris, the minister directly responsible, is presumably more accurately aware of what the government is actually doing. His prophecy (at London) was a lot more cautious. He forecast 25 million "in the foreseeable future" . . . Deference for his boss, or a misguided attempt to paper over the party's cracks, led to a modified prophecy in a later speech at Montreal. It then became "25 to 35 million people before the end of the century."
The curious contradiction reached a laughable culmination in the official release on immigration in July. July-as Harris had prophesied-showed the first results of the restrictions he introduced earlier in the year. The number of new arrivals was 15 per cent less than July of last year. Their origins were even more drastically changed. The proportion of immigrants from Britain continued the marked increase which started last winter. Last year they were 15 per cent of the total. In the first five months of 1952 they were 23 per cent. In July they were more than 28 per cent.
Now, there seems to be some vacillation in policy, even though it was stated in the minister's speech last July, as I recall, that immigration policy cannot be a stop and go affair. If there is any opposition to immigration it does not come from the prairies, which are urgently in need of population if they are to develop their program of industrialization.
It is interesting to compare this policy with the record of previous immigration ministers in this house, such as Hon. Clifford Sifton. Between 1895 and 1914 Canada doubled her population with the admission of 5 million immigrants. Among the group was my own father, who came over in 1906. I know there are very difficult problems in connection with immigration, just as there are in
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale regard to other situations. Surely, the government which professes to be responsible for the prosperity in Canada at the present time, and all the other wonderful benefits, could find a solution to this difficulty. I know there are problems of assimilation, problems of housing, social welfare, general employment and economic dislocation as the result of an influx of population. We need people,, however. Other countries have surplus population and we have the room. The only obvious solution is a continued policy of immigration.
Again volunteer community effort is expressing itself in this regard. Here perhaps our biggest job is assimilation. We have the Canadian citizenship council in the field, as well as the various groups from the Canadian Legion, the Y.M.C.A. and various church groups who are trying to deal, on a local level, with this problem of assimilating our new Canadian citizens. I am sure that had our community life, the feeling of neighbourliness, not tended to disintegrate as a result of the neglect of municipalities and so forth, there would have been an even keener participation on the local level in this very important problem of immigration.
It of course remains to be said that, notwithstanding the industrialization and the problem of population arising therefrom, agriculture is still the basic industry of the prairies. Our agricultural industry is perhaps not as unstable as it was formerly, but it still suffers from relative instability from time to time. We hear protests from the producers. Before I make some general observations in this regard I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) concerning the P.F.A.A. I have run into some difficulties in connection with farmers who have suffered crop loss from hail damage. There is no possibility of assistance because of the present large areas required under the act. Hail damage is a special problem.
At the present time farm costs are going up and income is going down. I think it is fair to conclude that only a succession of bumper crops has kept the agricultural economy of the prairies afloat. As is well known to the members of the house, the present crop is the largest we have ever gathered on the prairies. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) made a reference the other night to the drop in the price index and gave credit, as is usually the case in observations from that side of the house, to the government. Actually the decline in the price index is at the expense of our prairie producers. Returns from produce are going down and costs are going up.
166	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hinsdale The farmer is even suffering from the high value of the Canadian dollar, because being a producer he is being sacrificed for the American investor.
The lyrical tributes we find in various United States periodicals of recent date are indicative that our friends across the border take a favourable view of the present exchange rate between the Canadian dollar and the United States dollar. It is estimated that out of our bumper crop the farmer will actually receive a half million dollars less than he would have received had the dollar been at par. I am not going to deal with that problem, other than to say that it seems that all down the line the people in the continental west, the prairie people, seem to get into difficulty as compared with the more favourably situated people in central Canada. I say that, regardless of the transition taking place, we still must take an interest in our agricultural economy, and it is not without some reason that the various agricultural organizations on the prairies, particularly the farmers' unions, are now advocating that general discussions be held on agricultural policies.
To sum up my remarks, the difficulties I have outlined with respect to inequitable development across the prairies, concentration in the central provinces, high taxation, extravagance and so forth are inevitable under the present parliamentary situation in Canada. We have lived through three very unhealthy years politically with an overwhelming government majority in the house. We find that by appeals to a broad crosssection of the people on the basis of what you might call phony liberalism, by appeals to state welfarism and expounding the idea that the state can solve all problems, we have developed a situation of political imbalance in Canada. There have been more cautious statements recently, and I was quite impressed with the remarks the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made when he was out west and told the people that you do not get anything for nothing. Seemingly it was a belated return to a more basic liberal viewpoint. However, we still have cries that Canada is enjoying an unprecedented period -*f prosperity which is all due to government beneficence or, as it was put in the chamber yesterday quoting a popular song, "You never had it so good."


An hon. Member:: That was what they said in the United States before their election.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Prosperity is not the only thing in a country. Our prosperity is not unending and we must remember that what we have is almost unique to the North American continent. We actually have an


island of prosperity in a sea of poverty, and our responsibilities are all the greater because of that situation. We must also remember that often nations that have entered into a decline have done so at the peak period of prosperity or, as the poet says:
111 fares the land, to hastening ills a prey. Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.
Therefore prosperity is actually no criterion of the actual state of well-being of a country. We admit there is prosperity. We do not deny the fact. But let me read a quotation from what was said recently by Senator Harry F. Byrd, speaking in the United States. He made what I regard as a very penetrating statement on the problem of centralization in the direction of the superstate, the all-powerful state. He said:
Centralized power and purse breed a sinister political philosophy which scorns frugality, efficiency and integrity; which attaches no importance to waste, debt or immorality; which advocates indefinitely the political formula of tax, spend and elect; and which has no scruples against using public money to influence political decisions.
That is inevitable as long as human nature is what it is and regardless of the political complexion of the party that happens to find itself in office over a long period of time. I came across a quotation in the Rivers Gazette, one of our weekly papers in western Manitoba. It is a parody of the 23rd psalm and reads as follows:
The government is my shepherd, I need not work. It allows me to lie down on good jobs; it leadeth me beside still factories.
It destroyeth my initiative; it leads me into paths of the parasite for politics' sake.
Yea. though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficit spending I will fear no evil; for the government is with me; its doles and its vote-getters. they comfort me.
It prepareth an economic Utopia for me by appropriating the earnings of my grandchildren. It filleth my head with baloney; my efficiency runneth over.
Surely the government shall care for me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in a fool's paradise forever.
I thought this was very appropriate in view of certain developments we have seen south of the border and in this country. Actually it is impossible for a group whose vision is obscured by power to see the difficulties and to accept criticisms of extravagance, unnecessary expenditures and so on. A group long in office is pushed by pressure from all its friends, from the spoil seekers, bandwagon climbers and general camp followers. In the final analysis it is only the sovereign voice of the people that can call a halt. It would seem that the day of deliverance is not too far away.
I should like to refer to another matter outside the main points of my remarks. On the orders of the day today I raised a question

with respect to accepting the offer of the volunteer organizations to carry on welfare activities among our armed forces. In replying the minister indicated that there was no change in policy in that regard. Obviously there is considerable interest throughout the country with respect to the problem, and well there might be because we have achieved a level of recruitment in our armed forces that closely parallels a wartime situation. Church groups have been disturbed about the fact that volunteer welfare organizations have been excluded from participation in the welfare activities among the troops which they carried on so effectively and efficiently during world war II. They established an outstanding reputation with respect to their services.
I was most disturbed to discover from the minister's remarks that there is a principle involved of no change in the present policy and that the former type of welfare service is not going to be operated among our Canadian forces. Because of the reputation established by these organizations during the war, I think the only groups that can adequately serve the troops both abroad and in the numerous depots and military establishments at home are those qualified by experience and actual training. The problem confronting welfare organizations among the armed forces is not necessarily a matter of cigarettes, movies and radio programs, the tangible outward things. It is the intangibles that have to be dealt with among military men who find themselves in a difficult social situation, removed from their families, removed from their churches and removed from general community responsibility.
I strongly suggest that if at all possible something should be done to accept the generous offer of these voluntary organizations. It does not necessarily mean having someone from each organization. They could perhaps pool their resources, but surely from their experience in world war II they have accumulated knowledge that can prove invaluable and thus help to deal with the problem of morale which is so important if we are going to produce strong fighting forces in each of the three armed services.


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks at this stage of the debate will be very brief. They have been prompted by a charge which a member of the opposition made in the debate yesterday against the administration of the national employment service for which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is responsible to parliament. Before proceeding farther, however, Mr. Speaker, I find it a very pleasant duty to join with all speakers who have preceded me in warmly congratulating the mover (Mr. The Address-Mr. P. E. Cote Deslieres) and seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have set for themselves a high standard of discussion which will inspire them both in their further participation in debates in this chamber. I offer them my sincerest wishes for success.
In his speech yesterday the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) resorted, in my view, to tactics which I like to believe will appear outside this house as a hopeless attempt to catch the eye of the public and further the advancement of his party's interests; because it was done without too much concern for the principles of truth and righteousness.
The official opposition has been anxiously searching in the past few months in the administration of various departments for material which they could use to support their irresponsible charges of waste and extravagance by the government. The most they could achieve in their search was to get and put together bits and pieces of information which could give a semblance of truth to their charges against the government, but which in no instance stand the test of conscientious and objective analysis.
The part of the speech by the hon. member for Eglinton which had to do with the Department of Labour received generous hospitality in the columns of the Globe and Mail this morning, but no other paper I know of has carried any reference to it. I would assume that the latter were all convinced of the emptiness of that particular attack of my hon. friend; and if that is their judgment I fully concur.
Since the last war ended our national employment service has made great strides toward improving its machinery and technique for increasing the production of the country by maintaining our labour force at work where it can best serve, and by reducing to the bare minimum the unavoidable periods of unemployment which are characteristic of certain trades and industry in Canada. I could have much to say on that subject but I will leave it for another opportunity in this debate or later in the session.
For the moment I would like to call attention to the Montreal office, which was the office criticized by the hon. member for Eglinton yesterday. The Montreal branch of the national employment service, as is the case with any other branch, is assisted in its work by a local employment committee formed by representatives of industry, labour and the main organizations in the community, both social and business. It is an advisory committee. Their advice has contributed in

The Address-Mr. P. E. Cote the past to the launching of a campaign of publicity and education to develop the trust and eventual co-operation of all parties in industry with the facilities offered by the national employment service. These endeavours have been carried out by means of film showings, newspaper releases, articles, radio talks and personal contacts with employers.
At the Montreal office level, meetings with the advisory committee and other contacts with employers have been followed up during the past five years by the publication of a monthly bulletin. This bulletin is not a publication designed for the public at large. It has a circulation limited to 1,200, 1,000 copies going to the most influential employers of the metropolitan area and about 200 to trade unions, social and business organizations. Often when the bulletin deals with one category of job applicants only, for instance sales and clerical, professional and executive or handicapped and older workers, the bulletin may be sent out to only from 300 to 500, only to those among employers who may have a definite interest in the eventual hiring of that class of applicant. The cost of this bulletin at its very top circulation may run between $20 and $25 a month exclusive of postage. It is in mimeographed form and usually contains from three to five pages. The editor of this monthly bulletin puts together all the resources of his knowledge and ingenuity to make the publication one which will appeal to the employer and be spared from the wastepaper basket for some time at least after it is received.
Usually the bulletin opens with a thought on the plight of the unemployed and the imperative duty for an employer in a country like ours to humanize his handling of employees. The next two or three pages carry a list of job applicants. Their names are omitted purposely and they are referred to by index numbers, by their age and special qualifications. This bulletin issued by the Montreal employment service office has done a great job in the past five years and can still render valuable service. The hon. member for Eglinton may disagree with its editor and the quality of his literature, on the propriety of its quotations or the thoughts which the editor aims to impress upon the minds of employers; but my hon. friend will appreciate from the figures I will give him in a moment that the bulletin in its present form has effectively served its purpose as a liaison agent between the employers and the employment service and as an active factor of effective co-operation between the two.
The total number of placements by the national employment service of Canada for the calendar year 1951 was 926,149. Of that 

total Montreal contributed 113,705 or 12 per cent. In the section of handicapped and older workers falling in that category, for the year 1951 the total placements for Canada have been 14,344, of which Montreal contributed 4,097 or 28-5 per cent. For this year, up to October 30, the proportion is still higher at 29-5 per cent, Montreal having contributed 3,696 placements of applicants in a total for all of Canada of 12,516 handicapped or older workers.
It was with those figures in mind that I interjected during my hon. friend's speech yesterday that Montreal had about the best record in the whole of Canada for the placement of handicapped and older workers. I should now like to get back to what the hon. member had to say of that bulletin which has been an important factor in the successful placement of unemployed in Montreal. Yesterday afternoon, brandishing the last issue of the bulletin in his hand, the hon. member exclaimed, as reported at page 115 of Hansard:
... I hold the government responsible for the profligate waste of the taxpayers' money on rubbish such as this.
The poetry as to which my hon. friend has offered his comment is not new. I am sure it is known to many of the members of this house. In line with the course of action outlined to him by the local employment committee, the editor of the bulletin had chosen that poetry to combat a modern economic tendency by conveying to the mind of management that it is often inhuman to lay off the worker who has reached the age when it will be most difficult for him to find another job. It was intended to be a caution call, a stop and think twice advice to employers who may be about to dispense with the services of an ageing or disabled worker. To be effective, you have to talk to management as well as to labour in a language which will impress them and which they will understand. If the hon. member for Eglinton would now look at this bulletin again and read that poetry, as to which he tried to make so much yesterday, and do it in the light of the information and the circumstances which I have just recited, I am sure he will have altogether different language to use in his comments on it. Fair-minded as I know him to be, he would have only words of praise for the Montreal office and its advisory committee who sponsor this bulletin which costs so little to the public- a mere $20 a month-and which has been so important a factor in the gaining of such an enviable record for the Montreal office in the placement of older workers, handicapped workers and the unemployed generally.

Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to say just a word of comment on certain criticism which the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) made last Tuesday. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) has already replied to one of his attacks. I do not intend to come back to that particular part of his speech. Turning to Hansard, at page 84 I notice that the hon. member, at the opening of his remarks, tried to make an eloquent appeal which is recorded as follows:
I want to deal with a great injustice which exists under the Unemployment Insurance Act and which I believe is long overdue for correction. I am referring to the refusal of the government to pay unemployment insurance which a man or woman has standing to his or her credit when that person becomes incapacitated and is unable to continue to work.
I wish to say to my hon. friend that this matter has been discussed quite often since the act came into operation on July 1, 1941, but the administration have always held to the same course, which is that as long as this act is one to deal with unemployment insurance, there is no possibility that its coverage may be extended beyond the scope which was determined in the act by parliament. This is an act of parliament which has been amended quite often in the past ten or eleven years. This fact will indicate the desire and the readiness of the Minister of Labour and of the administration to improve this act more and more in accordance with suggestions which come from organized labour, management and other responsible organizations in this country.
We are still willing-and I think I can speak for the Minister of Labour in saying this-to try to improve upon what we have achieved in the coverage of this act. We shall do it with the guidance of the unemployment insurance advisory committee which is composed of representatives of organized labour, of industry, and of Canada generally. As we go on I think the country, and labour more particularly, will realize that in this government, and more particularly in the Department of Labour, they have real friends who are anxious to provide social assistance to any extent that this parliament will allow.


Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to congratulate-not because it is the custom but because they deserve it- the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both have discharged their duties in a remarkable way, a fact which justifies the confidence reposed 68108-12
The Address-Mr. Dupuis in them by the government. I also extend my compliments to the two newly-appointed ministers, namely the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Campney). The vast experience which they acquired as parliamentary assistants to ministers of the crown and their wide knowledge of public affairs gives assurance that they will perform their functions to the benefit of their respective departments as well as to the advantage of the community.
By reading carefully the speech from the throne one will notice that it contains suggestions which are proper to the present government; that is, the putting into practice of sound policies, such as those applied in the past, in all spheres of our national activity. *In other words it is a program of future realizations to be added to all the good measures put forward and realized by the present Liberal administration for the good of the people.
The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) has the thankless task of expressing the point of view of his party. He has measured up to expectations. On the other hand the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in his magnificent address, among many other interesting matters with which he dealt, said, as recorded at page 34 of Hansard:
It is a part of our democratic institutions that there should be someone recognized in our official organizations whose duty it is to watch and criticize what is being done by the advisers of the crown, and I think it is helpful that that should be so. For three and a half years now the government has been attempting to discharge the mandate entrusted to it in 1949. It has not had too much time available to answer criticism, but it has always given close attention to criticism and has always been as attentive as it could be to remedy such weaknesses as the criticism revealed.
These words show the real picture of our Prime Minister, and are a reflection of his good faith and intentions. Never has he turned a deaf ear to what he considered to be good suggestions, regardless of the side of the house from which they came. That is what I call real statesmanship.
Let us see how far the government went in the realization of the program submitted for the approval of the electorate in 1949. The Liberal party at that time, as it always had, stood for the social welfare and the unity of all Canadians. In accordance with their declarations the Liberals, once in office, have made it their duty to adopt measures in order to improve the conditions of life of the less fortunate without neglecting the interests of the others. I mention as examples measures such as that extending old age pensions to the category of people of 65 years of age to 70, and also that providing

The Address-Mr. Dupuis for the universal pension to those above that age. They have also increased the veterans' pensions and established pensions for the blind. They have also awarded an increase in wages to the civil servants. The grants to hospitals and contributions to health laboratories or clinics in every province amount to millions of dollars, which indicates the solicitude of the government towards tne improvement of health conditions and adequate treatment in Canada.
This brings me, incidentally, to a part of the amendment moved by the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), concerning a health insurance program, which reads as follows:
We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(a) To recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial administration.
I know that such a program exists in the province of Saskatchewan, and has existed for a few years. It seems to have given satisfactory results. I know that special attention is being given at the present time, and has been for some time past, to the establishment of a similar plan on a national basis; but I am of the opinion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), whose words were interpreted as follows by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), as reported in Hansard of November 26 at page 102:
What the hon. member for Peace River asserted was that we are in favour of a national health insurance scheme, to commence at the earliest possible time; but he cautioned the house against any overeager effort on the part of anyone to catapult this nation or the state into any comprehensive scheme of health insurance or hospitalization before the means are available or the facilities are ready for it. The Social Credit leader indicated that the kind of health insurance scheme which we envision would first ensure that we have sufficient doctors, dentists, technicians, clinics and hospital beds available in order to provide the services for all our people under a national health insurance scheme.
This point of view, which I fully endorse, is real wisdom. I know this government is giving this important matter its constant attention, and I am quite sure that in due time, after surveys have been made and necessary precautions taken, and availability of adequate hospitalization assured, a national health insurance program will be added to the many realizations of the party actually in power.
Now let us come back to what this government has done during its present term of office. Many things were said by the opposition in the discussion on the amendment to the Combines Investigation Act, introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), dealing with fixed retail prices. This measure has
IMr. Dupuis.]
given good results, except with regard to a few low-cost articles and in particular cigarettes, on which the profit is so low. The abolition of fixed prices on medium or high-priced articles has helped in lowering the cost of living.
In addition to many other opportune measures assuring social security, housing has been given special care and labour problems also have found salutary solutions. The St. Lawrence seaway project is under way; so is the trans-Canada highway, and vast projects of public works are under study.
What has been the most important problem for the government is to assure adequate national defence in order (a) to provide the forces to defend Canada against attack; (b) to provide operational and administrative staffs, equipment, training personnel and secure organization capable of rapid expansion; (c) to work out with other free nations plans for joint defence based on self-help and mutual aid as part of a combined effort to preserve peace and to restrain aggression.
I remember in the early days of my coming to parliament speeches from members of the opposition in which they reproached the government for its lack of real leadership in the face of the sad outlook caused by the opening of hostilities in Korea. These members stated in a combined movement of unsound criticism that Canada was not ready to face the situation. Time has shown that this pessimism was manifested only to serve political purposes. The participation of Canada in the united action of all free nations has been beyond all expectations. Although nothing must be spared, our country is ready to face any aggression. We paid the price for such protection and, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said, it is the premium paid for the assurance of the survival of democracy.
All these expenses for national defence obviously cannot be made without carrying with them a heavy burden of taxation. Let the menace of war disappear and taxes will accordingly decrease in proportion. Everyone in this house knows that nearly half of all our revenues serves to assure adequate national defence. How can we slow down our efforts in that direction without endangering the lives of our nation and of our allies. Thank God there seems to be place for hope that the danger of war is less and less imminent. Nevertheless no one would suggest, I am sure, that we should cease immediately to prepare ourselves for the eventuality of an unexpected aggression. Hence we must not foresee for some time the complete disappearance of the taxes imposed for national defence purposes, although we might expect a diminution, owing to the fact

previously mentioned, namely the absence of immediate danger of war. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the one who will be the most happy to reduce taxes is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). First of all, as a citizen, he has to contribute himself; and second, knowing his natural disposition, I can assert that he will not fail to seize the first opportunity to alleviate the burden imposed on the shoulders of the taxpayers. As all observe, we foresee an increase of production and business and undoubtedly, if prospects are such as they seem to be for the coming year, he will certainly take into account this eventual situation when preparing the next budget.
I am pleased to see him a little more optimistic. Let us hope that this optimism presages good news for Canadians in the taxation field. Although sometimes his decisions were not a source of popularity for the Minister of Finance, he has never shifted his responsibilities. He has been the advocate of the pay-as-you-go policy, avoiding a heavy mortgage on future generations.
Since I am talking of the budget for the coming fiscal year, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the necessity of changing the rate of income tax especially for married people and the heads of families. I know that a couple of years ago-not on the eve of an election, mind you-the scale of deduction was increased, but I respectfully submit that there is place for improvement in this connection. Again I also suggest that all revenues derived from stock market profits, or sales of businesses, should be taxed at the source when the transaction takes place. I know of some people selling their stores and properties and realizing a profit of thousands of dollars after only a few years of possession. Fortunes have been realized in stock market transactions without any sort of tax being imposed on the beneficiaries.
I ardently hope that the rate of excise tax imposed on cigarettes will be again decreased, and for many reasons, the principal one being the urgent need of putting an end to smuggling, which has become the greatest competitor of the manufacturers of this product. These manufacturers in certain cases have been forced to lay off some of their personnel. If the expenditures for defence production are to be less and the rhythm of business increased, these suggestions can be put into effect without fear of a deficit.
There is one particular point I wish to bring to the attention of the government, and that is the necessity of studying the opportunity of imposing higher duties on raw materials being exported, if it is at all possible to do so. I shall mention one only, although a 68108-124
The Address-Mr. Dupuis complete revision should be made in respect of other products. I would make particular mention of raw furs, which are bought here at a low price, used on a wide scale in the manufacture of coats and all sorts of other garments, and which are dumped here afterwards at very low prices, due to mass production which is carried out particularly in the United States. The result is that our fur workers are kept idle many months of the year when they could be employed manufacturing these products, if it were not for the unfair competition they cannot meet.
Coming back to the reduction of taxes, one must bear in mind the fact that this would not be possible if the government were to listen to the suggestions coming from the opposite side of the house from hon. members who illogically call for increased expenditures approaching some $600 million and demand at the same time a diminution in taxes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Don't say that.


Hector Dupuis: You do not say that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Don't say we called for
increased expenditures; that is far from the fact.


Hector Dupuis: That is what you have been saying for a long time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; that is what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said erroneously the other night.


Hector Dupuis: I have heard it from you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You heard the Prime Minister say it.


Hector Dupuis: No; I heard your leader, and the hon. member for Eglinton at the same time, proposing all sorts of expenditures while at the same time asking diminution in taxation. I heard that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, you did not hear that.


Hector Dupuis: Well, if you did not say it I am afraid you are going to be reproached by your chief. Enough has been said on this subject, so that I shall not take more time in offering proof as to how inconsistent these suggestions are. It is evident that this kind of opposition is only an attempt to get votes at the next election. Well, let me tell my hon. friends that they are wasting their time, because the people of this country have enough sense to read the minds of these alleged saviours, and to realize their lack of sincerity and seriousness.
An appeal to the people is expected during the course of the next year. Already all sorts of prognostications are in the air. These are not very promising for any of the opposition

The Address-Mr. Dupuis parties, and if there is any doubt in their minds I would refer their supporters to the Gallup poll inquiries which indicate, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Arsenault), that the stock of the Conservative party has dropped even faster than has the cost of living index in this country. The same will be the fate of the other two parties, if the predictions of the article which appears in the Evening Citizen of November 20 are realized. This article was quoted by the hon. member to whom I have just referred, and reads as follows:
There is not just one opposition party, as in the United States, striving to push the government out of power, but three, and no one of them has shown any sign of rising to a really dominant position over the others. The Liberals, on the other hand, have in Mr. St. Laurent a leader whose prestige stands high throughout the country. Especially is this true of his own province, and no Canadian political party can hope to win office without showing marked strength in Quebec.
I understand the opponents of the Liberal party will use the slogan which some people believe contributed in a high degree to the victory of General Eisenhower in the recent American election. That was the slogan "It's time for a change".


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Hector Dupuis: Well, you will not say "Hear, hear" in a while. Just listen to the rest of what I have to say. It's time for a change- not on this side of the house, but on your side-a change in the ideals you have set out in the past, a change in the principles of your party.
What a disillusionment! Everyone knows that the situation created by the Democratic party in the United States through scandals connected with high-ranking Democratic public servants does not apply in Canada, or to this Liberal government. This is the government which held office throughout the last war, handling and spending billions of dollars, and without a single scandal.


Mr. Casselman:: Ten o'clock.


Hector Dupuis: Are you feeling badly already about my remarks? I am just starting. I am just beginning to be myself, because generally I begin to warm up only after I have been speaking about an hour and a half.


Arza Clair Casselman: Do it tomorrow, and you will have more time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that how you beat the Liberal in St. Mary?


Hector Dupuis: I did not beat any Liberal in St. Mary. I was a Liberal myself, and I thought I would be a better representative than my opponent. Some other people thought the same way, and I am here.
In Canada we can depend on the honesty of our public servants, and that of this Liberal government which, during its long term of office, has never been suspected of corruption of any sort. Eisenhower has to his credit a life entirely devoted and heroically consecrated to his country. I wonder if we could find a person with such merit in the ranks of the opposition, so they might feel that they have a chance to take office after the next appeal to the people.
Other factors, such as controversies in connection with the settlement of labour questions, and the part taken by the United States in international affairs, have engaged the attention of our neighbours, and there is no doubt that these factors influenced the verdict of the electors in that country. In Canada the achievement of the Liberal party in all spheres of our national economy is the assurance of the confidence it will receive from the Canadian people. Under the direction of its most worthy chief, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, the Liberal party can face the coming appeal to the people with serenity.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When is it coming?


Hector Dupuis: Well, I think it will be too soon for the hon. member for Eglinton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Bring it on.


Hector Dupuis: Is it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
On motion of Mr. Dupuis the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 28, 1952