1952-11-25

Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) a question regarding the fire at Tofino and censorship-monitoring over government telephone lines-of information coming out of that village. In reply he said there was no censorship of any kind.
I have received information today by wire from Vancouver island which states: "Censorship by R.C.A.F. on west coast became worse today instead of better." Contrary to denials and apologies "a tight veil of secrecy is still maintained". Airmen are confined to barracks, I am informed, and civilians are forbidden to approach the area of the fire. Civilians of Tofino have been instructed by the R.C.A.F. to give out no information and to maintain a strict silence.
The government telephone operator is reported as claiming that she had been instructed that she was to allow no information about the fire to pass through her office at Tofino. However, the divisional superintendent at Vancouver did apologize, I am informed, for the monitoring and said that "he was sorry it had happened". In view of the above it would seem that the minister was not fully informed of all circumstances when he made his answer yesterday that there was no censorship of any kind. I would request that the matter be further investigated so that this house may be fully informed.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if a question of personal privilege was involved in the statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), but in any event if he will table his message I will ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) to inquire into the matter-of course with the signature of the sender.


Mr. Drew:: That was an unnecessary
comment.

On the orders of the day:


George Randolph Pearkes: Before the orders of the day are called, may I have permission to table the telegram I have received from Mr. Seth Halton of Victoria, and requested by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe). I ask the leave of the house for it to be reprinted in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand the telegram was read by the hon. member for Nanaimo?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot allow the telegram to be tabled. I do not think it is a public document. It is not customary to table telegrams.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the Acting Prime Minister has asked that it be tabled. In conformity with that request it is now submitted, and it is therefore appropriate that the telegram be placed on record in the way suggested.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) was reading from a document. I think it is customary when reading from a document in the house that the document be tabled. I hope that will be permitted, but 1 know of no reason whatever why the telegram should be reprinted in Hansard.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Is
that contention of the minister's correct? My understanding is that only when a document has been read by a minister must it be tabled. For example, I do not necessarily have to table a document if 1 read it.


George Alexander Drew: Might I make a suggestion? That problem could be solved by the Acting Prime Minister reading the telegram.


Mr. Speaker:: Probably the member for Nanaimo, if he would like the Acting Prime Minister to read the telegram, could send the telegram to him. Would that be satisfactory?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Randolph Pearkes: I only read some short
extracts from the telegram which I thought

Tofino air base
were pertinent to the case. There is a lot of information in it which the Acting Prime Minister is welcome to read, and which would probably cause some amusement in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo is sending the telegram to the Acting Prime Minister. There is no provision for having the telegram appear in Hansard at this stage.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Yesterday the hon. member for Nanaimo asked me a question, and I could not be in the house when some reference was made to it today. I now have an interim report, but in view of the fact the hon. member seems to have other information I would be glad to get it from the Acting Prime Minister and will make an appropriate reply.
I should, however, supplement what I said yesterday by saying that at present Tofino is little more than a construction camp. Work there has been carried out by a nucleus of R.C.A.F. personnel from No. 2 construction and maintenance unit, Calgary. The rest of the personnel is civilian casual labour raised on the west coast. The R.C.A.F. detachment at Tofino is headed by a junior officer, a flying officer, who is directly responsible to the CMU organization in Calgary.
'It is common practice for information in connection with any of the CMU projects to be given out by the parent unit in Calgary. Accordingly, when the fire occurred at Tofino, personnel there were told that information concerning the fire would be released by the responsible persons at the CMU in Calgary. I understand that the Calgary Herald and a press agency were given all available information.
There is one telephone into the construction camp at Tofino, and as far as the responsible R.C.A.F. personnel are concerned there has been no effort to monitor this telephone, nor has there been any monitoring of the telephone set up at the Calgary unit. Owing to the conditions in the Tofino area the telephone service has been very poor. This is the hon. member's constituency-


Mr. Gibson:: No, it is mine.


Brooke Claxton: No doubt he knows more about the telephone service in this area than I do.


George Randolph Pearkes: Those are government telephones, are they not?


Brooke Claxton: I do not know. At any rate, we have not been able to reach the station by long distance telephone during the last two days to obtain additional information.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935 (payment for farm storage).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: The purpose of this bill is to change the Canadian Wheat Board Act to make it certain that producers in the designated area will be paid the regular storage charge for grain stored on the farm. The determination of the date from which payment is to commence is left to the Canadian wheat board, but the payment of such storage charges to producers is by this new subsection made compulsory.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hazen Robert Argue: for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act (liability of directors).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is it the intention of the government to refer the legislation respecting payment of rural mail carriers mentioned in the speech from the throne to the special committee which the Postmaster General indicated on June 9 would be set up this session?


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: This question is under consideration, and a decision will be made as to the appropriate manner of carrying out the project mentioned in the speech from the throne.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. I am sorry that I did not send him notice of it, but I imagine that he will be able to answer it. In view of the fact that the post office in the city of

Medicine Hat is closed on Saturday afternoons, will he give serious consideration to keeping it open on those afternoons? It is a big handicap to the people to have to come in to the city on Saturdays.


Hon. Alcide Cole (Postmaster General):: I will take the question as notice and see what can be done about it.



QUESTION AS TO PAYMENTS ON FARM-STORED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Will the
Minister of Trade and Commerce give consideration to making an advance to producers, either through the wheat board or some other agency, for farm-stored grain that the producer is unable to market?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no necessity for an advance on farm-stored grain in 1952. The wheat board is in process of distributing $158 million of final payments for the 1951 crop at the present time. Marketings of the 1952 crop are in larger volume than marketings of the 1951 crop were at this time last year. The present crop is of high grade, and therefore the payments to the producer are higher than last year. If additional funds are required, surely the grain stored on the farm or stored elsewhere is security for a loan from the bank, should that be necessary. I should think that this year, of all years, there is small requirement for a payment on farm-stored grain.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon. (Peel):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue? When does he expect the government will be in a position to announce the abolition of the radio licence fee?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minisier of National Revenue):: That question is a matter of government policy, and an announcement will be made in due course.


Gordon Graydon: But it will be abolished.



RATIONING OF AMMUNITION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to direct two questions
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of National Defence of which I have given him notice. First, are tanks used by Canadian forces in Korea so short of ammunition that they are permitted to fire only two shells per tank per day? Second, are Centurion tanks being obtained to replace the present equipment of the Lord Strath-cona's Horse in Korea?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question I can say that during relatively static periods on any battlefront ammunition is rationed in the sense that guns of all types are allowed a certain number of rounds per day. That is so that they can build up stocks either to meet an attack or, as in this case, to meet the possible contingency of an ultimate armistice. We certainly are not going to give the number of rounds per day that are to be fired by any Canadian artillery until they have been fired. The hon. member knows very well indeed that it would be highly improper to do so even if it referred only to the Canadian forces. But in this case our ammunition is supplied from United States sources. We are on the United States supply line and get precisely the same treatment as the Americans get. I am sure that the American military authorities in the United Nations would be the first to refuse this information.
With regard to the second question, may I say that we are always considering possible developments in matters of equipment. The question of possible change from the Sherman tank which we are using in Korea is continuing to receive consideration.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday of last week I was asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) whether I had received any complaint in connection with the transfer of the manager of the Fort Garry hotel to the Canadian National Railway hotel in Brandon. I replied that I had received no complaint. I was also asked whether an investigation had been made. I should now like to reply to that question.
I have not asked for any investigation about the recent transfer of Robert Pitt from the post of manager of the Fort Garry hotel in Winnipeg since this involves a matter of internal management of the railway. Such changes in official staff frequently arise in the course of managerial decision and are necessary to ensure the maintenance of a

The Address-Mr. Low high standard of service and efficiency. The president of the railway informs me that recent changes in managers at the Fort Garry, Prince Edward and Prince Arthur hotels were made as a result of recommendations from the general manager of hotels of the Canadian National Railway system.


Gordon Graydon: Is there not something more to the story than that?
[Later: ]


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Minister of Transport a supplemental question relating to the matter he has just raised in the house. May I ask him if he is satisfied in his own mind with the answer that was given by the Canadian National Railways and that it is just a routine matter so far as the movement of that manager is concerned?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly satisfied that that is a proper explanation. Otherwise I would not have given the answer I gave a moment ago.


Gordon Graydon: Does the minister think that is the whole story?


Mr. Ross (Souris):: He is easily satisfied.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, November 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. L. Deslieres for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, while I was speaking last evening an exchange occurred between me and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) in which it appeared that we misunderstood each other. The hon. member for Ottawa West was good enough to come up to my office to explain the situation; and although I was not there at the time-and I apologize for that fact-I learned his reasons and I now see that what I said certainly did not apply to him. I apologize to him for any injustice that may have been done him from what I said.
Not many months will pass until, no doubt, Canada is again locked in the struggle of a general election campaign. It is that fact which prompts me to make a few comments about certain questionable practices that appear to be taking root in the political campaigning in this country. What I have to say at this moment, Mr. Speaker, depends to quite a large degree upon the accuracy of

reports that I have seen. If those reports are not true, I will certainly stand corrected because it is not my desire to hurt any person or to heap any injustice upon him.
During the week of November 11 in the by-elections in British Columbia, the leader of the C.C.F. sank into what I think is a vile type of campaigning which people generally despise and which they sincerely hope will not become a common practice in this country. He introduced what to my mind was a type of politics which might be acceptable in some countries that have got right down into the gutter, but that type certainly should have no further place than it has had in Canada.
The C.C.F. leader is reported to have declared from a public platform that the new British Columbia cabinet was "steeped in racial prejudice". Reports of his meeting quote him as further saying:
. . . the social credit movement through its leader, Solon Low, has displayed anti-semitism and racial discrimination.
When British Columbia's Premier Bennett called upon Mr. Coldwell either to prove his charge against the British Columbia cabinet or to withdraw it, the C.C.F. leader not only refused to prove or to withdraw but replied with more of the same kind of thing.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege? First of all, I referred to the Social Credit movement, not to the British Columbia government. In the second place, I produced the proof of the statements that I then made.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, that of course puts an entirely different complexion upon what I have to say.
At Courtenay, following the first time that the charges were made, the leader of the C.C.F. repeated the same charges with some additions. Amongst these latter-that is, the additions-were two which concern me greatly, namely:
1.	That he could prove that Low had preached racialism and anti-semitism; and
2.	That Premier Ernest Manning of Alberta "had attacked the worth of the secret ballot".
It is most offensive and repulsive for me to have even to take notice of this depraved kind of politics.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman invited me to correct any misstatements. I am going to correct that misstatement that is made right now.


Solon Earl Low: If the hon. member will give me time to finish the statement, I will issue a challenge to him and give him plenty of opportunity.

Mr. Cold well: Mr. Speaker,-


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the floor; and I may say that my time is limited.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to abide by the rules of the house. The challenge issued to me would not give me the opportunity of replying on privilege. I want to reply, on a question of privilege, to a misstatement which is made.


Solon Earl Low: I hold that there is no question of privilege until I have made my statement.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member has now made it.


Solon Earl Low: I have made only one part of it and I wish to continue. 1 say that it is most offensive and repulsive for me to have to take notice of this-and I repeat it- depraved kind of politics, because I like to occupy my mind with higher and better things. But if we did not take notice, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman might be encouraged to go about the country using the same cesspool methods and claiming that because we did not reply to him we are guilty. By sinking into this type of campaigning the C.C.F. leader was acknowledging the utter inability to answer real social credit claims and policies. He recognized thereby and admitted the inferiority of the C.C.F. More than that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is using quite strong language when he uses the words "cesspool methods". There is no objection from the house, but I think it would be better probably if language not so strong were used in the debate.


Mr. Cruickshank:: That is the kind he uses all the time.


Solon Earl Low: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly withdraw anything that is objectionable to this house. I do not wish in any way to offend, but I want to be just as strong about this matter as the law will allow because, Mr. Speaker, it is most offensive. I will withdraw the word "cesspool". I will say this. In doing the thing that he did in that campaign the leader of the C.C.F. party displayed that the spirit which activates at least a portion of the C.C.F. is the evil and destructive spirit of communism. I deny-


Major James William Coldwell: I object to that statement, Mr. Speaker.


Solon Earl Low: I deny most vehemently that I have ever preached, reflected or displayed in the actions of my life either racial discrimination or anti-semitism.


Major James William Coldwell: I have the proof here.
The Address-Mr. Low


Solon Earl Low: I deny that the British Columbia Social Credit cabinet is steeped in racial prejudice. I deny that Premier Ernest Manning ever at any time attacked the worth of the secret ballot, and I challenge the C.C.F. leader to take the opportunity right here in this house to establish the truth of those charges.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker-


Solon Earl Low: He cannot establish the truth of those charges.


Major James William Coldwell: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared immediately to accept that challenge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The rules of the house do not provide an opportunity at this time for the hon. member to meet the challenge.


Solon Earl Low: I finish by declaring that he cannot establish those charges because they are falsehoods, every one of them.


Major James William Coldwell: I hold the proof in my hand, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps on another occasion the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar will be given an opportunity to answer the charges. As I have previously said, the rules of the house do not provide for an answer to be given at this time.


Major James William Coldwell: May I do it on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: It is not a question of privilege within the rules of the house.


Major James William Coldwell: I will do it on a future
occasion.


Solon Earl Low: That will be wonderful, sir, and we shall be prepared to meet him head on.


Major James William Coldwell: "Head on," my foot.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, in his lengthy speech yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) indicated considerable comfort in what he and quite a number of witnesses he produced thought was the solid strength and vitality of Canada. I believe that the Prime Minister was sincere in what he said. I would not accuse him of insincerity, and I would not want to take away from him, nor try to minimize, any credit that is coming to him for what part he and his government may have played in bringing Canada to the position of one of the leading countries of the world. But while I grant his sincerity, I cannot agree with him in all that he said, that all is as well as he implied. There are a good many things that appear to have escaped the Prime Minister's attention.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members and cabinet ministers, it is a great thrill to an Irishman to see a good battle, even though it has not gone farther than a verbal contest. I congratulate both leaders of the groups in the corner of the chamber on the fight they are putting up. I almost thought I was in British Columbia.
May I extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I thought they did a good job, and noted that they did not forget their own constituencies.
I do not know whom to thank for the honour of being permitted to sit beside a wearer of the Victoria Cross, but I esteem it a high honour indeed. As I think of these two members who wear the Victoria Cross, I pause to wonder at our good fortune that they have been spared to come to us on this side of the river Jordan.
I make this special reference because I wish particularly to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), as well as his deputy minister, Dr. Arthur MacNamara, upon the work they did recently. It will be recalled that Dr. MacNamara was appointed conciliator in a serious strike at the lakehead, one which affected not only the workers and the elevator owners but also the farmers of western Canada. He did an outstanding job for both sides, and there was no strike. That is the kind of work we like our government departments to do.
This brings me to the statement of my belief, that the time is due when strikes should be obliterated. But they will not be

The Address-Mr. Mclvor wiped out until something better is put in their place. We should be able to suggest what it should be. My suggestion would be that industry and business concerns should give their workers fair salaries and a share of the profits. Where this has been tried it has worked effectively, not only to the advantage of the workers but also to the advantage of the government in the receipt of greater taxes, and to that of the industries concerned through higher income.
I have here a letter which deals with the Lincoln Electric Company of Cleveland, Ohio, showing that in that organization the salaries of the workers almost doubled, and that at the same time the company's income doubled, with a resulting increased taxation to the government.
This is the cure for strikes; and when we have men in business, as we have today in Fort William, who are prepared to give this scheme a try, there is hope that strikes will be a thing of the past.
Strikes are like wars in that they are a form of coercion. A strike or a shut-down is simply a use of force, and does not result in good relations between workers and management. Directors of companies would be well advised to consider a situation in which workers and management would share in the profits.
Turning to the speech from the throne, let me say I was one of those who stood in the Senate chamber behind Mr. Speaker for about forty-five minutes when the speech from the throne was delivered in that chamber. Is there any cure? I suggest that the cure would be to have the speech delivered in one language only. I do not think a speech from the throne is any more important than our time of worship in this house. His Excellency the Governor General through the speech from the throne delivers a message from the government to the Senate and to hon. members of this house while our Speaker addresses the King of Kings. If our prayers are delivered in just the one language, why could not the speech from the throne be delivered in English one year and in French the next.
I should like to say a word about the government. I realize that I sit on this side of the house and if I did not agree with the government I would have no business being here. This government has done an outstanding job by having been in power since 1935, during the course of one war and the preparations for another, without there being one accusation of graft in the speeches yesterday. I think the President of the United States should be sending scouts to this country to find out how this government has been
IMr. Mclvor.1
able to do this. I think this is a marvellous performance considering all the contracts that have been let and the amount of money that has been spent.
There are three things in the speech from the throne with which I am greatly pleased. The first is the consideration that is being given to war veterans. I am going to suggest one thing in this connection, that a war veteran in receipt of a pension-the pension is never large-should be allowed to keep a roomer or boarder in his home. This would not hurt the government in any way; it would not take a dollar from the government, in fact it would help the government. I know that some hon. members have read in the Legion's magazine that this practice is denied to certain veterans and they are not permitted to keep boarders or roomers. If they were their small incomes would be supplemented.
I was pleased to see that retired civil servants are going to receive some consideration. I hope that consideration will also be given to the widows of civil servants and that their pensions will be increased.
As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said, the government in carrying out public works is going to employ anybody. I suppose this means that red, white or yellow will be employed provided they do a decent day's work. They will then get a decent day's pay and be employed.
We had a serious accident at the lakehead this fall in the form of a terrible elevator explosion. With your permission I should like to read an article by T. E. Irons of 404 Kingsway, Fort William, Ontario. This man is an elevator worker with considerable experience over many years and he knows elevator work from the inside. I think this article will be a revelation to you as it was to me. It reads:
Way back in 1930 in Port Colbome, Ontario, a grain elevator owned and operated by the Canadian government exploded. The building was badly damaged and there were some workers killed. Not a great deal of significance was placed on the disaster and it was soon forgotten, at least outside of Port Colborne.
In 1944, the Aberdeen elevator at Tiffin, Ontario, exploded, causing great damage and killing six employees. Almost a thousand miles to the west, at the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William, this second explosion caused little stir, despite the fact that these two cities had the greatest concentration of grain elevators on the continent. Such disasters could not happen here. The eastern atmosphere conditions were different and the fact that corn was being handled at the time the explosions occurred was generally accepted as the cause; therefore no undue alarm was in evidence at the lakehead.
A little more than a year passed, then on August 7, 1945 the thing that couldn't happen, did happen. Saskatchewan pool elevator No. 5 in Port Arthur

exploded. The giant building was all but demolished and twenty-three men lost their lives. When the blast occurred, refuse screenings were being loaded into a lake vessel.
This catastrophe created a tremendous stir among elevator men all over the country, and it was unanimously agreed that something must be done to prevent another such disaster. The elevator was rebuilt, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on the installation of the finest dust-collecting machinery that could be obtained, and the best engineering skill employed in an effort to eliminate the danger. They knew the culprit that had caused the destruction and loss of life. It was dust!
For the next seven years it seemed as though they had the problem licked. Then, on September the 24th of this year, without any warning disaster struck again. A few minutes after the noon checkoff for lunch, Saskatchewan pool elevator No. 4A exploded.
Six men died, one of them a member of the crew of the S.S. Bayton which was being loaded at the time with refuse screenings. The building was extensively damaged by the blast and the S.S. Bayton sustained heavy damage from the hundreds of tons of concrete that crashed on her deck. That only one man was killed aboard the boat was a miracle. Had the blast occurred just a few minutes earlier scores of men who had checked out would still have been in the building and the death toll would have been appallingly higher.
Experts from all parts will try to ferret out what caused the fatal blast, but whatever it was that set it off, the culprit is the same as in all previous cases, dust. The best of dust collecting machinery, and the skilful engineering that went into its installation, had failed! What next can be done?
It will be noted that in both of these Port Arthur elevators the explosions occurred during the shipping of refuse screenings. These screenings are just about what the name implies, refuse, and by Canadian government statute the processing of them is forbidden in Canada.
The main content of this refuse screenings is noxious weeds, dust, chaff, and straw knuckles. The danger of noxious weeds finding their way back to the farm in the processed animal feeds is the main reason for the ban, which has been clamped tightly for many decades.
Fortunately for the elevator companies the United States government has no such qualms and American processors buy up all the screenings our elevators produce. Our Canadian government experts are also concerned about the wild mustard seed content in refuse screenings, and frown upon the damage that might be done to the stomachs of livestock after eating the processed article. Livestock in the United States has been fed on it for many years without ill effect, otherwise its use would long since have been banned there also.
Proper and efficient grinding of noxious weeds destroys any tendency to germinate and, if the wild mustard content is too high, this can be reduced by blending with other components that go into the finished product.
We have men in Canada with the knowledge and skill needed to process these screenings into cattle feed and in the light of what has happened to life and property it is time for a drastic change in the present set-up.
First, the government should repeal any and all laws that forbid the processing of refuse screenings in Canada. Not next year, but now. With the green light giving the go-ahead, enough capital would soon be forthcoming to build an up-to-date processing plant at the lakehead. The cost of the two explosions that have already struck would build such a factory many times over.
The Address-Mr. Mclvor
Let us now look at what this would mean. Under present conditions grain elevators have to store refuse screenings until a vast quantity accumulates, before a vessel docks to load it. These large quantities take many hours to elevate to the shipping bins, and only those who have worked at shipping refuse screenings can know how much dust they create. The longer it takes for a shipment to be completed, the heavier the dust suspension becomes, until apparently the dust collectors cannot cope with the overload. Under normal conditions the handling of grain does not produce anything like the dust suspension that refuse screenings do, and the danger point is not even approached. Evidently, during a shipment of screenings, a danger point is reached-not always, but all too often-and a spark is all that is needed to cause an explosion.
Many things may cause such a spark. Pool 4A had magnets that picked up any stray nail or piece of metal that is often found in grain entering an elevator. Unfortunately, stones are sometimes found in the grain and a magnet would not attract these. A stone striking a steel bucket could cause a spark. Static electricity is also suspected, and the experts may come up with something on this. Grain elevating machinery travels at high speed and a steel bucket may become loosened, they sometimes do, and strike the steel casing through which it runs and cause a spark. There is also the careless smoker. And I hope that these disasters never take place through his cigarette causing a spark.
With a processing plant at the head of the lakes, no such protracted shipping would be necessary. One small bin would be all that was needed, and when enough was accumulated, it could be loaded into a box car and switched to the processing plant. This would mean that at no time would the screenings be in process of transfer for more than half an hour or thereabouts, and no great dust suspension would occur in that time.
To prevent the ordinary work of the day being delayed, the screenings could be loaded at night when no other grain is being handled and the amount of dust is at a minimum. If it should appear that the dust suspension was getting too great for safety, the screenings could be shut off and time given for the dust to clear before resuming the shipment. This shutting-down procedure would not work during the loading of a large amount into a boat because the delays would disrupt the whole day's work.
The scheme as outlined in the foregoing is a drastic departure from present methods but no change would be too drastic if it would put an end to these death-dealing explosions.
As long as we have grain elevators, we will have refuse screenings, and looking back at the havoc wrought by it, some other method of handling it safely is imperative. Elevators can be rebuilt, but lives lost cannot be replaced. Whether the suggestions contained herein are acted upon or not depends upon the government.
Mr. Speaker, men lose their lives in these explosions. No amount of dust screenings of wheat will compare with the life of an individual. Therefore, I ask for two things. I ask that these screenings be placed in a separate bin from the elevator. I ask that something be done for the men, that a commission be set up, and that this thing should be thoroughly investigated by the government in an attempt to eliminate the possibility of this ever happening again. Then we ask that the ban on screenings in Canada

The Address-Mr. Mclvor be lifted and that we be allowed to have a processing plant at the lakehead. This explosion created a terrific effect in Fort William and some people are inclined to blame the government. However, you will find that the smaller elevators, especially the elevators near where I live in West Fort William, have had no explosions because they do not allow their screenings to become piled up. It was only when they were piled up in this big elevator of the Saskatchewan pool that the least little thing would cause an explosion and away she would go. So much for the explosion.
There are those in this house who are interested in health insurance, Mr. Speaker. For two years I sat on a committee and we heard experts from all over the world- England, Sweden, New Zealand. A bill was drawn up, and I thought it was a good bill, whereby there would be a contributory pension and an individual could choose his own doctor-the Christian Scientists choosing their own practitioner. Why was it not put in force by the dominion government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The reason was, and the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) would agree, that the provinces would not cooperate and the dominion government had no right to put this scheme across over the heads of the provinces.


Mr. Fleming:: It was never submitted to
the provinces.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: We have some things at the lakehead of which we are very proud. We have several bands and the chamber of commerce thought it wise to send our girls' pipe band-a very large number of girls are in the band and they would be a credit to any city-to Las Vegas, Nevada, for the sixteenth annual convention of the Variety Clubs International. These are the findings of those who were there: Mr. Jacob Kozloff, general chairman of Variety Clubs International: "The girls did a magnificent job- they were so co-operative and pleasant to work with-and we feel that your government should be proud indeed to have such outstanding representatives. The girls' pipe band certainly did more than their share to make our convention a successful one-and we hope we may again have the pleasure of seeing and hearing them in the not too distant future."
Mr. J. J. Chisholm, international delegate and past chief barker of the Variety Club, Toronto, comments: "The girls 'stole the show'. Everybody was extremely interested


in the band and their performance could not be excelled. It made the Canadian delegation feel mighty proud to be Canadians when they saw that splendid band perform. I would definitely go on record to say that they did an outstanding public relations job for Canada and the Canadian government could well afford to subsidize this band and send them on a tour of the United States to help in bringing tourists to Canada. You people at the head of the lakes are to be congratulated on supporting this group of lovely and talented girls..."
The girls are not only fine to look at but they are born musicians. They are a credit to Canada and I hope the government will do something to help them make a tour of the United States.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention one or two things Fort William needs. We need two deliveries of mail a day by our post office.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Who doesn't?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I am one of those who, when the one-a-day delivery was inaugurated, did not get their mail until the afternoon. For one who is not at home in the afternoon it is just like having the mail a day later. I think the time has come when the post office should go back to the two-a-day delivery. Surely the dominion government is not broke. The post office will pay for itself and we should have two-a-day deliveries.
We have difficulties with our Trans-Canada Air Lines service. When you find a double load lining up for the trip east or the trip west then it is time we should have a double line. This is a resolution sponsored by the Fort William city council:
That overtures be made to Trans-Canada Air Lines for an additional daily flight to the lakehead in order to relieve the present passenger space shortage experienced locally for eastbound flights to Toronto and westbound flights to the lakehead from Toronto:
We hope that the management of Trans-Canada Air Lines will take this into consideration.
We have been trying for about seventeen years to get a breakwater in front of island No. 2 and we think it is nearer now than it ever was. I could have had delegations down here to meet the minister concerned but I have not called them as yet. We think the breakwater is absolutely necessary for the protection of logs for our pulp, paper, saw mills and industrial development.
Another need is to have the Pigeon River customs office open the year round for the many people going into the lakehead. An outstanding need which I reported to the

board of transport commissioners is the need for a railway crossing at Raith, on both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National railway. In the winter the children will stand there shivering while a freight train is there, or they will crawl through the cars at the risk of their lives. We believe that this is an absolute necessity, in view of the fact that on the other side of the tracks there is a vast tourist area ready to be opened up.
Of course, we need a federal building in Fort William, but I shall not say much about that now. I wish to congratulate the ministers of the government on the splendid work they have been doing. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) were in the house I would tell him that he and his department have done a good job in cleaning up the foot-and-mouth disease, notwithstanding the fact that some people thought they were slow. This job has been accomplished with more speed than in any other country afflicted with this disease.
I could speak of the work of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and the work he has done in extending hospital facilities. I could speak of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and how he is looking after these big combines and bringing them to book. I could speak of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and the wonderful work he has been doing.
I should like to say a word about the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). He has been receiving outstanding honours. He has been placed in positions in which no one else has been placed up to the present time. I should like to tell the minister that a great honour awaits him on Saturday when he will be appointed by that group of athletes looking after the rugby union of Canada to give the first kick to the ball that will set the game in motion. I congratulate him on this outstanding honour.
I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) upon the great honour bestowed on him, and upon Canada, when he was chosen as president of the United Nations. We admire the minister's ability, his courtesy and his straightforward way in presenting facts. We also admire him for his personal life, clean and manly.
This brings me to something I thought I should have said last year. No one, Mr. Speaker, will accuse me of being a pious sissy, because there is no other man in the house who has had the opportunity of sobering up more intoxicated men than I have had. In fact, I once brought home the principal of a school to spend a week end. Our little girl came trotting in and out and
The Address-Mr. Courtemanche then said, "I wonder why Dad brought that man home, he is not drunk." I will say this. It has been reported to me that before our men go into our international committee meetings they have three or four drinks of something better than ginger ale. I feel that this thing should be cleaned up. Our magistrate will fine a man if he is driving an automobile or a truck after consuming one or two beers. Compare the driving of a truck with driving the machinery of the nation.
It is well known that when some men take three or four drinks they become very happy. They will agree with everything in order to have a good time. Other men who drink believe that they can fight their weight in wildcats. There are still other men who, when they have a few drinks, become temporarily very tragic. They will agree with no one. I do not wonder why the Russians do not agree with anything at the United Nations. If a man wants to drink, let him drink on his own time and at his own expense. Let him go into the committees with a clear brain, his trust in God, and let him do his duty in a way that will be a credit to the nation.
I have one other word of commendation for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The cobalt bomb at London, Saskatoon and other places is doing marvellous work. At the lakehead not long ago there was a young lady who worked for the federal resources department. She was stricken with cancer, and just before she died she requested that a cobalt bomb should come to the lakehead. Through the generosity of someone I cannot name, we expect, before the year passes, that we shall have a cobalt bomb at the lakehead.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having been so patient with me and not calling me to order. I feel it a great honour to represent Fort William, which we think is progressive and clean, and one of the finest cities in Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Henri Courtemanche (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, may I, at the very beginning of my remarks, pay tribute to the memory of one who shed such lustre on politics in French Canada and who represented the constituency of Labelle in this house for a very great number of years. I refer to Henri Bourassa.
Naturally I was not privileged, as were some of those who sit here tonight, to witness the political struggle he led in the federal as well as in the provincial fields. Nevertheless I have the very great honour of being one of his successors as a representative of the constituency of Labelle in the House of Commons.

The Address-Mr. Courtemanche
In 1938, the Minister of Transport made the following statement in the house:
It is not the desire or intention of the corporation at any time to obtain a revenue of over $500,000 from commercial sources for reasons that are obvious.
But the nationalized broadcasting system has become more voracious. It is no more a lamb peacefully cropping the grass. It is a lion always claiming the biggest share, and even going so far as to claim everything.
I find in Relations of July 1947, at page 195, the following excerpt:
The C.B.C. has an increasing appetite, and this is threatening to overshadow its actual services for more widespread broadcasting and better quality radio programs. The private broadcasting organizations are, in this country, a safeguard for free speech. Public opinion must not spare them its support, even if it has to reprimand them severely, when they don't measure up to their standards and shirk their responsibilities. Public opinion must in particular assert its desire to see implemented in facts the recommendations contained in their brief.
The reference is to a brief submitted by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, which was neither the first nor the last of its kind.
Therefore, in 1938, it was agreed that the C.B.C. would limit itself to a revenue of $500,000 derived from commercial advertising and other sources.
In 1940, two short years later, the limit had already been exceeded by $273,521.89; that is to say that the C.B.C. had derived $773,521.89 from commercial advertising. In 1945, they reached $1,639,159.97, or more than three times the amount set as a maximum. At the end of March 1948, the amount had climbed to $1,842,558.29, and at the end of March 1949, it had reached $2,217,129.91. According to the last report submitted by the C.B.C., for the period from April 1, 1951 to March 31, 1952, revenues under "Commercial Broadcasting" amounted to $2,456,431.92. In other words, we are far from the half-million limit suggested at first and we are getting further away from it every day, just as we are getting further away from the original good will of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the grievances voiced by the private stations seem to suggest. The C.B.C. is continuously increasing its dictatorship through a type of competition more unfair and a type of control more unjust than ever before.
It is therefore easy to imagine the spirit in which the C.B.C. received, in 1948, the
IMr. Courtemanche.]
first requests for the establishment of private television broadcasting stations. It was then evident that federal bureaucracy, that had not yet succeeded in nationalizing fully and completely radio broadcasting, was determined to set up a state monopoly in the field of television.
It was then learned that the C.B.C. would not permit private enterprise to establish television stations until it had done so itself and that it would then think about the matter. Several years ago, many private radio stations were ready to enter the field of television without asking one cent from Canadian taxpayers. But the C.B.C. flatly refused to let them do so. That is why we are enjoying television several years after our neighbours of the United States.
The royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences which proved to be so useful to the Liberals in allowing them to launch a new drive for centralization and commit further encroachments upon provincial autonomy has equally served to promote the establishment of a state monopoly or government dictatorship in the field of television.
At page 300 of their report they say:
We think the same principles of national control -those applying to radio broadcasting-should be applied to television broadcasting . . .
The commissioners make, among others, the following recommendations which may be found at page 303:
(a)	That direction and control of television broadcasting in Canada continue to be vested in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
(b)	That the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation proceed with plans for the production of television programs in French and English and for national coverage by kinescope recordings or by any other practical means.
(c)	That no private television broadcasting stations be licensed until the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has available national television programs and that all private stations be required to serve as outlets for national programs.
Mr. Speaker, I claim that the government, even if it is to give us a so-called national television network, has no right to establish in the field of television such a monopoly as that enjoyed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is in the name of culture that efforts are now being made to change the various provinces into mere branches of the central power and it is in the name of patriotism that success is attained in creating a vicious state monopoly.

I pride myself on being as good a Canadian as any member of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and I take the liberty of saying that I am much more afraid of the atheistic propaganda of some of the lecturers who have been invited to speak over the network of the C.B.C. than of that so-called Americanism, against which, with all due deference to them, private television station owners would have protected us at least as well as the directors of the C.B.C.
Are they going to tell us now that patriotism is the exclusive possession of our higher bureaucracy? We take the liberty of thinking otherwise.
What is highly amusing to us is to hear members of the Massey commission, as well as a great number of our leaders, by the way, speaking of the necessity of keeping the C.B.C. free from political interference. Let us take a stroll through the studios of our official broadcasting service. Is it by mere accident that we never meet there with people whose anti-Liberal opinions are well-known, that we often find instead more or less official propaganda agents for Liberal policies?
Now, mind you, that is not particularly shocking. What is particularly galling to me is the fact that the directors of the C.B.C., however competent and honest they may be, are allowed to spend millions of dollars from the public treasury, millions put up by the taxpayers whose representatives are nevertheless deprived of an opportunity of exercising necessary measures of control.
Television will cost us millions of dollars taken from the small wage earner's pay envelope or even from the farmer. And yet private enterprise could have given us television more cheaply; you know that.
In the name of national culture, we prefer to establish a state monopoly, regardless of the price to be paid.
What is the use talking about freedom of information, if television-which is a medium of information-is controlled by the government or, which is worse still, by a government body.
Freedom of the press must not apply only to printed newspapers but also to the talking press, the televised press. Soon the problem of facsimile will arise; facsimile is a printed newspaper transmitted through the medium of improved radio devices. Will the C.B.C. authorize such transmission? Will the con-68108-6J
The Address-Mr. Courtemanche tents be censored? I am afraid that is the least worry of our state radio, for it knows it is always right and that we shall always bow to any of its decisions, however iniquitous and anti-democratic.
Television involves censorship, that is the intervention of the provinces to approve of or condemn the films or other shows shown on television screens. Would it be logical for a picture which has been banned on our cinema screens to be shown in our own homes? One may answer that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation watches over the moral aspect of its broadcasts, that it will see to it that no television broadcast offends our children or our adult population. These assurances are worthless, as evidenced by the past conduct of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Even if such assurances were to be taken seriously, the fact remains that under our constitution the censorship of films and shows rests with the province and not with the federal government or some federal organization.
The monopoly of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the field of television is not going to promote the development of television in this country. Nothing compares with competition as an incentive.
At its beginning, broadcasting in Canada greatly benefited from competition. The C.B.C. disposes of many millions, but it needs the incentive of competition, even of rivalry, in order to function with sufficient enthusiasm.
Let us suppose that Canada had today private television stations, controlled by some unbiased organization, which would not interfere with the running of television stations; if such were the case, not only would television progress more swiftly, but our artists would not be limited to the C.B.C. alone. Through our government's fault, Canadian musicians and actors have lost thousands and thousands of dollars, which they might otherwise have drawn from private television stations.
Last July, the Winnipeg Free Press published a series of articles which had to do with the recommendations of the Massey commission concerning radio and television. Those articles have been translated into French and published in pamphlet form. I shall now quote an excerpt from page 23:
"By its very nature, television makes you think immediately of another means to reach, to inform

The Address-Mr. Courtemanche
and to convince the public. The cost of "direct" television programs may induce operators-when and if there are any, of course-to make use of films most of the time. A link is thus immediately established between television and the national film board, a government institution. It is logical to believe that the national film board will supply most of the films shown to Canadians on C.B.C. television stations. It is expected that these bodies will be prompted by the best of intentions and will succeed in reaching an excellent standard of production. This, however, will only increase the possibilities of propaganda and strengthen the party in power.
"As soon as a government becomes active in the field of communications, it can remain in power indefinitely," warns Mr. Zechariah Chafee Jr., in his book "Governments and publicly owned communications". He goes on to say:
"Zealous administrators will always invent new ways to improve the press according to their own ideals".
Here, we must take the word "press" in its widest new meaning as it is used in the Hutchins report which we have quoted above; then the possibilities become alarming.
Neither do I hesitate to accept the conclusions of Basil Dean, whose texts published in the Calgary Herald have also been translated into French and published in pamphlet form under the title "Freedom of the airwaves". In so far as television is concerned, his conclusions are as follows:
Television in Canada, he writes, will have to be submitted to some sort of control-of course-but not to that of the C.B.C. It should be the same kind of control that is asked for radio-a purely technical control. That control should be exercised by an independent commission, similar to the board of transport commissioners; that commission should assign the radio frequencies and television wave-lengths. That is, after all, the only formal control that should exist.
"Public control must not mean state monopoly over radio and T.V. Canadians must be prudent, cautious, alert in the face of American influence but not to the point of agreeing to rigid state control as a remedy."
We read on the first pages of the report of the Massey commission a sort of dedication, in the form of a sentence quoted from St. Augustine's "The City of God":
A nation is an association of reasonable beings united in a peaceful sharing of the things they cherish; therefore, to determine the quality of a nation, you must consider what those things are.
Our people are fond of liberty. They ask that the fundamental principles of democracy be respected and they oppose all forms of totalitarianism or socialism or state monopoly, even for the sake of culture. (Text):


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment to


the amendment moved by our leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). This amendment is to be found on page 54 of Hansard of November 24, and reads:
We regret further that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(a)	To recommend legislation establishing a nation-wide health insurance program, with provision for provincial administration;
(b)	To implement their proposals to the dominion-provincial conference of 1945.
I should like to call attention to the fact that that amendment to the amendment is exactly the same as the amendment which this group moved under similar circumstances on March 6, 1952, and which is recorded on page 181 of Hansard for that date. That amendment reads:
This house further regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to recommend the inauguration of a national health insurance program, with provision for provincial participation.
The only variation of the two amendments is to be found in the last two words. In this year's amendment the words "provincial administration" have been substituted for the words "provincial participation". I call attention to the similarity or the identity of these two amendments because, as recorded on pages 196 and 197 of Hansard of March 6, 1952, both the Conservatives and the Social Crediters voted for the amendment moved that year. I am sure that the substitution of the words "provincial administration" for the words "provincial participation" is not important enough to warrant the change which quite apparently has occurred this year in the attitude toward this amendment of both the Progressive Conservatives and the Social Crediters.
From the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and of the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Low) it becomes quite evident that they cannot support this amendment to the amendment as they did last year. One is forced to look for a reason and I think he is justified in asking whether the fact that we are one year nearer to a general election has any bearing on the changed attitude toward this amendment of the Progressive Conservatives and Social Crediters. Possibly on some future occasion they will inform us why they have changed their attitude toward the inauguration of a national health program.


An hon. Member:: They have not.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It becomes clear from the speech of the leader of the official opposition and the speech of the leader of the Social Credit party that today the C.C.F. is the only party in this house which is prepared at this

session to support legislation for the inauguration of a national health insurance program. The position of the Liberal party is made quite clear in the speech from the throne which is recorded on page 2 of Hansard of November 20.
The paragraph beginning-
Much has been accomplished since the inauguration in 1945 of the five-year national health grants program . . .
-contains the gist of the government's policy regarding a national health insurance program. It is quite clear from that paragraph that the government proposes to do nothing more than continue the expansion of the work of the health grants program which was instituted in 1948; and that there is no intention, certainly no intention this session, of inaugurating a national health program.
The Conservative position was made quite clear by the speech of the leader and by the substance of their amendment, which amendment is found on page 33 of Hansard for November 24, 1952. The fourth paragraph of that amendment would add to the address the following words:
We regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(d)	To conduct inquiries in consultation with the provincial governments, so that necessary information may be available for the dominion and provincial governments to consider jointly a national health insurance program:
There it is quite clear that all the Conservatives will support this session, as far as a national health program is concerned, is just another investigation, just another report; and my purpose in having these reports brought here this afternoon was that they might be of benefit to the leader of the official opposition. I presume that he probably is not fully aware of all the reports and of all the studies that have been made on this subject in recent years.
I have here on my desk no fewer than thirty reports and all of them with two exceptions have been made since 1945. I have here seven of those reports made by the research division of the Department of National Health and Welfare. There was a report in 1949 and another in 1950. The one in 1949 was a survey of physicians in Canada. In 1949 and 1950 there was a national health program study. In 1949 there was a survey of dentists in Canada. In 1950 there was a study of health insurance in New Zealand; in the same year a study of health insurance in Denmark; in 1950 a study of health insurance in Sweden; and in 1952 another study of health insurance in Denmark.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) emphasizes the fact that there has not been
The Address-Mr. Noseworthy sufficient study in conjunction with the provincial governments. I have here no fewer than six reports or studies made by the provincial governments, and in addition to those there are three others, copies of which I have been unable to secure in our library. In 1949 there was a report on a survey of hospitals in Nova Scotia. In the same year there was a report on a survey of health facilities in Nova Scotia; in 1950 again, a survey of nursing facilities and nursing education needs in Nova Scotia; in 1950 a survey of Alberta's health by that provincial government. In 1951 the province of New Brunswick made a health survey. In 1951 the province of Ontario made a health survey in three volumes. In the same year Saskatchewan made a health survey report, and in 1952 a survey of hospitals, surgery, and a master plan. In 1952 Prince Edward Island made a health survey report. British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec, along with these other provinces, have all within the last few years made surveys of the health facilities available and of the needs. Those studies have encompassed practically every possible field. They have gone into almost every possible angle of this whole question.
Then there were a series of reports presented to the House of Commons committee: a report in 1943 on social security for Canada prepared by Dr. Marsh; in the same year a health insurance report known as the Heagerty report, a voluminous book which I think runs to nearly 600 pages. In 1944 there was a report of the minutes and proceedings of evidence of the special committee on social security, together with its report to the house and a draft health insurance bill.
Then there were reports prepared for the commission on dominion-provincial relations which was appointed back in 1937, and a report in 1939 on public health. There are the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois report in 1940. In addition I have a number of reports, six reports actually, that were submissions to the dominion-provincial conference, compiled in 1945 and 1946. There were proposals of the government of Canada to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction. There is a report entitled "Health, Welfare and Labour", a reference book for the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction. There is another entitled "Dominion-Provincial Submissions at the Conference on Reconstruction". In 1945 there was a dominion-provincial co-operative arrangement, a reference for the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction. In 1946 there was another reference book called "A Health Reference Book". In 1945 there was a report of the national health survey conducted by

concerned did not really believe in socialized health services, a contributing factor to their being dropped was the fact that the federal government did not indicate to the provinces what portion of the costs it was prepared to pay. Even after the 1945 conferences, the 1945 reports, the government has never gone to the provinces with a concrete proposal for the introduction of a national health insurance scheme.
What happened in the federal field? The Liberal party came into power in 1921. Health insurance remained where it started, buried in an omnibus resolution adopted by the national Liberal convention of 1919. Not until 1928 did the Liberal government take the most preliminary of all preliminary steps, namely the setting up of a parliamentary committee.
On May 1, 1929 the second report of this committee recommended that the department of pensions and national health be requested to initiate a comprehensive survey of the field of public health with special reference to a national health program. Three years later, in May, 1932, the dominion council of health was still urging the government to do something about that 1929 recommendation. Health insurance became a matter of some serious consideration to the Liberal government during world war II.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time with a great deal of pride and admiration to speak on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I wish to state at the commencement that I am not going to congratulate the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider). One reason for that is this. Approximately two years ago, although no signed documents were released, it was more or less universally agreed by the house that when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell), and the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) had done that job, sufficient compliments had been paid. With respect to that I hold that I am justified when I make no reference whatsoever to anything other than the good work that was done by these men in moving and seconding the address. It is an anachronism that I believe we can' very well do without. I think that is agreeable to hon. members.
First of all, since I come from British Columbia, I must of necessity, for the record and because of a sense of duty, congratulate the government on the appointment of their

two new ministers, namely the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney). These two dashing cavaliers from the west have earned their spurs in parliament, and I am quite sure that all hon. members will have the same opinion of them a year from now as they hold at the present time. If I may express my view, I believe they will prove to be two of the ablest men in the cabinet of the Dominion of Canada.
Further, I should like to say that it has been customary in royal circles when a king is dead to sing "Long live the King".


An hon. Member:: The Queen.


John Lorne MacDougall: Or the Queen for that
matter, because there is a continuity there that is never broken. In British Columbia we have a king of the Liberal party in the person of the former Minister of Fisheries. But strangely enough we have now two kings in the Liberal party in the persons of the two gentlemen whom I have just congratulated, but the old king is not dead. The old king has now become Canada's ambassador to Japan. In that regard, I believe I should also pay tribute to the government for their selection, because Mr. Mayhew, or His Excellency I suppose is the better term to use now, will, in my opinion and in the opinion of a great number of people across Canada, do a magnificent job in his official capacity in Japan. In this connection there is a subject with which I have dealt many times in parliament. It will be noticed that the government did not select someone 28 to 30 years of age to go to Japan, but rather a man of 70 or 71 years. They recognized his ability, his experience and his good common sense as the requirements which would be sufficient to permit him to do a job for the people of Canada. I am sure Canadians, and the government by which he was appointed, will recognize in him an outstanding man capable of performing a first-class job.
I wish now to make special reference to the matter of age. There are in Canada thousands upon thousands of people who cannot be recognized by the government because they have reached the age of 45 years. Surely a man should not be considered to have reached the end of his real earning capacity when he has reached the age of 45. Under our present civil service system, however, he is debarred from serving in this capacity. That is something I suggest the government should consider seriously, with a view to making an appropriate amendment. Now that we are in an age of terrific scientific development I
The Address-Mr. MacDougall see no reason why those connected with government cannot find a way whereby they can use men and women of 40 or 45 years who are experienced, who have settled down to manhood and womanhood, who are capable of doing a good job for the country, but who are debarred by what I consider is a silly set-up in the rules and regulations governing the civil service. In my opinion the sooner that wrong is rectified, in respect of these men and women, the better it will be for the people of Canada and for the service they receive from their civil servants; the better, too, will it be for the government that makes the necessary corrections.
I shall now discuss the main subjects I had in mind when considering this speech; and shall discuss, too, that which in my opinion is the real function this parliament must perform before its termination. May I now touch upon something which affects our national pride. I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) are not in their seats. However, I see in his seat the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mutch), and I hope he will take cognizance of the observations I am about to make.
In Canada, under the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have some of the finest hospitals to be found anywhere in the world. Also under government control we have some first-class sanatoria. The last time I was in Shaugh-nessy military hospital in Vancouver an amazing thing was drawn to my attention by one of the medical men in attendance. He said to me, "Jack, why do you not raise this question? I suggest that, next time you are in Shaughnessy hospital, you should turn to your right and to your left at the main entrance so you may see the plaques on each side of that entrance". Next time I went to Shaughnessy I took particular note of what was on those plaques. As I entered, I read on one side these words, "This hospital is approved by the American college of surgeons", while on the left side I read, "This hospital is approved by the American nursing association."
I realize that in the past there may have been some justification for the wording of those plaques in military hospitals of Canada, because inspection is a costly procedure. In addition, the royal college in Canada, of which individually and collectively we may be justly proud, is a younger organization than the American college across the border. It seems to me, however, that the time has now arrived when in our military hospitals,

The Address-Mr. MacDougall and, for that matter, in our civilian hospitals, as well as in the various sanatoria across Canada, we ought to be able to put up plaques which would be superimposed on those now in place, which would say, "This hospital is approved by the royal college" and "This hospital is approved by the Canadian nurses association."
I would commend heartily any steps taken by the government to rectify a situation that in my opinion is somewhat debasing to the natural and hereditary patriotism' of Canadians, whether born as such or by adoption.
I wish now to deal briefly with the Canadian National Railways. While I do not speak by way of criticism, if there are some who would so describe what I have to say, then I trust they will accept it as constructive criticism. The Canadian National Railways ticket office in Vancouver is on Granville street, the main street in the heart of the downtown business area. As one walks into that office he is confronted naturally by those members of the personnel of the Canadian National Railways who are constantly meeting the public and selling them transportation to various parts of Canada and the world. A little farther down, and behind the same desk or bar, if one wishes to use that word, is another group of people who have no interest in making sales to the public. In the Vancouver office these persons perform functions of accounting and bookkeeping. I recall vividly that approximately a year ago in that office some new personnel were taken on, among whom was a young lady who in my opinion was both charming and attractive, and who did an excellent job in making ticket sales to the public. Inside the counter, back a distance of three or four desks, is this group of people concerned primarily with accountancy and bookkeeping. What happens is that when the office becomes crowded, customers naturally hold the view that the employees working at the far end of the room should also serve at the counter. When they do not render this service, what is the result? I have seen dozens of people walk out of the office expressing disgust at the fact that the employees at the end of the room were not in their opinion doing a proper job.
Of course that is a completely wrong interpretation to put on the situation. I suggest to the government that it might be well to draw to the attention of the managers of Canadian National Railways the advisability of having some form of partition between those serving the public and those doing accountancy or other types of work. It is not a good thing for the morale of the travelling public to have them think for one minute that personnel of the Canadian National Railways are not doing their jobs


when actually they are doing the work they are called upon to do. I should like to see the government do something about that.
On top of that, there are many people who walk out of the Canadian National Railways office in Vancouver in the belief that their business is not wanted. Then they go down to the Great Northern, which company thus obtains revenue which should go to the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific.
As I sat here waiting on the leash for the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) to complete his remarks I heard him outline what he considered was the prime responsibility of this parliament. I am not going to say that I disagree with him, but I do want to indicate what I think is the prime responsibility of this iparliament. I should like to quote from page 192 of the "Report on Foreign Affairs" for the months of April, May and June, 1952. Referring to General Eisenhower, it states:
The military situation which he had found when taking command had been fraught with danger:
"Just beyond the iron curtain in eastern Europe lay 30 divisions with their supporting squadrons of aircraft. These were only a fraction of available Soviet strength . . . they were still deployed and poised as for war."
The total forces east of the iron curtain amounted to some 60 divisions of the satellite countries and 175 Soviet line divisions, one-third of which were either mechanized or armoured, and an air force of 20,000 aircraft. They were faced in western Europe by less than 15 NATO divisions adequately trained and equipped for war, and fewer than 1,000 operational aircraft, many of which were of an obsolescent type.
I think it is a generally recognized fact that what people do not understand, they oppose. This brings me to my main point in the reference I wish to make to NATO. I am not going into the various phases of NATO because all members know them, but I read that excerpt from that report to show the potential danger to our umbrella of freedom in Canada and throughout the free world.
Of all the things that agitate the minds of the people I think taxation is the main one. No one likes to pay taxes; but if people are not aware that 36J cents of every tax dollar is being spent for national defence and the provision of an umbrella of freedom, in my opinion it is the duty of this parliament to explain that fact in understandable language to the people from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
What is my suggestion as to the means of bringing about a greater understanding of that poignant fact? I suggest that leaders of all parties in this parliament, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Drew), the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) and the leader of the Social Crediters (Mr. Low) get together and make a statement. I do not expect for one moment that they will agree on all details, but I expect and I believe the people of Canada feel that there should be a joint statement given as the voice of parliament with respect to NATO.
I am not suggesting that all the opposition leaders should agree with the government, but I do think there are fundamental facts in, connection with the establishment of NATO upon which all parties and all leaders can agree. There is the question of paying for our national defence. If the leaders of the various parties in this house cannot make the necessary financial arrangements with their parties to cover the cost of a broadcast including a three or four minute statement by each I am quite prepared to pay, not with a rubber cheque but with a stamped cheque, whatever is required to permit the leaders of the various groups to make a statement of this kind to the Canadian people.
My friends, that to me is one of the prime necessities of the twenty-first parliament of Canada. In my opinion the sooner that is done the sooner the Canadian taxpayer will realize just exactly what is happening to 36 per cent of his taxation dollar. It would be foolish or even worse if I were to ask the leaders of the various groups in this house to agree on the best method of providing stability and striking power to the personnel of our army, navy and air force operating under NATO. They may disagree as to the modus operandi, but in the final analysis the goal is clear; and surely in three minutes they can indicate that they agree on the fundamentals. Then they can come to this house and disagree on how that objective is to be attained. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that across the length and breadth of Canada the great mass of Canadian people do not understand what our expenditures on NATO are doing for them.
I had a rather unique experience just a day or two before I left Vancouver with respect to that particular thing. I was buying myself a new hat and as I was about to walk out the door, having procured the same, one of the boys in the hat store said to me: I hope, when you go back to Ottawa, you will try to high heaven to have our tax bills cut. I said: Well, now, how are you proposing that these tax bills should be cut without in some measure jeopardizing the Canadian people's umbrella of freedom? I told him that out of every $100 of taxes $36 went for
The Address-Mr. MacDougall national defence. He said: Well, what about national health insurance? I told him that was something the government and the members of parliament in all probability would discuss at the present session but I warned him: All right, suppose you do have national health insurance-and I said I could not give the exact amount that he was going to pay for a national health insurance scheme -in round and approximate figures in my opinion the cost would be in the neighbourhood of $600 to $700 million. I said: You are asking me to cut taxes in one breath and in the same breath or a subsequent one you are asking for an additional expenditure of approximately three-quarters of a billion dollars. I said that the two things just did not add up and I also said: Remember this. Even if tomorrow a national health program is inaugurated in the Dominion of Canada and if your umbrella of freedom is shot, Uncle Joe will not pay one iota of respect to the amount of money that you, the taxpayer of Canada, have paid in order to bring about national health insurance because, I said, he will simply take over on his own terms- and how.
Before I left the store this chap said: I am glad that you gave me that explanation. He said he had no idea that, despite the heavy taxation he had complained about, the situation with respect to our umbrella of freedom would be jeopardized if we did not spend that amount of money in order to keep us free in a free world, without being taken over by the countries of the iron curtain and their satellites.
Before I sit down I want to reiterate the very necessary service that can be rendered by all political parties in Canada if they will follow the suggestion I have made

that is to agree on the fundamental details, the basic principles of NATO, and speak for the parliament of Canada; not for the government; not for the C.C.F.; not for the Social Crediters; not for the Progressive Conservatives; not for the Liberals, but on behalf of the parliament of Canada. If we can get the people of Canada to understand our great expenditures in order to keep the umbrella of freedom high, keep it virile and keep it intact, then I say to you, sir, and to my fellow members, that we in this parliament whether or not we come back will have rendered the Canadian people a terrific service. Then they will understand something about what this umbrella of freedom means to them individually and collectively from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see that the

The Address-Mr. Hees Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is in the house at the present time because I want to speak about a matter which concerns his department very much indeed. 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.
When a man or woman becomes incapacitated, the unemployment insurance credit he or she has built up is immediately cut off. In doing this the government ignores- three important factors. First, the unemployment insurance credit which a man or woman has built up exists solely because of the contributions which have been made by that person and his or her employer. The government has made no contribution except to administer the act, and the unemployment insurance which 'that man or woman has built up belongs to them by right. Second, the unemployment insurance credit which the employer and employee have built up exists for the sole purpose of maintaining that employee if he or she is unable to find work. Third, there is no time when a man or woman needs the unemployment insurance credit they have built up quite so much as when physical disability prevents that person from working. Not only do they have to maintain themselves and their families, but they have to pay doctor and hospital bills as well.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I drew the attention of the government to this matter when speaking in this house on June 10 last, when I cited an experience of one of my constituents in dealing with the unemployment insurance commission. After building up an unemployment insurance credit of more than $900, this man lost his sight. His unemployment insurance credit was denied to him, and the unemployment insurance commission washed their hands of him completely. He notified me of this fact, and I was able to help him receive payments from his unemployment insurance credit. The payments continued for some time, but while he still had more than $500 standing to his credit, the payments were once again cut off. It appears now that this $500 credit is lost to him for all time.
Mr. Speaker, what I want to know is what is going to happen to that $500 credit? Is it going to be paid out to some other person who did not contribute toward it, or is it to be retained in the possession of the government, who also did not contribute toward it? Another thing I want to know is, who is more


entitled to that $500 credit than the man who created it by making contributions extending over several years? These are questions which the government makes no attempt to answer because -there are no answers.


Mr. Applewhaite:: Because you are wrong.


George Harris Hees: Now, at the meeting where my constituent was told that his unemployment insurance credit was being cut off, it was suggested that he should not bother his member of parliament because he is a very busy man. This is the kind of matter, Mr. Speaker, that all constituents should immediately bring to the attention of their members of parliament. The bureaucrats, however, realizing the injustice of their decision, did not want their actions brought to the attention of someone who might be more interested in human need and justice than the workings of the bureaucratic system. They had disposed of this man's file, and that was all they were concerned with.
After bringing this matter to the minister's attention last June 10, I recommended that the government should introduce an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to right this obvious wrong. The minister -appeared interested in the suggestion, but six months have passed and there is no mention of any proposed change in the Unemployment Insurance Act in the speech from the throne. It is now clear, I believe, that the government has no intention of correcting this very obvious injustice.
On November 4, in the United States, a government was thrown out of office after twenty years because it had lost touch with the people, and after seventeen years in office this government is suffering from exactly the same disease. There is a callous disregard for the needs and aspirations of the ordinary people; appeals for fair play and justice are treated1 with contempt. The government's attitude is that of a government which believes it rules by divine right.
Although an appeal for justice for working people will probably again fall on deaf ears, nevertheless I am going to make it. I urge the government very strongly indeed to introduce an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act which will permit men and women to receive the unemployment insurance credits which they have built up, if a serious physical disability makes it impossible for them to continue earning their own living.


Mr. Gregg:: May I be permitted to make a correction? I am sure my hon. friend would not want it to go uncorrected. He made the statement that the only government payment in respect to the unemployment insurance

fund was that of the administration cost. I would refer him to page 31 of the estimates for this current year which shows that, in addition to the administration costs, a total of $32 million will be payable towards such premiums this year by the dominion government.


George Harris Hees: I am grateful to the minister for his explanation, and I am glad to see he is interested. Does the minister believe that this relatively small contribution which the government does make-


An hon. Member:: What is $32 million?


George Harris Hees: -justifies the government in not paying out, to a person who has contributed for a considerable time to the fund, the unemployment insurance credit he has built up, when physical incapacity makes it impossible for him to continue his work? Does the minister believe that is fair treatment of the working people of this country who contribute every day and every week to this unemployment insurance fund? Would he please answer that question?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not think this is the time to answer questions. I was merely correcting a false premise to the hon. member's argument. I shall be glad to discuss the matter on my estimates.


Mr. Lesage:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Would he ask his fire insurance company to pay his damages if he had a motor car accident?


George Harris Hees: That is the kind of ridiculous statement that you would expect. Any person who is fortunate enough to go through his working life and not be incapacitated is not, so far as I know, expecting to be paid his unemployment insurance. I am speaking of people who, during their working life, become incapacitated, like the man I am speaking about who is lying blind in his home today and who is being paid absolutely nothing out of the more than $500 which is in his unemployment insurance fund, built up by him and his employers.


An hon. Member:: And the government.


George Harris Hees: Does the parliamentary assistant who asked the question feel that man is getting a square deal?


Jean Lesage: If he is blind, he is getting the blind pension which is being paid out of the taxes paid by the Canadian people.


George Harris Hees: This man is not getting the blind pension.
The Address-Mr. Arsenault


Jean Lesage: It is paid out of the taxes which I am paying for blind people, in spite of the fact I do not believe I shall become blind during my life.


George Harris Hees: This man is not receiving the blind pension.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Arsenault:: Mr. Speaker, would you call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish me to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Bona Arsenault: Mr. Speaker, I first wish to extend my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, namely the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Deslieres) and the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider). At the same time I wish to compliment our new colleagues, the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). Their elections were well received and the majority which was given to them by their constituents is certainly significant.
Mr. Speaker, last fall parliament was in session, as we all recall too well, until December 29. Members of this house were then denied the privilege of being home with their families during the week between Christmas and the New Year. Others could not be home for either Christmas or the New Year, and for many it was a tragedy. We were compelled to remain here, day after day, sitting long hours, to witness the stubborn obstruction put up by the official opposition against a government measure to amend the Combines Investigation Act, legislation which was introduced in this house by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) as a contribution towards the reduction of the high cost of living. Time has passed. Almost eleven months have elapsed since those high-blood-pressure days, and ever since facts have proved beyond any doubt that the government was right in bringing forward such a measure which has been a tangible and decisive contribution towards bringing down the cost of living in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

The Address-Mr. Arsenault


Bona Arsenault: I see that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) is smiling.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He is doing more than that. He is laughing.


Bona Arsenault: The records of the last ten months show definitely that during those ten months the cost of living index has dropped eight times.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not on the things that are affected by that legislation.


Bona Arsenault: For the month of January, 1952, the cost of living index stood at 191-5. It dropped down to 190-8 in February, to 189-1 in March, to 188-7 in April, to 186-7 in May. It went up a fraction of one point to 187-3 in June and then to 188 in July, again to follow the trend downward to 187-6 in August, down to 186 [DOT] 5 in September, down to 185 in October, or the lowest level since June, 1951, seventeen months ago. During that same period the cost of living was steadily climbing in the United States.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Bona Arsenault: Certainly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does my hon. friend attribute the decrease in the cost of living to the passage of the government's legislation last December?


Bona Arsenault: The hon. member for Eglinton will recall that on December 18, as reported at page 2160 of Hansard, he stated in this house as follows, and I quote from his own speech:
. . . their proposal-
That is the proposal of the government, -to bring in legislation to ban resale price maintenance, is an invitation to the Canadian people to submit themselves to being fooled and deluded into thinking this legislation is going to bring them a reduction in the cost of their living.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member has to eat those words now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Prime Minister said it would not affect the cost of living.


Bona Arsenault: The members of the official opposition in this house-at least this is what I gathered-were then struggling to capture the imagination of the population of this country in a desperate move to raise the stock of the Conservative party in the public's mind.


An hon. Member:: That cannot be done.


Gordon Graydon: What about the by-elections?


Bona Arsenault: When one reads those lengthy and boring speeches delivered in this


house about a year ago opposing the government legislation amending the Combines Investigation Act, which legislation was devised in an attempt to curb the high cost of living; and when today one analyses the benefits of that legislation and its influence in lowering the cost of living, one does not wonder why it is that the stock of the Progressive Conservative party, as shown by the Gallup poll reports published from time to time, has dropped even faster than has the cost of living index in this country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about the by-elections? What about New Brunswick?


Bona Arsenault: I should ask the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres and the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean to reply to that question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Go back to the six by-elections last June. There were six of them last June.


An hon. Member:: Brome-Missisquoi.


Mr. Lapointe:: Wrong timing.


Bona Arsenault: That is the sanction for displaying abusive political practices in useless efforts to try to undermine the confidence which the population of the whole of Canada had in 1949, has today and will undoubtedly have on the next election day, in the St. Laurent administration.


An hon. Member:: Wishful thinking.


Bona Arsenault: I left that party a long time ago. So much so, that when one looks today toward hon. members opposite, one is asking himself seriously which of the three political groups sitting in front of us will become the official opposition after the next general election. And we are not alone in such speculations. Quoting from an editorial in the Evening Citizen as recently as November 20, I read:
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.
As I have said before, a year ago we were in session, and the policy of the Conservative party then was to try and induce the population of Canada to believe that this government did not want to do anything about the high cost of living. It was their blunder. We now know the results. Today to try and pry up their stock they put emphasis on taxation. On the one hand they are struggling by all means at their disposal inside

and outside of this House of Commons to try and make the Canadian people believe this government is spending too much, while at the same time they themselves, the Conservatives, have voted most enthusiastically the huge amount of $3J billion a year that we are spending for our national security, for the social security of our people and for the carrying charges on our national debt.
Second, only in recent months-as was said by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in this house yesterday-they themselves have proposed increases in our expenditures which, if carried out, would double the present rate of income tax. And third, throughout the years the Conservative party has always taken the stand that we never had enough men and women in our defence forces and that we were never spending enough for war purposes.
On the other hand they are attempting to make the Canadian people believe that this government, and especially and particularly our Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), has stubbornly opposed the lowering of taxes, when they very well know, or at least should know, that no minister of finance since confederation has ever lowered taxes to a greater extent than did our present minister over the years 1948, 1949 and 1950, at a time when our economy was being converted, and at a time when our economy could be converted, from a wartime basis to a peacetime basis.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Briefly, you mean the time of the last election.


Bona Arsenault: Everyone should recall that in the fiscal year 1945-46, when the war ended, our total expenditures amounted to more than $5 billion. By 1949-50 that had dropped to $2-J billion. That is a 50 per cent cut. For example, a married man without dependents, and with an income of $5,000 a year, paid an income tax of $1,378 at the peak of wartime taxation as compared with only $510 in 1949-50. This was achieved by our present Minister of Finance as a result of the policy of a government which certainly does not hesitate, does not object to lowering taxes when conditions permit.
But as we all remember, then came days of anxiety, the cold war, international unrest, international tension and finally, in the summer of 1950, the outbreak of the Korean war, and with these various implications, the greatest threat we were ever confronted with to our freedom, to our security and to the security of the free nations of the world. Overnight the whole situation was completely altered.
The short period of vacationing under the shining sun in low taxation land was over.
The Address-Mr. Arsenault The dark clouds of a dreadful storm of the greatest magnitude were in sight. We were facing the grave and real danger of another world war. Would that third world war break out today or tomorrow? We did not know, and we still do not know. To meet this most serious threat to our security and to the security of the free world, we were compelled, with the other nations of the North Atlantic alliance, to undertake a rearmament program of some $2 billion a year, bringing our total expenditures up from the $2J billion of the early budget of 1950 to the $4J billion budget of April of this year.
Surely, nobody likes paying taxes. But the taxes that we are now paying is the price we ourselves have decided to pay for our own security, the security of the Canadian people; and I am deeply sorry to see the once great Conservative party taking in this house an identical stand to that taken by communist groups in other parliaments of free nations, such as France and Italy, with regard to the common defence effort of the free nations of the world against communism. The communists of France and Italy also find that their governments are stockpiling too much defence material and equipment. They also struggle for a reduction of taxes in what free countries of the world are left, at a time when the fate of the whole of humanity is being played on the poker table of the world. It is my sincere hope that the Conservatives in this house are not unconsciously playing the communist game.


Mr. Fraser:: You have a wonderful imagination.


Bona Arsenault: Out of a budget of $4J billion, $2 billion is our share towards collective security of the free nations against strangulation by communism. This was voted by the Conservatives. Another billion dollars is the contribution of this government toward the social security of the Canadian people, such as family allowances, old age pensions, veterans' pensions and allowances and so forth. This also was voted by the Conservatives.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Tell us about the neckties.


Bona Arsenault: A half billion dollars goes for carrying charges on the national debt, the result of the last two wars and of deficits of past administrations, including the Bennett administration. This was shared by the Conservatives also. The sum of $300 million goes to statutory subsidies and tax rental payments to the provinces, and finally just about $700 million, or only 15 per cent of the

The Address-Mr. Arsenault entire budget, is the amount required by all the other activities of the government such as agriculture, citizenship and immigration, fisheries, justice, labour, mines and technical surveys, post office, public works, resources and development, Canadian mounted police, trade and commerce, transport, railway and steamship services, and so forth.
Now, while some opposition members find taxes quite high, as we all do, yet they will never tell our Minister of Finance where we could make a substantial cut in a specific project or program. We have a most striking example in the case of our friend the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), who only last Friday, as we all remember very well, asked the Minister of Finance in this house whether a special budget would be introduced at an early date in order to lower taxes. Just recently, according to a press dispatch, the same hon. member made a statement to the effect that in his opinion the only solution to the Anglo-Canadian trade difficulties lies in further credits to Britain. Well, I do not question his views. I do not blame the hon. member at all for expressing that opinion but, with many others, I am really astonished to see that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), as anxious as he may be to see taxes reduced, does not seem to realize that more credits or, in other terms, more billions to Britain, would mean heavier taxation for our Canadian people.
Now, are we going to cut down on our two billion dollar defence program, which alone accounts for almost half the total budget, before such time as we can really hope for a peaceful settlement of the many great international problems still outstanding? The Conservative newspaper, the Ottawa Journal, says no; and it adds, in an editorial published on November 21:
The Journal does not know of any Canadian anywhere who objects to paying for the country's defence program.
But what the Journal and some opposition members in this house object to is what they call the stockpiling of certain categories of material and equipment. They find that we have purchased too many raincoats, too many shoes, too many jackets, trousers and overalls, too many blankets, too many neckties and so forth.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear; you got around to neckties at last.


Bona Arsenault: Well, is not the whole defence program nothing more and nothing less than a stockpiling program of major size? Are we not stockpiling aircraft, jet planes,


warships, minesweepers, machine guns, shotguns, bullets, and material such as steel, cotton, wool, as well as equipment such as jackets, underwear, trousers, overalls and shoes, that we may perhaps never use for warfare purposes, just as our American friends are stockpiling billions of dollars worth of atom bombs which, we pray God, may also never be used for purposes of warfare?
But if a real red-hot war were declared tomorrow, and we were compelled in a matter of months to bring about one million men and women into active service, would not that newspaper and those opposition members be the very first to blame the Department of National Defence and this government most forcefully and bitterly for its shortsightedness, if it was then found that we were short of material and equipment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We will not be short of neckties.


Bona Arsenault: I am positively sure that the Canadian people find much more relief in learning about the huge stockpiling the government is doing in their contribution to our defence effort than they would be to learn, through the Ottawa Journal or some opposition members in this house, that in spite of their so generous contribution to our defence program, our army stores were empty.
And this goes without saying, that at any time responsible authorities may declare that we really have a surplus in some of our army material or equipment, the opposition members will be only too glad to support the government in making these surpluses available to some friendly nations of the Atlantic alliance as a contribution to our common security.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Those neckties will certainly be useful.


Bona Arsenault: But where the Canadian people find yet more comfort is in the conviction that all of that huge budget is spent in their best interests by a reliable, efficient and honest administration.
I should like to read again to the house the editorial from the Ottawa Journal of August 27, which has already been placed before hon. members by the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider). This is what the editorial says:
To the eternal credit of our public men, no man in this country today dares to rise and say, or can say with truth, that a single cent of the billions spent was diverted to a private pocket from its proper channel. For our democracy, whatever its shortcomings, that is a glory.

Does any opposition member suggest that we should cut down on the billion dollars we pay for the social security of the Canadian people? Should we cut down family allowances, or old age pensions, or veterans' allowances in order to reduce taxation? Obviously, the answer is no. Can we make a cut in that half billion dollars which goes as interest on our national debt? No, unless we have surpluses which may be used to bring down our national debt. And, fortunately enough, in using our past surpluses for the reduction of our national debt our Minister of Finance is saving the Canadian taxpayers over $5 million a month in interest.
Is there any suggestion that the $300 million that go as statutory subsidies and tax rentals to the provinces should be reduced? Finally, we are left with the $700 million required for all other government services and activities which I enumerated earlier, the total of which represents only 15 per cent of the entire budget.
These are the facts which each member of this house, whether he be on the government side or the opposition side, should have the courage to face. There is no political gain to be made in hiding the truth from the Canadian public.
The Canadian taxpayers do not believe, and will never be misled to believe that, should the Conservative party have been in power since Korea, they would not have been paying any taxes or, if any, very little taxes. The people of Canada will never be misled to believe that the Conservatives are merely a group of magicians who can give something for nothing. These are disloyal and unfair political practices which lead a political party nowhere, or keep it in the wilderness.
Our Minister of Finance, who deserves the recognition and admiration of all true Canadians for his valorous, most courageous and strenuous work in the accomplishment of his duties, has proved before that conditions permitting, he would not hesitate in slashing taxes. He did it in 1948; he did it in 1949; he did it in 1950. And he is just the right man to do it again, at the very first opportunity; that is, as soon as new, favourable, international as well as national circumstances arise which will allow the government of this country to reduce taxes without endangering the security of the Canadian people.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I shall deign to reply to the speech to which we have just listened-


An hon. Member:: We dare you to.
The Address-Mr. H. O. White


Harry Oliver White: -except to say that I do not think the house should cheer when he said that the defence spokesman for the Conservative party, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), a man who wears the Victoria Cross, the Military Cross, and other decorations, is playing the communist game. That is the type of speech we have heard tonight.
I join with others in congratulating the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. This is the traditional speech we hear at every session, and I think the one this year indicates quite well to the house and to the people that we are approaching a time when we may expect one of the cyclical budgets of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). It will be recalled that he promised a reduction in taxes in 1949, and within the next eighteen months we can look forward to another treat of that kind. But the people of Canada have not forgotten the taxes that have been heaped upon them since 1949 and the arbitrary way in which our taxation laws, particularly the Income Tax Act, have been enforced.
We all realize, of course, that we are living in the shadow of possible war. I do not think there is a Canadian who objects to paying taxes for the defence of Canada. What we do object to is waste and extravagance.
There is an old saying that wilful waste makes woeful want, and that is becoming very true throughout the country. We see where the Department of Defence Production has purchased within the past year almost one million dollars worth of broadloom rugs. People do not mind paying for aeroplanes, guns and other supplies for our troops, but I think the people of Canada are getting sick and tired of this arm chair army for which we are buying supplies. As I say, Canadians are prepared to make every sacrifice to prevent war; but, while the budget may be quite a distance off, I think from now on we can look for soft music.
Two things are notable in the throne speech, one for its presence and the other for its absence. One thing I should like to mention particularly is the reference to mail courier contracts. The Conservative party has long pointed out that changes were due in our rural mail service. Last fall many of the Liberal members from western Ontario took part in the debate on the postal estimates, and all mentioned the rural mail service. It was quite obvious that they had been tipped off that changes were going to be made and therefore they had better get in on the ground floor.

The Address-Mr. H. O. White
While I am dealing with this matter I should like to point out to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) that while a change in the system of rural mail contracts has been long overdue, there have been very few changes in the rural mail system itself. This system was set up in the horse and buggy days, and the requirements that have to be met before a rural mail service extension is provided have not been changed. The result is that in many areas farmers still have to go long distances to get their mail. I ask the Postmaster General to realize that not only are we in the automobile age, we are in the jet age and he should step up the tempo of postal deliveries in rural areas.
Another thing noticeable by its absence is the removal of the means test in connection with pensions to blind persons. I do not think I need say anything more, other than that the Minister of Finance was in London not long ago to lay the cornerstone of a new building being erected by the local branch of the institute for the blind.
I noticed recently in the newspapers that at a recent meeting in Ottawa of the Liberal federation it was suggested that the $2.50 licence fee on radios be abolished. The Conservative party have long advocated that, and now that an election is approaching the Liberals are beginning to wise up to the wishes of the people. I do not think the people will forget that we advocated this long ago. This is just another piece of sucker bait for the next election.


Mr. Garson:: It apparently depends upon who suggests it, whether it is sucker bait or not.


Mr. Lennard:: We have said it for years. You had better wake up.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Thank you very much, gentlemen.


Harry Oliver White: There are two far more vital subjects with which I wish to deal, markets and taxes. I do not believe there has ever been a time when the people of Canada were more perturbed and worried about taxes at all levels of government. I just received a statement of how the taxes collected by the township of London in my constituency are spent. Of every dollar collected by the township, 25 cents- goes to the county, 45 cents goes to the schools and the township has only 30 cents for its own purposes.
I should like to indicate how municipal taxes have gone up; and at this time I should like to commend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) for the practical approach to this problem which he indicated in the speech he delivered yesterday. The farm I am going


to give as an example is known as Weldwood farm; it is located in the township of Westminster and consists of 212 acres. In 1946 the municipal taxes on this farm were $252; in 1952 they were $750.42. Farm land is not going to be able to carry such a burden of taxation, particularly with the falling prices for agricultural products. This situation is becoming so serious that municipal authorities -all over the country are becoming quite worried. I shall say more about this matter later when I deal with the question of power. I mention it now just to show the serious -situation of our municipalities.
Yesterday my leader referred to the fact that the cost of civil -defence falls entirely upon -the municipality. In addition the municipality must pay a sa-les -tax on whatever goods it is required to buy. Should there be any amount of unemployment the municipalities will be saddled with further expense at a time when many of them will have lessened incomes.
So they are in a very serious situation. I think the seriousness of -the situation was evidenced by the remarks made by the Minister -of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in the west some time ago, but it was not evidenced in his desire to find a market for surplus farm products. His remarks were designed to find a scapegoat on whom to lay the blame. In that speech, as reported by the press, he was blaming President-elect Eisenhower, and I suppose before this session is over he will blame the late R. B. Bennett, he will blame George Drew and he will blame the Conservative party. But Canadians generally are getting wised up to that and are not going to fall for it. Canadians will not soon forget how long this party has been in power, and that year after year markets for our natural products of the farms, the fisheries and forests have slowly but surely disappeared.
Paragraph 6 of the speech from the throne has to do with the commonwealth prime ministers' conference now convening in Great Britain. I think it is-I was going to say timely-but it too is long overdue, because many sessions ago I said that the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should be able to trade together because the military alliance would not last long if those people were not able to trade with each other.
I might -also point out that if we expect Britain to buy our farm products we must also buy from them in turn. Yesterday it was pointed out how our exports have grown. True, dollar values have grown, and many strategic war materials and other scarce commodities are in great demand, but

not so the products of the forests, of the fisheries and of the farms. They have followed a very different pattern, and that economy is built on a rather false hope because, should the possibility of war diminish and the purchase of those strategic materials by other countries cease, we would certainly be in a very serious situation.
The United States glibly ignored the Geneva trade treaties when we were in a serious situation, and banned our dairy products and other products under the excuse of a defence situation. Every treaty this country has negotiated has seemed to get us into difficulty, including the international monetary fund, and we have found that through them our markets have been lost. During the time we enjoyed, and others enjoyed, the British preference we were able to market certain farm products abroad. Now the Geneva trade treaties have torn that up and here we are sitting with surpluses of many farm products and with decreased production. We could increase our food production as we did during the war so long as those who do produce or would produce are rewarded. We are again in the position of finding farmers in the community penalized for producing in abundance while we have a starving world around us. There were high sounding phrases back in the days when they wanted more food. They said "Food will win the war and preserve the peace".


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend aware that we sold more food last year than ever in our history?


Harry Oliver White: Maybe we did, but we have a lot on hand that you have not sold.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: You can't answer that.


Harry Oliver White: The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider), who seconded the address, mentioned and praised the government's meat floor price policy. I want to point out to this house and to the Canadian farmers that that is the packers' point of view. What about the consumer? The reduction in retail meat prices is infinitesimal, while the price paid for beef except for good and extra good quality has been reduced. The member for Waterloo North mentioned a figure of 15 cents and I have the quotation from page 11 of Hansard of November 21:
Without the floor prices and the government support buying, livestock prices could have dropped to 15 cents or even 10 cents instead of holding at 25 cents and 26 cents.
Just the week before last a neighbour of mine shipped some very good cattle to Toronto and all he got was 12 cents. It would not
The Address

Mr. H. O. White be so bad if the consumer were getting some advantage, but it is the packers who are making a killing in two ways. As I mentioned before the producers are taking a beating, and if the consumer were getting the benefit it just would not seem to be so bad.
Not long ago, the week before last, I was invited to attend a hog producers' meeting at Clinton, Ontario. Some of the delegates from Waterloo North said they had approached their member and he had advised them that the solution to their problem was cheaper grain. I want to ask him if he recommends cheaper oats and barley for the Canadian farmer in the west. Price support as applied to beef, as is the case with many other commodities, is a joke.
The situation in which the farmer finds himself is being very forcibly impressed on labour in this country. The steelworkers in Hamilton, Toronto, Brantford and Woodstock are being let out in large numbers, and I have before me a copy of a memorandum sent to the government dealing with this particular problem. I wish to compliment local 2868, united steelworkers of America, C.I.O., of Hamilton, and locals 439, 458 and 636, international union of automobile, aircraft and agricultural implement workers of America, C.I.O., representing the employees of the Massey-Harris and Cockshutt Plow companies, of Toronto, Brantford, and Woodstock for their very realistic approach to the problem of markets for Canadian farmers. Drastic unemployment in the agricultural implement industry is but an indication that unless the farmer can sell at reasonable prices he cannot buy.
I wish to quote briefly from the steelworkers' memorandum:
For a healthy farm implement industry in Canada it is necessary for Canada to trade with other nations of the world. Millions of people in the world are short of food. The requirements of many nations for farm implements to increase food production has recently been the concern of the United Nations. Many of the nations where food shortages are most acute are unable to pay for their equipment in American or Canadian dollars. It is the responsibility of the Canadian government to arrange for trade agreements with these nations. Where it is not possible for the other government to pay for Canadian farm implements in cash, arrangements should be made for trade in goods or through long-term payment plans.
The labourers in those particular agricultural implement factories are finding that since the farmer cannot sell his products he cannot buy the products of labour and consequently these people are being let out. Neither can they buy Canadian cheese, bacon, eggs and the many other foods that are necessary for those who are working in heavy industry, so the vicious circle continues.

The Address-Mr. H. O. White
Paragraph 9 of the speech from the throne deals with our economic conditions and reads as follows:
Our economic conditions remain favourable and the level of external trade is high. While the dangers of inflation have not disappeared, pressures have eased and it has been possible to suspend the operation of some of the anti-inflationary measures.
Trade, Mr. Speaker, is our life line, and anti-inflationary measures are certainly not necessary. It is too late to help. Inflation has put our prices up until we have priced ourselves out of world markets, and the government is to blame. They had control of credit and currency through the Bank of Canada. Did they exercise it? They allowed prices to go up and up, and in a sense they have approved of it. They give it their blessing. Why? Because it provided the buoyant revenues of which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) spoke so glowingly.
Coming back for a moment to taxation, I mentioned the taxes at the municipal level. People in the municipalities are able to see what has been done with their tax dollar. They have their roads, bridges and schools right under their eyes. They know what is happening. When we come to the provincial level, we see our highways and the results of many other expenditures such as the development of natural resources. They are pretty well watched. But when you come to the federal level, not only are the taxes hidden but the expenditures are well veiled, so far as possible, so that we have little to show, in comparison with the municipal and provincial levels, for what has been done with our tax dollar. As I said before, the people are thoroughly aroused over the high taxation.
I believe that a complete revision of the Income Tax Act is also long overdue. It has been added to by amendments, rulings and precedents, until even accountants do not know just where they stand. Even now men are being taxed because of their intentions. That seems ridiculous, but such is the case and it applies when assessments are being made on so-called capital gains.
Paragraph 12 of the throne speech deals with the issuance of an order of approval by the international joint commission for the development of hydroelectric power in the international section of the St. Lawrence river. I think Canadians generally welcome an opportunity to demonstrate to the world in general, and the United States in particular, that we can proceed with the St. Lawrence development on our own, both as to the seaway and as to the power development. While I am dealing with power and I have the opportunity at this time to do so, I want to say that farmers and many others view with


alarm the recent suggestion that hydro rates would have to be increased. I believe, therefore, that in our approach to this development of power we should exercise a little economy. With falling prices for agricultural products and increasing costs all along the line, as I mentioned in connection with taxes, farmers and others are not going to be able to pay increased rates.
Just last week I was in Strathroy, Ontario. A resident had received his hydro bill for $75. He said, "While I am not a farmer, I am living in the country; and where I am going to get $75 to pay this bill I do not know because I depend on the farm trade for my income, and it is slowly but surely disappearing". The same argument applies to freight rates. I see that we are going to have a meeting of the board of transport commissioners, and that will be one of the subjects on the agenda. I want to point out that increased freight rates are not only going to penalize the producer but they will also penalize the consumer. Farmers generally believe we have reached the point where we can go no further with these increases.
Paragraph 16 of the speech from the throne reads as follows:
You will be invited to consider a measure to provide for federal co-operation with the provincial governments in the conservation of the water resources of Canada.
I believe Canadians approve of that. In western Ontario we have the Thames valley authority which is building the Fanshawe dam. I believe the people appreciate what is being done in that area, and that good results will come from it. While I am mentioning that, about June 10 last there was an editorial in the St. Marys Journal-Argus which was reprinted in the London Free Press, which dealt with the statement I made that along with the Thames valley authority and the Fanshawe dam we should investigate the possibility of pumping water from Lake Huron into the Thames watershed during the summer months. The editorial said:
How would Mr. White make water run uphill?
I just want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the St. Marys Journal-Argus that civilization is measured by man's ability to make water run uphill. Many of the residents of the St. Marys area would have been glad this summer to demonstrate how to make water run uphill, if they had had some water at the bottom of the well with which to give a demonstration with the old farm pump. Some time ago it was my privilege to visit the Grand Coulee dam and see the great lake that is 150 miles long, and which has been raised to some 450 feet by the Grand Coulee dam. The water from this reservoir is

pumped up 250 feet more into the valley of the old Columbia river, and is used to irrigate the whole of that valley in Washington. That demonstrates man's ability to make water run uphill.


Mr. Laing:: You are hundreds of miles out.


Harry Oliver White: What is the matter with you? Hydro has made it possible to make water run uphill.
Finally, I commend my leader for his speech yesterday in which he pointed out how the extravagances of this government were costing the taxpayers unnecessary dollars; how the municipalities and the provinces were finding themselves in a difficult situation because of the taxing rights of federal, provincial and municipal governments. I am going to support the amendment he moved at that time.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes tonight I wish to deal with one or two problems in which I am interested. At the outset I want to congratulate the mover (Mr. Deslieres) and the seconder (Mr. Schneider) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I also wish to congratulate my good friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) on the contribution he made this afternoon. I believe that he had good material and that his ideas were appreciated.
It would appear that too few of our Canadian citizens have the knowledge that I feel they should have in connection with this enormous defence expenditure. It gets far too little publicity. I realize that in many cases it is utterly impossible to give it the publicity it would warrant. Secrecy would bar any chance of giving out the full details. But I picked up a little clipping tonight. It refers to words used by a great Yankee, Cardinal Spellman, and this is what he said:
It is better to have strength and not need it than to need it and not have it.
I believe that is the very position we find ourselves in tonight. We are preparing for trouble should it occur. We are hoping it does not. At the same time we dare not neglect that preparation because, when we do so, we put ourselves in an extremely vulnerable position. For that reason we must continue to prepare and we must continue to spend. The public are not given the information that I feel in many cases they should have.
I have listened with great interest this last day or day and a half to the speeches by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leaders of the other parties; and on so many occasions, particularly by the leader of the official opposition and by the leader of the
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart Social Credit group, the government has been bitterly criticized for the loss of the British markets. In fact I believe it was the leader of the Social Credit group who made this statement which appears at page 59 of yesterday's Hansard:
I wonder how long a man does have to keep pressing for the strengthening of the commonwealth and the restoration of our traditional market, that is the market the Liberals have thrown out the window . . .
If those markets have been thrown out the window I am sure it has not been done by Canadians. We are told about the loss of markets. We are told about roadblocks. Those roadblocks were not erected by Canadians, and I do not believe Canadians have any authority to take them down. We have in this country no authority to tell the people in Great Britain what they should do with their United States or Canadian dollars or with their sterling. I believe they have a perfect right to buy where they wish to buy.
I believe this country, since 1940 particularly, has made a contribution to the British Isles that does not take second place to any contribution that has been made within the commonwealth. According to the figures, we have made gifts and loans of about $6 billion. Few persons stop to realize just what $6 billion means, but it is an enormous contribution for 14 million people to make.
During the last two days I have heard bitter criticism of the market that has been built up with our friends to the south. In this debate it has been stated that 80 per cent of our foreign trade, in the way of exports, is with the United States. I cannot think of a better country to be trading with, and I wonder today if the majority of the Canadian people do not feel the same way I do about the matter. Would it be right to turn down that market for cash and sell on credit? In this country today we have an extremely high standard of living, second only perhaps to that of our neighbours to the south. If we gave our goods away or sold them on credit could we maintain that standard of living to the same extent that we could if we sold for cash?
Perhaps citizens coming from the part of the country from which I come, namely the maritime provinces, take a different view. I believe that we are more conscious of the fact that those United States markets are the very lifestream of our part of Canada. Without those markets we would be completely lost. It is true that many of the things we produce go across the border in a raw state but there is no market for that material in Canada, and a great percentage of it is of a perishable character. So far as the
94	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart maritime provinces are concerned, the only normal market for it is the United States. I often wonder what sort of position we would be in if restrictive tariffs were placed on those goods by the United States. With the small population we now have, I feel that we could still look for a great decrease should that event ever happen. We are extremely dependent upon those markets.
I want to say here that I was greatly encouraged when I picked up a newspaper a few days ago and read extracts from a speech that was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in Detroit. I believe there is much food for thought in the suggestions he made at that time. I might also say that in my opinion it is a good Liberal speech. This is what he said:
While trade relations between Canada and the U.S. have never been better, they are capable of considerable improvement . . .
While there were no serious restrictions in the exchange of raw materials between the two countries, "can the same be said of manufactured goods and agricultural products?" asked Mr. Howe, then added:
"You know the answer to that as well as I do."
I picked up a clipping today, and I fail to understand why it ever appeared in the Globe and Mail. It is dated November 14 and is by a citizen of the city of Toronto who has returned from the United States. This is what that gentleman had to say:
I have just returned from the United States. I bought the practical limit permitted for a forty-eight hour visit. My purchases consisted of identical brand name articles of merchandise sold both in Canada and the United States.
I drove home on gasoline that cost me 27'9 cents (Canadian measure) in New Jersey, 31 cents in New York and 40 cents in Ontario-
When this oil boom came to Alberta we were all given to understand that we might expect cheaper gas and oil in this country.
I can only say that in the part of the country from which I come there has been no reduction but rather there has been an increase. This gentleman goes on to say:
-on four new 6'40 by 15 tires, price $67.16 in the States and $129.60 in Toronto.
I have put these figures on the record before with regard to the tire that is made by the identical company, one in the United States and the other in Canada. The four tires cost him $67.16 in the United States, and they were $129.60 in Toronto.
I just want to take a moment to say that in this House of Commons I have also heard a great deal of criticism with regard to the subsidization of farm products, fishery products, or whatever they might be. If ever there was a glaring example of subsidization


in any country, there it is. Subsidizing industry is the difference between the price in the United States and duty paid value in Canada. Whatever that amount is that is the subsidy. It cannot be called anything else. Sometimes I believe those of us in the maritime provinces have a better right to complain about this unjust treatment than they have in some other parts of this country.
These are the prices here as compared with the prices in the United States. This article goes on to give a name brand of glycol; that is, anti-freeze. It was $3.75 in the United States and $5.95 in Canada. Only a few days ago I noticed that representatives of one of the great Canadian corporations appeared before the tariff board in Ottawa and asked for further protection. That spread is not enough to satisfy Canadian manufacturers, and they appeared before the tariff board in Ottawa asking for greater protection.
An electric mixer bought for a gift was $12.95 in the United States; it is $30 in Canada. That is a difference of a great deal over 100 per cent. An orlon shirt was $4.95 in the United States; an equivalent nylon shirt in Canada is $10.50. These are companies that are asking this government today to bar the importation of foreign textiles, at a time when there is a difference of nearly 100 per cent in the price of the finished product.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what your Liberal government which has been in office for twenty years has done for you.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: God help us if we ever have a Tory government, particularly if they follow the same course they have followed since confederation.


Mr. McLure:: What about New Brunswick?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: He mentions an electric razor. It cost $18 in Harrison, New Jersey. The same razor, made by the same company, was quoted at $29.95 in Toronto. These are the remarks at the end of his letter:
Just why, in the light of the higher wages and salaries paid in the United States as well as the excellent profits now being reported, anyone should deprive themselves of the benefits of the obviously more efficient manufacturing and distributing methods leaves a lot to be explained.
That is signed by E. L. Patchet of Toronto.
I want to turn to one more subject along that line and deal with it briefly. Last summer we received from the Vancouver motor dealers' association a great deal of literature comparing prices of automobiles in Canada and the United States, and the different tax structures in the two countries with regard to this commodity. I was down in Connecticut for several days during the presidential election. I listened to the story and

watched the proceedings on television. As you realize, during an election campaign they come out with everything they have to offer to the public. In a radio address I heard a very prominent announcer in the United States state that the federal tax on a $2,000 car in that country was $620. The next day I got copies of two Connecticut papers in which that statement appeared. Unfortunately I have lost them, but these figures are correct. According to the literature that was sent out by the Vancouver motor dealers' association the federal taxation in the United States was $100. There is quite a difference between a tax of $100 and $620. That statement was in the United States press. I can get a copy of it. It appeared on November 3 last.
When the subject is mentioned and the great variation between the prices of automobiles in the two countries is shown, the first answer that the automobile manufacturers come up with is that it is taxation. A tax of $620 works out to about 32 per cent. That is the federal tax on an automobile in the United States. I am sure the federal tax on an automobile is not any greater in Canada. But what is the reason for this great differential in the price of the same make of car, one manufactured in Detroit and the other manufactured across the river in Windsor, or in Oshawa? I feel that Canadians have every right in the world to believe that they are being robbed. It is unfair for any company, with branches on both sides of the border, to take advantage of every bit of protection that is accorded to it.
I can see the force of a new company that is being established, perhaps with very little finances, asking for protection while trying to get on their feet, trying to manufacture. I believe they should be protected. But when you come to old established companies which are declaring dividends in the millions every year, and you find that they are still asking for protection and still charging the Canadian people 50 per cent more than they are charging United States citizens on the other side of the border, then something should be done.
I want to return for one moment to the subject I mentioned at the outset, namely the loss of British markets. I feel quite strongly on this subject. I feel that that matter has been in the hands of three very capable men, namely the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Perhaps I would feel this way naturally, but going back over history I have found it impossible to find a better team at any time since confederation. I believe these three men have used every avenue. They have taken every advantage. They have
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart done everything that was humanly possible to restore and hold those British markets for Canadian goods.
We all appreciate the British markets. There is not a Canadian in this chamber, there is not a Canadian that I know of, who does not appreciate the markets that we have had in Britain over the years. I am coming out with a suggestion that perhaps has never been mentioned before in the House of Commons. If we want better marketing conditions; if we want better world conditions, we shall have to do something along these lines. Our Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are on their way overseas tonight. The result of the meeting they are to attend will not be known for a few days. We all realize they have a big job to do, but I want to say in all sincerity that the biggest job that Canadians might sponsor today is free trade within the NATO nations, if we want to create good will and good understanding.
Go back through history and you will find, and you will be convinced immediately, that a great number of the wars we have had down through the years have developed because of tariff walls. Tariff walls have been responsible for them. As I look back at the figures I find that since 1940 the United States has contributed $87 billion to Europe and Asia. That includes, of course, the assistance they gave Russia when that country was our ally during the war. A great deal of that $87 billion has gone into Germany, Japan, and countries that were devastated during the war. They must come back in order to produce and manufacture to live as we would like to see them live. But it would seem to me that it is simply giving with one hand and taking away with the other if, after they get into a position where they can manufacture and export, we stick up a tariff wall and refuse to do business with them.
You will never have world peace, you will never create within the United Nations the feeling that should be created, so long as tariff walls stand as a barrier. There is one way and only one way a proper feeling can be created, and that is to tear the gates down in all the countries within NATO. When you do that not only will you make friends there, but some of the democratic countries outside NATO will then wish to become members. They will realize that this organization is not one that takes only a negative stand or uses them when world conditions are such that we might use them to our advantage. They will then realize that we are trying to help them not only to build up a war machine but to trade with them and to a great extent be responsible for improving their standard of living.
96	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. W. Stuart
I believe communism would be licked today if in this world we could just fill the stomachs. It is utterly impossible to convince people who are hungry, people who are without clothing and without shelter, that our way of life is the only way of life. I have seen some pretty desperate circumstances overseas, such as to convince me immediately that people in desperation are in the same position as a drowning man reaching for a straw-"Anything is better than what we have." So many at that stage are content to accept some ideology which at other times would seem utterly hopeless to them. But through starvation and hunger they are obliged to accept whatever is offered to them.
By creating free trade within the United Nations I believe that we in Canada could continue with the standard of living we now have. We are an exporting nation. Fourteen millions of people can never consume what they can manufacture and create. Our prosperity is based upon the amount we can export.
For that reason we are the country that should be leading the way. As was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in Detroit, the only way we will ever obtain world peace, the only way we will ever satisfy our allies and friends, is by leading the way ourselves, throwing down the gates and taking what they have to offer. When that is done we will hear members in this House of Commons rising to their feet defending industry in their own constituencies. They will be complaining because the importation of Japanese balloons, or something else, is depriving people of their living.
We must contend with that. In this connection I should like to place on record an article I came across the other day in Time magazine, dealing with Mr. Parker of the Parker Pen Company. Parker was sent to England by his father many years ago to establish a branch of their industry in that country. The article points out that in the first year he was there he lost $100,000 through not knowing the English methods of distribution. He continued in his efforts, however, and found it wise to hire British merchandisers, until today the products of the Parker Pen Company are being advertised in thirty-one languages and last year foreign sales rose to a volume of $13,700,000, or about 40 per cent of the total sales. The article goes on to say:
While expanding abroad into 121 countries, Ken Parker did not forget his 1,900 employees at home. They have a union shop, liberal welfare benefits, and a respect for Parker's enlightened methods; never in the company's 60-year history have they
[Mr. Stuart (Charlotte) .1

called a strike. A year and a half ago, feeling that the time clock irritated employees, Parker abolished it. Tardiness and absenteeism dwindled to almost zero.
And the final paragraph of the article attributes these words to Mr. Parker:
We'll take our chances on U.S. production and merchandising savvy any time against all comers. And with the bars down in both directions, U.S. manufacturers would have access to the two billion consumers in the world, instead of only 150 million at home.
I suggest he might be described as a gentleman of vision. The Parker pen is one of the most expensive manufactured on this continent. We see many types of ball pens and pens of the traditional type but, despite the pens offered on the market, this company has built up a large volume of business, and is prepared to take on all comers. They have thrown down the bars and have said they are prepared to compete with any other man. That is the spirit that must be developed in all the NATO countries, particularly in Canada and the United States. We have to encourage others, and no better way can be found to give that encouragement than to be prepared to buy from them. We cannot have it just one way: if we want to sell to them we must buy from them. I noted that in a recent speech Dean Acheson said this:
If we and our partners in the free world are to build the kind of economic and military strength we need for our security, we must all co-operate to reduce and minimize the barriers to trade between us.
In my opinion truer words were never spoken. There is nothing we can do and nothing the United Nations can do that would go further toward the making of peace and the betterment of world conditions than to treat our friends as we would like to be treated.
The hon. member who preceded me in the debate referred to prices being paid today for farm products. Travelling to Ottawa the other day I drove through four states and made comparisons of farm prices along the way with the prices I had been obliged to pay in the little town in which I live. Malone, New York, is only about 90 miles from Ottawa. In three grocery stores in Malone bacon was selling at three pounds for a dollar and pork loin at 40 cents a pound. Yet I cannot buy bacon at three pounds for a dollar. Some hon. member may know somewhere he can get it at that price, but I cannot find it. Those are the prices they are receiving today for pork in the United States.
The Canadian product cannot go into the United States today, and one would take it for granted that, with Canadian meats barred from that market, prices would be much greater there than they are in Canada,

The Address-Mr. Catherwood
because in this country we have a surplus. But those are the prices they are receiving for pork and pork products in the United States of America.
I feel that perhaps it is not only the Canadian farmer who is beginning to feel the pinch. The hon. member who took his seat a few moments ago referred to inflation. Well, there is only one way to do away with inflation and that is to get prices down. We will never do away with it so long as prices are spiralling. They have to come down, and will have to start somewhere. My experience has been that they usually start with the primary producer. That has already taken place in the maritime provinces. The demand this year for fish and fish products is much less than it was last year, and very much less than it was two years ago. Prices are down. I feel that perhaps the primary producers are not able to meet this situation. They do not like to see the prices of raw materials being the first to come down.
Today our people are living better than ever before. There is no question about that. Prices are high in most cases, but some day there is going to be a slump. It has to start somewhere. The cost of living index has been dropping slowly during the past three or four months, but the time is coming when it must drop more rapidly. Prices must fall.
In conclusion may I say that I hope the government will give serious consideration to the lowering of tariffs. I feel that that action would be of greater benefit to Canada than it would to many other countries in the world. We are an exporting nation and we should be leading the way. If we want to create a feeling of respect, if we want to give the people of other countries hope for the future, we cannot follow a better course than to throw down our tariff walls and deal with our friends and allies as we would like to have them deal with us.


Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, one of the privileges we have under our system of government is that of taking part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I trust that this privilege will be long continued and that no effort will be made to drastically curtail a discussion which permits us to voice our grievances, to express our ideas and to bring parliament more or less up to date. I know there are those who will disagree with me on this score, but I do trust there will be no curtailment of this discussion. It is true that there is a certain amount of repetition; it is true there are some rather long speeches, but I feel that the collective views expressed in this debate give us a knowledge that is well for us to have.
We are meeting under conditions which are not greatly changed from those which obtained when we adjourned in July. Canada is still building up defences against aggression in an effort to avert global conflict. This is something close to the hearts and minds of all of us. We hope these efforts will continue, because if another global war were to develop it would create the most calamitous situation this world has ever known.
I think our people are generally in accord with the government on its defence policy provided reasonable value is obtained for the expenditures made. The question is whether we are getting value for the money spent in this regard. From the rather shocking revelations in the press and the questions that have been asked in the house it would seem to be indicated that we have not been getting full value for our defence expenditures. The references that have been made to the ultraextravagant methods pursued by the defence purchasing department has created grave doubts in our mind.
We as members of Her Majesty's most loyal opposition, and I think the majority of the 14 million people of Canada, will go all-out with the government provided our country is placed on an equal standing with other free nations in the world. We will co-operate to the full if our government provides the best of military equipment for all our armed forces. We will give credit where credit is due when the government acts as we feel it should in the best interests of all the people of Canada.
But we will not and we cannot acquiesce in expenditures of the type that have just been brought to our notice. I think it is the duty of every member of parliament to scrutinize closely every expenditure of government, not just defence expenditures. I hope the day will never come when we are not permitted to carry out this prerogative to the full. I hope the day will never come when the government of the day will not invite or even welcome all members-and not just those of the opposition-to dig deeply into the intricacies of government operations. If by so doing they are able to find inequalities, unjustifiable actions, improper methods and deficiencies the government should congratulate the members who have brought such matters to their attention and take immediate steps to remedy the situation. That is my idea of good government.
I came to parliament-and I know this is true of all hon. members-with the idea of being useful and of giving the best representation possible. The people of Haldimand, whom I have the privilege of representing, are pretty sound-thinking people. They have
98

The Address-Mr. Catherwood proved this by consistently returning Conservative members to this house for the past fifty years. You cannot continue to be associated with people such as we have in Haldi-mand-and this would apply to most rural constituencies-unless your actions and voice reflect the thinking of those people.
As their representatives in this the highest court of the land they expect us to protect their interests, to protect their rights and to protect their privileges at all times. That is our trust. It is a great honour to be a member of parliament. I hope no government member will criticize or condemn any member of this house, even a member of the government party, who makes an effort, rightly or perhaps even wrongly at times- this does not occur too often

to improve or better conditions through the medium of this House of Commons.
It is rather interesting to note how much further advanced is the National Liberal Federation than is the government itself. There was a recent meeting of the Liberal federation at which a number of resolutions were passed which were in complete conformity with views which have been expressed in the House of Commons by members of the opposition. Hon. members will recall how in recent sessions our party, under the leadership of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), so well brought to the attention of this house the great needs of many of our veterans and their families. We know something of what those needs are. Because of the high cost of living, these people were finding it difficult to get along. We now find that the National Liberal Federation is in complete agreement with the suggestions that were made in this house by the Conservative party.
Hon. members will also recall that at every session since the commencement of the twenty-first parliament we have requested the government to take some action in connection with the Post Office Department. We are glad to notice that the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) is showing an increasing interest in these matters. These problems are most serious, and they have been brought to the attention of the government on many occasions. There have been complaints about mail deliveries in the urban centres and the plight of the rural mail carriers. The National Liberal Federation has recognized again the reasonableness of the oft-repeated request made in this house by members of our party. Then again we find the Liberal congress in complete acquiescence with our views in regard to the abolition of the nuisance radio
licence fee of $2.50. That has been brought very strongly to the attention of the house by my leader and others on many occasions. We have requested that the C.B.C. should not have a monopoly on radio and television service across the country. That too was brought very forcibly to the attention of the house by my leader in his opening address in this debate, and again we find the Liberal federation approving that policy.
As we look back over the past three and one-half years we find on the pages of Hansard innumerable references by members of our party to which members of the Liberal federation now give their support. In other words they now support those things for which we have pressed for many years.
There was one particular matter I would like to bring to the attention of the government, more particularly to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham). He is not in his seat at the present time, but I would like to suggest that he undertake a geological survey in a certain section of southwestern Ontario. On this I would like to quote Mr. W. A. Bell at page 18 of the statistics for the department where he says:
The guiding objective of the geological survey is a systematic study of the geology of Canada. Until the geology of any area is thoroughly known no just appraisal can be made of the economic value of its rocks and unconsolidated deposits, and of the probabilities of the occurrence of commercial quantities of minerals and fuels.
Further on in his survey report Mr. Bell states that geological surveys have provided data of great value to the discovery and development of oil in the foothills of Alberta. We certainly have no quarrel with that statement; I think it is quite true. My reason for asking for a survey of the southwestern Ontario area is because of the immense resources of natural gas we have in that section of which Haldimand county may be classed as the centre. As the production of natural gas is associated with oil in many cases, I think it would be particularly justifiable to ask for a survey.
Haldimand county has over 2,000 natural gas wells and the neighbouring county of Norfolk has approximately 350, with a combined annual production of well over 2 billion cubic feet of gas. We also have the gas field in the southwestern portion of Ontario along the shores of lake Erie, where owing to the heavily-producing gas area oil might be found. I trust the minister will give some consideration to this request, as I feel under the conditions it is a very normal one we are making.
The Conservative party has consistently urged the government to give some measure

of relief to the taxpayers, but this request has just as consistently fallen on deaf ears. Our party has pointed out that the policies of overtaxation which have been so much in evidence since the election of 1949 have created a feeling of frustration and a feeling of "what's the use" in so many of our people. In spite of that the government has increased taxes beginning with the first budget after 1949, producing huge surpluses, and has repeatedly stated each year that they have to tax heavily in order that we may continue our defence and social security projects. I think the best answer that has been given comes from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Canadian Bar Association, an organization I know all hon. members will agree is of a non-political nature. After a most careful study of the tax structure they have concluded that a substantial measure of relief could be given. They announced that a surplus of $300 million could very well be possible; and the suggestions were made after careful study of the situation.
The Canadian people have reason to believe that this high taxation should be cut down to a certain extent, for to be overtaxed year after year just means that there are many sacrifices which have to be made by our people. For instance, they cannot make a little extra payment on a mortgage as otherwise they might. They perhaps cannot buy that fur coat-or not perhaps a fur coat but a badly needed coat for the wife-and it means giving up many other little things that go to make our way of life what so many of our Canadian people feel it should be.
There is just one other matter I would like to deal with, and it is one which is and should be of great concern to every member of this house. I refer particularly to the fact that there was no reference in the speech from the throne to the situation which concerns the farm people in this country, and the disposition of our farm products. I have just completed reading a lengthy and rather detailed account of the meeting of the United Nations food and agriculture organization held in Rome this year. After reading that report I find it emphasizes the often expressed sentiments of so many people that there is definitely something radically wrong with our system of food distribution throughout this and other lands. It is unfortunate that some system cannot be devised under which we could have a more proper distribution of food throughout the rest of the world. Each year, and perhaps this year more than at any other time, the FAO has striven to emphasize the urgent need for greater production of foods to ensure the very minimum of requirements for the people of the world.
The Address-Mr. Catherwood
I would like to ask members of this house if it is just the purpose of this organization to meet year after year to study and analyse the world food situation, to make recommendations as to what should be done, and there to let the matter rest. To many people the setting up of that organization some seven years ago was one thing in which we felt there would be an advance, something to help solve the world's greatest problem next to that of war, that of relief from the haunting fear of hunger and starvation. In many places throughout the Asiatic world people are starving due to the fact that we have not as yet established that necessary form of distribution. What hope is there for a free world as long as that situation continues, after seven years of meeting together with members of over sixty nations; and what have we accomplished? Exactly nothing. When we consider the high hopes we had at that time and what little has been attained we naturally feel that this body is not serving the useful purpose it should. That would be a natural conclusion. However, I feel that a certain responsibility rests with the United Nations assembly. I definitely feel this matter should be high on the agenda of the United Nations discussions because, Mr. Speaker, again I say there is no greater problem that faces us, next to the battle against aggression, than the battle against famine and hunger.
This is a matter that deeply concerns us all. The facts are that before world war II there was enough food being produced to provide every man, woman and child with 2,380 calories per day. After twelve years of so-called progress we have enough food to supply every man, woman and child with 2,260 calories per day, 120 calories less than we had twelve years ago. We can therefore understand the reason that the food and agriculture organization recommends an increased demand for food. Again I say this problem should rest with the United Nations assembly itself.
The speech from the throne made no reference to the position of agriculture. I believe that was an important and very serious omission on the part of the government. I feel that agriculture in Canada today is in a most difficult position, regardless of the statements by the previous speaker. In my view the present position of the farmer is certainly not bright.
I have just come from the farm to attend this session of parliament, and many of our members have some knowledge of the situation. It is really very serious indeed. The farmers have seen labour ask for and receive higher remuneration for their services; they have seen the prices of the goods that they

The Address-Mr. Catherwood have to purchase rising higher and higher. On the other hand they see the prices of pork and beef tumbling. They see a lessening in the demand for poultry products, and dairy prices are levelling off. These, gentlemen, are not very nice things to have to bring before the house. We would like to say that conditions are bright and cheerful, but such is not the case.
A real challenge faces us in this House of Commons, as we meet to discuss and debate these problems. Agriculture today is fast approaching a crisis. Whatever is done about the farm situation at the present session of parliament is going to be very important to the primary producers of this country. We trust that legislation will be brought forth which will improve the position of the farmers of Canada. We, as Canadian citizens, owe so much to our farm people. When that industry is kept in a strong, healthy condition, it means that Canada's economy is healthy. It is to be hoped the government will make a definite statement of policy as to what they have in view, particularly with regard to regaining our markets.
We know that on many occasions we have pressed for a commonwealth conference. We know that our leader has repeatedly suggested such a conference. As farmers we realize what such a meeting means. It means a great deal to us. We trust that the commonwealth meeting which is now being held, and which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is attending, will result in something of value to the agricultural industry of Canada. I hope that, along with what I have suggested, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the members of the government will take into very serious consideration the fact that this matter of trade is so important to the farm people of Canada.


Mr. Shaw:: In view of the fact it is almost ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I should like permission of the house to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Shaw the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Howe the house adjourned at 9.55 p.m.

Wednesday, November 26, 1952